A Night at the Opera (1935) directed by Sam Wood

AFI Top 100: #85

When it comes to early film stars, particularly in comedy, some of the most memorable and hilarious stories come from the Marx brothers. Groucho, Chico, and Harpo are some absolutely fantastic, comedic performers that I just adore and I found them to be especially hilarious together in their earlier work Duck Soup. However, Sam Wood's A Night at the Opera is a bit of a disappointment for me personally. While their signature style is still very much there, so many elements of the plot and its writing fell flat and left me wondering what could have been. It is very obvious to see these brothers grow in their talent but I feel like Wood had much more opportunity to utilize them in a clearer and easier-to-understand story. As a recent fan of this period of comedy, I still very much appreciate this movie and its efforts but I'm also starting to realize that some early comedy films definitely stand stronger than others.

Otis B. Driftwood (Groucho Marx), a slimy but effective business manager, partners with his clownish friends Fiorello (Chico Marx) and Tomasso (Harpo Marx) to help two lowly opera singers achieve their dreams. When the money-hungry opera owner Gottlieb (Sig Ruman) comes on the scene, the couple's dreams of stardom seem to falter but not without a hilarious fight from Driftwood. This film has everything that one could expect to see from the Marx brothers and more. Whether one is a fan of classic slapstick or just witty dialogue writing, director Sam Wood does a solid job bringing it all together. This film is genuinely funny and the chemistry between these characters works extremely well. I did find a lot of the visual gags to come off as almost recycled or ideas that were initially thrown out but they work decently for the types of environments that this set of characters explore. Groucho, in particular, stood out to me in this film and I feel like he is really refining his talent as a comedian in this role. From just minute facial expressions and bodily signals, he is able to get his point across very well and I really enjoyed how much of a smartass he is as Driftwood. Not only does it suit the character well, but it gives him room to play with the comedy to the point that it almost feels like natural improv. All of the performances are more technical pieces of this film are done well too and while it might take some who are new to this era of film by surprise, the massive production value and thought behind every little detail was astounding for being released in 1935.

Many elements of A Night at the Opera work incredibly well and others just seem to feel very out of place. One of these such aspects is the script by George S. Kaufman and Morrie Ryskind and how their story itself feels mismatched. The Marx brothers' characters never felt like they were in the same story as the young opera couple and I kept forgetting that they were out to achieve the same thing. Groucho is practically the face of these humorous brothers, as everyone tends to remember his name and personality the most. This is where I feel like Wood misused the performers, however, because while Groucho led the film with his snarky character of Driftwood, Chico and Harpo felt incredibly shoehorned in. Groucho could have easily led this film on his own without the unnecessary inclusion of Fiorello and Tomasso but if that had been done, there also would be no point in advertising this film as one done by the Marx brothers. This is where I find myself so conflicted because these three brothers succeed so well when they are together but that chemistry depends on the script itself. Kaufman and Ryskind's script sidelines Chico and Harpo so much that their characters become a nuisance more than anything. I never felt like the characters of Fiorello and Tomasso had much reason to exist other than to help with the comedy and add that little touch on slapstick. While they are undoubtedly funny together, they never really fit in with the tone of the story. But then again, this film has a much different type of plot than other films that the Marx brothers have done, which focus more on the trio as a whole. There is still so much to love about the humor infused into this film from Wood but I just desperately wanted to see more of the brothers and less of the half-assed romantic plot between the opera singers.

A Night at the Opera is an amusing comedy from the Marx brothers but one that is far from their best work. While still carrying their trademark brand of wit and slapstick, these brothers are really the best part of this entire film and I really wish that more focus would have been put on them instead of the half-attempted romantic story between the side characters. Regardless, this film is still a decent eduction into how they approach comedy and I will always enjoy just watching them get into absolutely nonsensical situations.

My Rating: ★★★

Swallow (2020) directed by Carlo Mirabella-Davis

Never before would I have thought that seeing someone down a screwdriver would pain me so much. Carlo Mirabella-Davis's Swallow makes for just that right amount of pain, as this movie truly creeped me out with its use of visual storytelling. There is a lot to love about this movie and although I believed going in that it was more focused on body horror, the psychological elements definitely carried enough weight to make that side of the story interesting. Accompanied by a fantastic performance from the lead and some stunning cinematography, I was thoroughly squirmish during this entire runtime. This might be the first time I have ever thought this, but I actually think this film could have benefitted from more graphic imagery in order to get its point across. Despite this film not quite living up to the grotesque reputation I thought it would, there is a lot of great things going on with this psychological story and the filmmakers make sure that some of these scenes are truly hard to swallow.

Hunter Conrad (Haley Bennett), after coming to terms with her tragic past, marries the love of her life Richie (Austin Stowell) and gets pregnant to start a family. However, when she is left in the house alone, she develops a strange affliction towards swallowing peculiar objects and fights to reclaim herself from her addiction to save her relationships. This film, written and directed by Carlo Mirabella-Davis, is a solid exploration into strange addictions and how it can affect the people around you. The only thing I knew of this film going in was that the main character Hunter was addicted to swallowing strange things such as marbles, thumbtacks, and dirt, but I did not know of the psychological elements behind the writing. This film does body horror decently well and while nothing too explicit is ever shown, enough context is given to really put Hunter's internal pain on display. I have never been a huge fan of the body horror genre but in this film's case, it actually could have used more. The scenes that made up the majority of this film's titular theme were fantastic and I could really feel the pain in the involuntary swallowing that Hunter went through. From the audience's point of view, I could really tell that she never meant to hurt her relationships or even herself but just that the boredom and often loneliness she experienced contributed to her desire for literally anything exciting. What I did not think worked as well, however, was the examination into Hunter's past and why she grew this addiction. Enough of the writing is dedicated to explaining Hunter's upbringing and her traumatizing relationship with her mother and father but nothing was ever really related to her oral habit. I definitely would have liked to have seen more connection between the two and this would have made the psychological aspect of the script much tighter and more concise.

A couple of the minor subplots and supporting characters throughout Swallow could have used a bit more depth to them but these are made up for by the performance from Haley Bennett. She is an absolutely phenomenal actress and while this is the first thing I have ever seen her in, it is obvious how capable she is of carrying an interesting story. Innocent housewife turned addict turned psychiatric patient was such a wild ride of development for the character of Hunter and I feel that Bennett locked it down with ease. So many of this movie's scenes were carried by her and without her character's newfound agency when she ran away, Bennett's performance could have been much more stoic. Carlo Mirabella-Davis's direction also proves to be one of the film's strong points. Despite his script needing a bit of work to be more compelling, he carries along the pace of this story with quite an amount of skill. No moment is wasted and every scene has so much weight to it that meant a lot for the development of the overall story. Mirabella-Davis also knows when to imbue just the right amount of sexuality, humor, and horror in his story to make it very effective. The technical piece that really brought Swallow together, however, was the cinematography from Katelin Arizmendi. Her gorgeous camerawork was on display from frame one and while center framing is used very often nowadays to characterize eerieness, her mastery of this was put into good use. The way that Arizmendi shoots food throughout this film is also extraordinary and she manages to actually make some very appetizing plates look horrendous. She shoots all of the objects that Hunter swallows and the normal food cooked throughout the story in a similar fashion and over time, the food became almost repulsive. Her skills as a DP really shine in this film as the leading cause of its fantastic visual imagery. This whole movie could have been silent with just Arizmendi telling the story with her shots and it would have been equally, if not more, effective.

Swallow is quite an interesting psychological film that, while ambitious, never really reaches the horrific heights that I had imagined. That does not detract from how effective the movie is, however, and I really did enjoy so many parts of this. Bennett is incredible throughout this entire film and I really appreciated what she did with this character to also make it such a compelling character study of someone with this real compulsion. And like I had mentioned before (I might not ever say this again), this film could have definitely used some more swallowing.

My Rating: ★★★½

The Lovebirds (2020) directed by Michael Showalter

The comedy formula is starting to get a bit exhausting and so many films are unable to set themselves apart by going against this grain. Michael Showalter's The Lovebirds is one of these unfortunate films that fails to distinguish itself as anything memorable. This movie is an amusing but forgettable mystery-comedy that features some incredible chemistry from its two leads and the occasional writing that made me laugh but is directed at an almost insufferable pace. This film has everything that a studio comedy from Paramount would release and while I'm sure it would have done fine in theaters, the decision to drop this on Netflix was their smartest move. However, if you desperately want a better comedy that's also about a couple having problems and rediscovering love after a night of coincidental crime, cults, and hostage scenes involving Third Eye Blind's "Semi-Charmed Life", may I suggest Game Night.

Leilani (Issa Rae) and Jibran (Kumail Nanjiani) have been together for four years and one night, while their relationship is on a downward spiral, they accidentally hit a man riding a bicycle and get caught up in a deeper scheme than they could have imagined. In order to clear their names, they decide to attempt to solve the murder before the cops can catch up to them. This type of story has some very predictable plot beats that could really have been written by anyone: the script from Brendan Gall and Aaron Abrams is quite humorous but never tries to reach any new heights but that is not necessarily a bad thing. I do not feel like anything groundbreaking was trying to be achieved because the story is still nonetheless watchable and definitely a good fit for a couple looking to share a fun night in. A good bit of the humor was very well-done too and I definitely laughed more than I was expecting. The line deliveries in particular from Rae and Nanjiani were fantastic and they prove to have some excellent chemistry together. I do wish that they had a more fitting script to work with but they embodied these characters like no one else. Rae and Nanjiani are able to play off each other, overlapping dialogue and constantly bickering, in a way that never felt forced and I loved how believable they were as a couple. Seeing how their relationship developed all the way through to the end was great and while typical, the conclusion was satisfying. The connections between their relationship and many of the crime plot points were also written very well and although I was never totally on board with how ridiculous some of the twists and turns were, the story remained coherent. And of course, any film that features a character overly worried about rendering animations for a documentary he is making will never fail to make me chuckle.

Showalter's direction is where I found the majority of the problems with The Lovebirds. There is nothing particularly wrong with this story or its comedy, but the execution is especially important. I do not feel like Showalter ever focused on the impact of the comedy because his direction faltered far too much and jokes were left hanging for far too long. I felt as if there was a plethora of comedy written for this film that Showalter and his writers desperately wanted to include but they did not fit in with the overarching tone of the story. The grand scheme of the plot never made sense with many of the jokes and I feel like much more focused writing could have brought these loose ends together. I also kept forgetting what the A-plot of this movie even was and where Leilani and Jibran were even headed. The comedy kept rearing its head in unnecessary directions and a lot of it felt quite forced. There is a lot of comedy to be found in genuine reactions and the only issue I had with Rae and Nanjiani's performances is that they tended to cheese it up too much at times, particularly when their characters should have been terrified for their lives. The editing by Vince Filippone and Robert Nassau was also way too loose and even though this film is only 86 minutes long, an easy 20 could have been cut to make the humor much more effective. Gall and Abrams try to blend the overwhelming comedy with the crime aspect of this story but that part became too convoluted and ludicrous at times. What works so well about 2018's Game Night is that the shockingly violent scenes are contrasted incredibly well with the naturalistic reactions and humor. That film succeeds so much because of its authenticity but in The Lovebirds, the varying parts of the story seem never seem to mesh well together.

The Lovebirds, while at the most entertaining, is really nothing special to make a huge deal out of. It does have that cinematic touch to it that most Netflix original films fail to achieve, but I was never really engaged with its story. The direction from Showalter is quite painful and lots of the running gags felt out of place, but there is nothing outwardly wrong with the approach that he took to tell this comedic story. As long as one goes in with an empty head and no expectations, there is a mildly fun time to be had.

My Rating: ★★½

Sunrise (1927) directed by F.W. Murnau

AFI Top 100: #82

Disclaimer: for the first ten minutes of this film, I couldn't stop thinking about the John Mulaney bit where he talks about old-timey people filming themselves waving at boats because that is EXACTLY how this starts. Regardless, F.W. Murnau's Sunrise is an absolutely phenomenal, romantic film that touched on my every tender emotion better than I ever could have expected something from this era to do. Not that I don't ever feel anything about characters from this period, but the sheer brilliance in this filmmaking greatly exceeded what I thought was going to be a much flatter experience. From the incredible performances to the resplendent production design, every element of this movie is crafted to pure perfection and there exists so many obvious influences to the genre of romance today. I adored how complex these characters were and while many of this story's plot points seem typical today, the way they were utilized must have left the audiences of 1927 in tears.

After a local farmer (George O'Brien) begins an affair with a slick, city woman (Margaret Livingston), she convinces him to run off with her and drown his current wife (Janet Gaynor). The journey within the man's mind changes, however, as he realizes how in love with his wife he actually is and they take the night to rediscover their passion for one another. While this film does not have a traditional script but is instead based on a scenario by Carl Mayer, the translational direction from Murnau is impeccable. This film never tries to be anything too pretentious or anything that it's not. Many films of this era, especially silent ones, rely on haughty writing to carry their religious themes through to their "dignified" viewers but Murnau never treats his audience like they are below him. Everyone adores a good, romantic story and that simple idea is all that Murnau focuses on. From today's standards, this film is really nothing special, as it contains your typical three-act structure and climax to really draw the audience in. However, that was not very prevalent in stories of this time and Murnau utilizes this to his advantage to make such an engaging and genuinely thrilling story. The heightened focus on physical storytelling and the visual language of this world is also what makes this film really stand out. Title cards only appear very rarely and never even during dialogue from our two leads. The use of silence in this film and focus on what the characters are actually doing weres some of the smartest choices Murnau could have made. It is so easy for the audience to get mad at the farmer in the beginning before he begins to redeem himself and the way that he develops purely through loving actions and epiphanies is spectacular. Just like many silent comedies of this time, the meaning behind the film is derived from what happens on screen and it is as easy to fall in love with this romantic story as it is to laugh along with the likes of Buster Keaton or Charlie Chaplin.

The performances from the two leads are also what makes this film really pop. George O'Brien is fantastic as the farmer and the way he carries the duality of his relationships with him is portrayed excellently. It is very easy to dislike his character in the beginning, for very good reason, but the way that O'Brien's acting changes with the likability of his character is fascinating. The greater standout, however, is Janet Gaynor as the farmer's wife. She embodies this role incredibly well and so much of the pain she is going through needs nothing more than a simple look from her. Many actresses and actors of this time do not focus on the emotions or their body language but rather their actions and Sunrise might be the earliest example I have seen of properly using both. Gaynor is especially great at this and while some scenes could be rightfully considered over-acting, she definitely gives this film her all. Along with the great casting choices, the cinematography from Charles Rosher and Karl Struss is just gorgeous. The iconic shot of the farmer and his wife crossing the street while cars swerve around them was breathtaking and it was really interesting to see how well these new techniques were used. The early kind of green-screen to the overlaying of other images to exaggerate the farmer's internal struggles was incredibly clever. There are also a lot of vast shots showing off this film's production design, which continuously floored me. From the homely farm to the big city to the raucous fairgrounds, this movie really builds its environment in the grandest of ways. I really did feel like I was there with these characters and it felt lovely. All of these technical elements come together in the most satisfying ways to literally put me on the edge of my seat, particularly during the exciting twist towards the end. Never would I have predicted that I could relate to the hopeful longing for love as much as characters from a 1927 film but here we are.

Released the same year as the more famously-known The Jazz Singer, Sunrise honestly succeeds more silently than it would have with the innovation of sound. The sheer excellence shown in Murnau's craft of early filmmaking here is something to absolutely gawk over and from the cinematography to the physical storytelling, I was glued to the screen every step of the way. For as simple as this story is, it might be one of my favorite romantic movies of all time, as it has set the bar for films in the genre for many years to come.

My Rating: ★★★★★

Sullivan's Travels (1941) directed by Preston Sturges

AFI Top 100: #61

Dark comedy and romantic comedy, while sharing the glaring element of humor, never seem to cross my mind when it comes to sharing space within a film. Especially in a film as old as this, the genres would have to work brilliantly together in order to get a certain message across and this is exactly what Preston Sturges succeeds at. Sullivan's Travels is an excellent, satirical film that combines an adorable, romantic story with a hard-hitting social relevance that 1941 needed. Although there are some issues with the tone of this story, Sturges was in a fantastic place with his great cast to carry this very entertaining comedy. And to top it all off, like many other films of this time, this movie is a great look into the politics and social classes of Hollywood, as well as how difficult it was to get started in that business back when it was booming. There is so much about this film to love and I absolutely adored how well it works as a social satire as well as being a (then) modern riff on Jonathan Swift's classic novel Gulliver's Travels.

Upon realizing that he has no prior knowledge with being low-class, filmmaker John L. Sullivan (Joel McCrea) decides to don homeless garb and go out on the road to experience being poor in order to know for certain when making his newest film. Along the way, he encounters a young girl (Veronica Lake) who joins him on his misadventures as they travel across the country and end up getting deeper than they bargained for. This film, written and directed by Preston Sturges, has an absolutely stellar script examining the life of lower-class people in America after the Great Depression. Checking your privilege might be a clichéd retort for many groups nowadays to use, but Sullivan's Travels perfectly embodies that. This film's dialogue is very quick a bit too on-the-nose for its own good, but I never felt like it was moving too fast: it actually helped characterize these people by using the flashy style and pace of the old Hollywood times. What this film does best, however, is utilize comedy to tell this story. The humor throughout this film is not only incredibly witty and quick but serves a purpose as well. Sturges could have easily made this a darker and more introspective look at the class system of the 1940s but instead uses lighthearted comedy for the audience to feel for the characters. I genuinely adored Sullivan and the girl by the end of this film and the path that Sturges takes us on is a highly emotional one. I was actually surprised at the level of humor Sturges and the cast were able to achieve and although McCrea and Lake apparently despised each other during filming, their chemistry was extraordinary. Sturges proves to be a master of making even some of the most pretentious people in Hollywood of the time likable and it also helped in making the audience root for him during his journey.

While Sturges's script remained consistently fantastic, I had just a little bit of issue with how his direction falters. The tone established right off the bat in this film is comedic and while I was not expecting that, it continued to improve. However, Sturges takes this movie in an almost completely different direction for its third act, drastically switching to dark drama. This tone could have worked for the whole movie but it just felt so out-of-place when it was thrown into the audience's faces. The film never really recovers after this tonal shift and even though it provided one of the best movie endings I have ever seen, Sturges' direction could have been a bit more concise. I did absolutely love the ending scene, however, and it is such a well-deserved finale for these characters after the lessons they have learned. This film really emphasizes the theme of redistribution of wealth in both emotional and physical ways and I was surprised at how socialist a lot of Sturges' values turned out to be. Sullivan's Travels not only excellently touches on the class system, but it gives us some hope that there are people out there who are able and willing to change for the better. The dialogue even mentions some of the film's themes in what may be considered too blatant, but I appreciated the intent. McCrea's performance as Sullivan throughout this movie was very stoic and solid, but the standout for me was Lake as the young girl. An actress new to Hollywood and discouraged by its reputation, Lake's portrayal of the girl was absolutely phenomenal. Her quick, comedic timing and agency made her such an interesting character and I could watch endless films of her as an actress playing an actress. I do wish that Sturges would have not written her off so much, as she doesn't even have a name, but she holds her own like no one else in the film.

Sullivan's Travels showcases its amazing writing through the performances from the entire cast, the music, and the comedy that pulses throughout its satirical body. Along with being a very romantic story of the time, there are so many elements in this film designed to please anyone and they are all directed together with ease by Sturges. I fell surprisingly in love with this movie and although some of its most dramatic points are too heavily accentuated, Sturges still does a great job getting his point across through a memorable and charming comedy.

My Rating: ★★★★½

Capone (2020) directed by Josh Trank

One might think by now that I would have the common sense to actually listen to people's reviews when going into a film but I suppose there are no limits to what I would do for Tom Hardy. Until now, of course, as this movie was just as atrocious as I have been hearing. Josh Trank's Capone is an absolutely vile and horribly directed biopic about one of America's most infamous gangsters and one that fails to teach its audience anything. Paired with a disgustingly bad performance from its lead and editing that will make your head spin, there is next to nothing even redeemable about this film. I knew what to expect and I knew of the reputation of this filmmaker but I chose to ignore that with high hopes and that turned out to be my gravest mistake. This movie is the biggest waste of $9 that I have spent recently but knowing what I was getting myself into, who's really to blame?

After serving ten years in federal prison for tax evasion, Al Capone (Tom Hardy) returns home to Florida to live out his remaining years while on parole. Chronicling the last year of his life, Capone battles dementia and his past demons while struggling to differentiate between his dark past and current reality. Biopics following the last moments of a person's life always seem to be hit or miss and while this trope in writing is vastly overdone, I appreciate the slightly altered path that writer and director Josh Trank took. To shake things up for his story, there is a sense of horror that flows throughout this film, plaguing its audience like dementia was plaguing Capone. The main problem is that since this terrifying element of the story is the most prominent, it left absolutely no room for the rest of the script. If there was any type of film that deserves a horror infusion into its true elements, it would be the haunting final moments of Capone's life. However, Trank fails to balance this, and I was left wondering what the hell was even happening from the first scene until the last. I had no idea who any of the supporting characters were or why they even mattered and no context was given at all to help tell Capone's story. Instead, the audience is left deciphering through the script that gave them nothing to learn from. Trank could have easily gone the more standard, biopic route, accompanied by flashbacks and callbacks, but this movie was not even informative, which is the basic requirement of this genre of film.

Due to Trank's lackluster writing, I was never able to tell what was real and what was simply in Capone's mind; while that might have been the point due to his battle with dementia, it hurt the story immensely and the aimless direction from Trank also did not help. On top of Capone never really justifying its reason for existence, Trank has to force-feed background knowledge in order to get his point across. He is incredibly blunt with this film's visual language and I just despised how he treats the people who want to learn something about the crime lord. One of the film's recurring motifs is the radio show that Capone listens to in order to stay sane and the show he tunes into is about himself during the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre of 1929, for God's sake. I was consistently repulsed at Trank's depictions of Capone and the violence that he uses throughout this movie was vile. It did not seem like any of it was done for a clear reason other than its graphic factor; it takes a lot for me to physically look away from a film but this one definitely did it for me. The biggest example being the Scarface homage as Capone drifts through his waking nightmare during the final shootout. It was done in a nonchalant way accompanied by poor visual effects that really just grossed me out more than anything.

One of the parts of this film that I was genuinely excited for since the trailer was Hardy's performance: he remains one of my favorite actors but this might be his worst performance every. He struggles to make it through one scene without grunting, whining, or quite literally shitting himself and the pain that Capone felt was never embodied by Hardy whatsoever. The supporting performances from Linda Cardellini, Matt Dillon, and Kyle MacLachlan were *fine* and may have been some of the only watchable parts of this story. They really gave their all to try to make this bland and meaningless script come to life and I have to at least give them credit for that. I have yet to figure out what Josh Trank thinks of his own filmmaking because it frankly is heinous. This strange complex can be seen in the editing as well, which Trank also did. There is a reason that post-production departments exist and why, in the twenty-first century, directors typically do not edit their own films. His choice of pacing throughout this movie was complete garbage and the rapid-fire cuts in the calmest of scenes threw me for a loop. I was never able to delineate the timelines of this movie or what was supposed to be real and the editing never tries to solve that problem either. Not a single element about this film works well with each other as Trank reaches new levels of unintelligible filmmaking.

Tom Hardy deserves much better than this and while the approach to Capone is interesting, it never attempts to even reach its full potential. I was thoroughly disappointed in this film and I would honestly never recommend it to anyone regardless of how interested they may be in the history and legacy of one of the most infamous gangsters of all time. From the insufferable technicals to the nonsensical script, this film is just plain insulting and I couldn't help but feel massively irritated. What an absolute waste of talent and I mean that in every sense of the word.

My Rating: ★

How to Build a Girl (2020) directed by Coky Giedroyc

Beanie Feldstein once again proves that she can do no wrong and honestly, she needs to be a much bigger name to the average audience than she is. Coky Giedroyc's How to Build a Girl is a sweet and well-meaning coming-of-age film that takes a very unique approach to develop this protagonist. Approaching this story from a writer and critic's point of view, I never would have expected to be so called-out when it comes to the films that I watch. Very rarely do movies get the art and process of criticism right and the way that this film portrays journalism is also superb. I really enjoyed so much about this movie, especially Feldstein's performance, but I could not help but feel that the story could have been told much stronger by a different director. I had a lot of issues with the pacing and feel of this entire movie and thankfully, that did not detract from my enjoyment, but it was still a bit of a problem for me. Regardless of how much one gets from this story, it is still a very entertaining ride with plenty of energy and humor to carry it through.

Johanna Morrigan (Beanie Feldstein) is a young and naive London native who aspires to be a journalist when she grows up. As she unwittingly gets into the local rock and punk scene, she becomes entranced by it and decides to reinvent herself as a rock music critic. Her rise in the media leads her to become one of the most respected yet feared voices in rock in the early 1990s but she soon finds out that the current version of herself might not be the one she had wanted after all. This script, written by Caitlin Moran and based on the true story of Morrigan's life, is incredibly interesting. I had absolutely no idea the kind of impact that Morrigan had during this time period and to think that she almost controlled what lived and died in terms of music was fascinating. I really enjoyed how Moran combines this true story with a coming-of-age feel in an effortless way to make the audience care about Morrigan and her slight path of corruption. She did such a great job of characterizing Morrigan's story with her rebellious nature full of sex and rock 'n' roll but did so in a way that still felt fresh and interesting for this genre of film. Another huge aspect of this film that I really enjoyed was how it touches on the art of criticism and art critique culture. This movie might be the most honest portrayal of journalism that I have seen and I mean that in both the good and bad aspects. Most specifically, I loved how this film shows Johanna's transformation into her persona Dolly Wilde and how she starts to become pretentious about the music she gives good reviews to. The more she saw bands and became critical, the more she became intolerable as a person, and honestly, that is something we could all take notes on. Whether it be art, music, film, or whatever else, the highest and often most influential of critics tend to hurt others' enjoyment of them simply because of their "professionalism" and that idea is such a dangerous one. The character of Johanna embodies this incredibly well and I loved how that was incorporated into her arc.

The character of Johanna would not have been nearly as watchable, however, if not for the performance from Feldstein. She is such a phenomenal actress and I really do not think that I would have liked this movie as much without her charisma and willingness to do very different things with her characters. Feldstein has been taking some of the most memorable roles in the past few years and she is absolutely killing it. All of the supporting performances are solid too, especially from Alfie Allen as Morrigan's rockstar crush John Kite and Paddy Considine, who plays Johanna's father and brings melancholy yet emotional energy to the family of the Morrigans. The big issue with this film, however, is the direction from Giedroyc. Throughout its entire runtime, I felt as if this film could never pick a tone. It definitely hit all of the beats that a coming-of-age film does, but it struggled a bit to incorporate the other elements of the story. The musical and concert scenes were great and it was solid to see how Morrigan got into the music scene, but the rest of the film was structured so strangely that I could never really get on board with how Johanna was feeling or what she was going through. I think the reason it felt so strange is that typically in this genre, the audience learns about the protagonist and begins to care about them but in this film, Johanna starts as an awkward and likable girl but continues on a downhill spiral until the film's climax. As Morrigan struggled to figure out how she wanted to portray herself, I just could not get myself to care that much because of the horrible ways she was treating the people around her. How to Build a Girl felt like it was directed to be a Disney Channel original movie but with much more adult content in it and this creative fusion did not mix very well. The transitions and editing between scenes were incredibly choppy and the happy-go-lucky energy that this story possesses really contrasted what Moran was trying to say. Although the direction felt like it was all over the place, this film does follow many of the genre's rules in terms of payoff for its protagonist. Johanna figures out how she was truly supposed to be built and starts to become comfortable in her actual skin as opposed to pretending to be someone she is not, which is always a sweet ending an audience can root for.

How to Build a Girl is a film that I have been looking forward to for a while, ever since Feldstein blew me away in last year's Booksmart. While I did not enjoy this coming-of-age story quite as much, there is still a lot about Johanna Morrigan's journey to appreciate. I adore how Feldstein embodies this woman and all of her sexual, groundbreaking, and infamous tendencies and she proves to be the greatest part of this film. I would definitely recommend this movie for fans of the genre but in terms of the film's structure, this girl could have been built much differently.

My Rating: ★★★½

Clementine (2020) directed by Lara Jean Gallagher

One of the most glaring themes of coming-of-age films is that there never seems to be a clear or distinguishable plot to keep track of. This genre of film typically falls more into being more slice-of-life than not and while this lack of clear progression used to get on my nerves, I have grown to love it. However, that can only be done to some extent without becoming meaningless. Lara Jean Gallagher's Clementine, unfortunately, falls into this trap and this film reveals itself to be an odd, sexually-driven movie that clearly struggles to find its footing. Gallagher seems to be a decent writer but I failed to see what any of these characters' actions meant to do with each other. There is a lot to love about this movie, from the excellent performances to the recognizably indie score, and there is no denying that Gallagher is a technically-driven director with lots of promise. I could not expect a masterpiece from her at this point, but this film shows the promise and talent she has as a writer and director and it will be interesting to see what story she takes on next.

When Karen (Otmara Marrero) finds out that her ex-girlfriend D (Sonya Walger) had been cheating on her, she moves out and goes to her lakehouse to escape. There, she has an encounter with Lana (Sydney Sweeney), a young and adventurous girl who attracts and tempts Karen, challenging her morals more than anyone has done before. The main element of this movie that I genuinely loved was the direction from Lara Jean Gallagher. She proves that she absolutely knows how to direct a film, as this movie hits all of the story beats and touches on all of its characters decently well. The pacing was excellent and so much of this story is derived from visual storytelling, which I will always adore. While Gallagher is definitely a strong director, her script is where I failed to really get into this story as much as I would have liked. It almost seems like too much of this film was left to her direction instead of written dialogue or screenwriting and because of that, it was very difficult to follow what was going on in the minds of Karen and Lana. But even when there was dialogue, it came off as incredibly generic, almost to the point of being inauthentic. There are many tropes and clichés that writers follow when it comes to writing dialogue and I just really do not think that any of the characters involved in this film were interesting enough to warrant 95 minutes about their struggles, given that they did not seem to have much to work off. The main issue is that no context at all is given to these characters' actions, why they ended up at this lakehouse, and why they do the things that they do. That is not always a problem, but once the characters of Karen and Lana are fleshed out more, there is no payoff whatsoever. Karen remains a frustrated woman at the center of not one, but two complex relationships, and nothing is really resolved for her while Lana just turns out to be what the audience expected the entire time. This movie does not quite do what most coming-of-age movies do and although films don't have to follow rules to be successful, this one definitely needed a more concise path to follow.

As for the rest of Clementine, it was fine! There are lots of things about this movie that I genuinely enjoyed, including the performances and music that was used throughout. Katy Jarzebowski's score was incredible and accompanied the tone of the film very well. It did border a bit too much on thriller than was necessary, but it added an extra level of discomfort to display Karen's story very well. Marrero and Sweeney's performances are also clear highlights, as they reach fantastic levels that I have not seen from them before. As Marrero is a somewhat newcomer to acting in features, Sweeney has a bit more experience and she, in particular, is incredible as Lana. I mostly know her as a supporting actress up until this point but she takes over this film with a naive sense of seduction that is incredibly fitting for her character. Although the actual words from their mouths never seemed to be the most believable, Sweeney and Marrero work with what they have to the best degree possible. Their chemistry together was a bit stoic and awkward but for the sake of this film, that is exactly what it called for. As their characters grew on each other, they became a lot better together on screen and this progression was fantastic to see. I also really appreciated how this movie does not only focus on Karen's past relationship and her newfound entanglement with Lana. Her character arc is thankfully not completely characterized by being gay but Gallagher's script makes her a multi-dimensional and actually interesting person. This film touches on the power of music in a relationship, how harmful putting labels on people can be, and shining light on the horrible, underage exploitation that happens to young girls every day. These themes are not entirely what the film revolves around, but I at least liked how they were introduced to build this world a bit more. If only Gallagher's direction had delved deeper into the backstory and personal life of Karen I would have been a bit more sold, but I am happy with the representation and clear sense of writing that we were given.

Clementine is definitely worth a watch for the superb and vulnerable performances by the two leads and some creative technical choices, but I just did not get much from this overall story. Despite the script lacking in much-needed detail, this film has everything else that a little indie movie needs to succeed. It might not be the most memorable of films or the most groundbreaking, but the storytelling abilities showcased throughout this movie display just how passionate Gallagher is about her work.

My Rating: ★★★

High Noon (1952) directed by Fred Zinnemann

AFI Top 100: #27

Nothing better than dudes being dudes... duking it out and wanting to kill each other in a classic, western setting. Frank Zinnemann's High Noon is the epitome of this classic storytelling trope, yet one that executes it so very well. I surprisingly really enjoyed this film, for as basic of a story and as simple of direction that it was. There is a lot to take about the western genre from this film and while I do not think there was much of anything groundbreaking in this movie, I believe that it set the standard for many western films to come. Clocking in at a tight 85 minutes, this movie has no time to waste when it comes to getting down to the action, except when it holds back incredibly well to focus on the characters and really make the audience feel for the protagonist. This also might be one of the first westerns of this era I have seen that does not rely on using racist stereotypes for the sake of its plot or try to make its audience see past a character's flaws, but instead, Zinnemann actually takes the time to excellently build this world.

Town marshall Will Kane (Gary Cooper) is getting ready to retire as a lawman and start his new life with his wife Amy (Grace Kelly). On the day of his wedding, he finds out that a criminal he put away years ago named Frank Miller (Ian McDonald) is out on parole and coming to get his revenge. Kane tries to gather up his town's men to help him fight back but soon realizes that he must face this challenge himself. My favorite aspect of this script, written by Carl Foreman and adapted from the magazine story "The Tin Star" by John W. Cunningham, is how it does not go straight to the action but instead takes its time to build its world. This movie could have easily been intercut with action scenes of Kane fighting off Miller's goons, but Zinnemann cleverly saves this until the end. Practically the entire runtime is devoted to showing how Kane is really by himself in this fight. Starting off the film with his wedding surrounded by all of his friends and colleagues contrasted with how they immediately abandon him to let him fight his own fights is incredibly interesting. I loved this contrast in the storytelling and it really showed how diligent Kane was to end this battle. Cooper gives the performance to match this story's energy as well and he embodies this old western marshall like none other. He may have everything that typical actors of this time do, from his looks to mannerisms, but again, I believe this plays into how well he influences other, more standard westerns that came after this one. This entire story is really quite simple but since it is done right, it is no less enjoyable. My only gripe is that I wish the final scene between Kane and Miller was given a bit more tension and not breezed past so much, but it remains very effective regardless. The action sequences are done very well and even involving Kelly's character Amy was fantastic.

Kelly's performance as Amy was equally as intriguing. Her standup attitude and agency as her own character made her so awesome to watch. The writing fueling her actions was great, as she was able to clearly hold her own subplot that carried a lot of weight. This created a lot of great tension throughout the film, as it makes the audience really wonder if she would leave on the train or not if Kane were to be killed. Her ultimatum makes her such a critical part of this movie and I loved every second that she was on screen. Although this movie is solid in its writing and direction, it is also incredibly well-made. The cinematography from Floyd Crosby is astounding and he makes every shot feel incredibly pivotal. Despite the entire film taking place in a few buildings in one town, the variety of techniques that Crosby utilized was fascinating. High Noon is one of the earliest examples I can think of that uses quick zooms and pans to reveal things out of frame. This was fantastic to see and I loved how the movement of the camera really adjusts to suit the action of the scene. The camerawork paired with the original music from Dimitri Tiomkin was brilliant and especially the recurring motif of the empty chair was great to see. While it may be taken a bit humorous at first due to the almost campy nature of this film's atmosphere, the overly-exaggerated zooming became very entertaining. Even just from the title itself, this movie gives its audience exactly what they came for: an exciting, character-driven western with a good ol' fashioned shootout. I can absolutely see why this movie has become so influential and while endless people have toyed with and parodied the genre, there is no denying the watchability of this type of film.

High Noon is a great, little western that sets the standard for how many of these stories were told for years to come. Cooper and Kelly give some of the greatest performances I have ever seen in this genre and while their characters were written well together, they have the chemistry to match as well. I would definitely recommend this film and I will most likely be revisiting as well, given how easily entertaining this story was.

My Rating: ★★★½

Still (2018) directed by Takashi Doscher

Sometimes all that one needs is a horribly dumb horror film to pass the time when you do not have the energy to watch anything else. Very rarely, however, do you find a film of this variety that is so nonsensical and meaningless that it is hard to even find a skosh of entertainment value. Still is one of these films, as it is one found on Hulu containing a decently-recognizable star by a nearly unknown director, yet remains one of the most forgettable horror stories I have ever seen. This film had so much potential and due to its interesting ideas, it could have been a much stronger and more compelling story. Takashi Doscher's writing and direction bogged this movie down by miles and while the leads provided some decent performances working with what they could, it was not nearly enough to overcome the confusing and ridiculous pacing choices. Horror films that strive to be dumb-fun are typically known for their jump-scares and predictable plot choices, but at least they make sense - this film could not even accomplish that.

Lily (Madeline Brewer), a young woman diagnosed with cancer, gets lost on a hike in the woods and comes across the small cabin belonging to Ella (Lydia Wilson) and Adam (Nick Blood). The two homeowners take her in and tend to her directional wounds but as the tension between the three begins to build, it is revealed that the couple harbors a dark secret that they will do anything to protect. This script, written by Takashi Doscher, had so much awesome potential to be a very original type of thriller but, unfortunately, is wasted by the meaningless direction. As far as mild spoilers go, I will just say that this movie has to do with a sort of fountain of youth. The premise of this film is undeniably interesting and while the characters might behave very stereotypically, there were some very promising choices. The flashbacks and reveal that this husband and wife have been on the run was clever and the multi-generational setting of this story was great. However, the dialogue throughout this film was incredibly wooden and it is a miracle that Wilson and Brewer were able to make their characters seem even slightly believable. This goes to show how great of actresses they are, as their solid performances actually distracted me just a *little* bit from how poor the writing was. As for the story itself, I was consistently lost throughout, all the way up until Doscher tried to explain what was even going on. He attempts to throw his audience for a loop by introducing an element of magical water in his story. My issue with this "plot twist" is not that it was a bad twist; in fact, it could have been excellent. The problem is that the mystical water had no incorporation into the story until the last fifteen minutes when it was convenient for the plot. Only then was it revealed that the cave the couple had been drinking from for decades was keeping them alive. This idea of a modern fountain of youth mixed into this horror setting is an absolutely astounding idea, but one that was just completely wasted by Doscher's direction.

Doscher seems to know what he is doing when it comes to filmmaking to some degree, but I just hope that this is not the culmination of his best work. Still really represents the fact that he has some fantastic ideas in his head but ones that need quite a bit more work refining before they are ready for production. Whether it be a little bit of Doscher's direction or a little bit of David Pergolini's editing that hurt this story (or most likely, a little bit of both), I could not get on board with this story's pacing. Killing off the main character in the first thirty minutes was a bad choice for this film and then promptly flashing back for another 45 minutes once again made me incredibly puzzled. Far too much time was spent exploring these characters with timing that just felt inappropriate and none of these choices ever paid off. This film jumps around in tone from homely to sexual to comedic to romantic like there are no rules and this lack of structure was also quite frustrating. Especially when it comes to the flashback sequence. This look back at Ella and Adam when they were living in the 1800s was very interesting but would have been much more effective had it been cut in between their story in the modern era. This is typically how flashbacks should work and while I'm not saying that taking a different approach is necessarily bad, intercutting between the past and the present will always be a safe and effective method of editing. I also feel like this film had little to no sound department, leaving all of the audio work to Pergolini, as there were multiple cuts throughout the film whose audio tracks were clearly jarring. Along with the music not being mixed very well with the dialogue, it honestly became a game to see how many little errors I could pick up on. The technical pieces of this film that stood out the most, however, were the production and costume design from Jennifer Chandler and Macarena Dorminey. This movie did look beautiful and the mise en scène actually made this movie somewhat bearable to watch.

Still is one of the most pointless thrillers I have seen and one with the potential to be something far greater. I absolutely loved the idea of the fountain of youth and thought that there were so many creative choices made in the telling of this modern story, but Doscher's direction dashed any hopes of this idea coming to fruition. I can not even recommend this film as background noise and there is nothing more upsetting to me than a movie without a purpose. Regardless of how well it could have been executed, this film was more lost than its protagonist in the first ten minutes.

My Rating: ★½

King Kong (1933) directed by Merian C. Cooper, Ernest B. Schoedsack

AFI Top 100: #41

Monster movies produced in the early days of film tend to be hit or miss for me, although Universal is typically known for creating some of the most memorable that are difficult not to enjoy. On the other hand, Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack's King Kong might be one of the most instantly recognizable creatures in early film lore. Unfortunately, the reputation of this monster seems to proceed him as I found this film frankly quite boring and despite its groundbreaking use of stop-motion and practical effects, the writing was just really not all there. The only iteration of this character I have ever seen is in Kong: Skull Island and while I know that film is not the greatest starting point when it comes to an education on Kong, it was at least enjoyable. I found this original King Kong to be a very poorly-paced and dull outing, despite so many of its iconic scenes. There are so many parts of this movie that I adore and can understand the legacy of this film but in all honesty, it just does not hold up very well.

Carl Denham (Robert Armstrong) is a lowly film director known for taking his cast and crew to isolated locations to make some of the strangest, jungle movies ever. He convinces a young woman named Ann Darrow (Fay Wray) to be his lead actress and they set off to find a supposedly deserted island harboring a dark secret: a monstrous monkey named Kong. This script, written by James Ashmore Creelman and Ruth Rose, has all of the little bits that make a story like this so wildly entertaining. Introducing human characters and their quest while bringing in a ginormous monster to interrupt their journey and ending with a final battle of sorts: this is what audiences first exposed to film wanted to see and that is exactly what they got. However, my main issues with this film are how poorly-directed it is and the characters themselves. Cooper and Schoedsack do a decent job with building this world and its story but the second act drags on for what seemed like an eternity. The first twenty minutes of this movie are great and the last twenty minutes are equally as exciting. The middle hour, however, lingers on their discoveries on the island and serves no real purpose other than to show the intensity of Kong and build a fear of him. Complete with racist stereotypes and some questionable dialogue writing, this entire middle section became dull very quickly and I think that they spent far too long showing off the effects. If I was a moviegoer back in 1933 experiencing this spectacle for the first time, I would be greatly impressed. But, alas, I am not and while Kong will remain forever iconic, it was hard to see past the flaws in its actual filmmaking, even for the time.

My other problem with this movie is that its characters never seem to develop. Denham begins and remains as the asshole who is only after Kong for the money. Darrow begins and remains as the naive actress who always ends up being the damsel in distress. We are introduced to this cast of characters right off the bat and the issue is that we know exactly who they are and where their intentions lie. There is little to no development and the focus on Kong only made the humans' stories that much more boring. One thing I do genuinely enjoy about the film's writing is that it contains a focus on the exploitation of animals and even for 1933, that seemed incredibly progressive. It was a strange message that never coherently came through but I appreciated the effort regardless. I also adored how this movie reveals itself as an almost "modern-day" Beauty and the Beast. Despite the obvious references to it such as the literal final line and blatant themes throughout, it was an interesting take on the story. A lot of the kidnapping choices and strange treatment of women is not the greatest part of the story, but I can at least appreciate what these writers were attempting. Combining these decent parts of the story with the stop-motion and practical effects proved to be a fantastic effort, however, as the design of Kong and the monsters on the island were actually breathtaking. Not only do they remain insanely creepy to this day, but especially to be made in the time that it was is just magnificent. Only the most clever of filmmakers and practical effects artists could have pulled these monsters off and I loved every shot contrasting the size of Kong with the minuteness of humans. While I might not have been completely sold on this story's execution, topping the movie off with one of the most legendary monster scenes ever was only the cherry on top of this visual delight.

King Kong is one of the most well-known monster titles in film history, as the image of the massive ape swinging on top of the Empire State Building might as well be ingrained in all of our brains. Despite how impressive this movie was back in 1933, I could not get the sloppy writing to outweigh my appreciation for its technicals. I completely understand why this film is so revered and I definitely comprehend its importance, but that does not make up for the fact that I just simply could not get engaged with this one.

My Rating: ★★½

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013) directed by Martin Scorsese

There is something so strange to me about a man like Jordan Belfort writing an autobiography practically exposing himself as one of history's biggest economic assholes, but it makes for an incredibly wild and compelling movie, that's for sure. Martin Scorsese's The Wolf of Wall Street is one of the most bonkers films I have ever seen. Its unrelenting energy and hectic tone throughout truly threw me into this drug-fueled world of stockbroking and never let me up for air, despite the film being three hours long. I will be completely honest when I say that I did not enjoy this movie as much as the majority of people have and do not completely understand the immeasurable hype behind it. It is definitely an unforgettable film experience complemented by a fantastic cast, but this film never lived up to what I thought it would be. This is far from my favorite Scorsese, as I even had trouble distinguishing it as such, but there is no doubt that this will be hailed for decades as one of the greatest looks at greed and the power that Wall Street holds.

This story chronicles the financial life of Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio) as he learns the literal ups and downs of Wall Street and gets involved in one of the most infamous laundering scandals of the late twentieth century. Ruining his life with sex and drug addictions while climbing higher up the ranks of the New York money market, he is eventually investigated by the FBI and becomes one of the most sought-after stockbrokers in history. The script, written by Terence Winter and adapted from Belfort's autobiography, provides for some very interesting insight into who he actually is as a person. Scorsese translates this script and does an absolutely great job of making us really despise him. What I enjoyed most about this film is how it might be the most 21st-century story Scorsese has ever done. From the warm color palettes to the unmatchable energy that pulses through its quick, three hours, I have never seen Scorsese this alive before. From the humorous lines of dialogue to the excessive party sequences, it is one of the most chaotic and sharply-edited films I have ever seen. Thankfully, Scorsese's style is still relatively evident as we follow the story of this central figure's downfall through the use of narration and fourth-wall-breaking. I believe, for the most part, that Belfort is being honest about his story and how he was taken down in the 1980s, but Scorsese adds his flair to really help the audience question the liability of this man. Donnie Azoff (Jonah Hill) and Naomi Lapaglia (Margot Robbie) are also some of the most crucial figures in shaping Belfort's story and the performances from these two are legendary. While I do think a lot of people think of this movie as utilizing Robbie's sexuality for the sake of its audience, she plays arguably the biggest role in Belfort's life and one that tests him on all fronts, mentally and physically. Robbie is such an extraordinary actress and she proves this yet again with her "leading character" vibes before she was given the chance to be a leading character.

My main issues with this film revolve around its structure and how it never really gives the audience much to work with other than party scenes and pure mayhem. I would have been much more invested in this film if the entire three hours were more like the third act. The last hour or so felt more like a Scorsese film than anything else throughout and that is when I finally really began seeing the script for what it was. The absolute chaos that stems from the first two hours or so of this film is nonstop and I never got much from the story. I understand that was the point, as Belfort was constantly hopped up on drugs and losing his mind, but the incessant sex, partying, and destructive behaviors never really paid off for me. I understood very quickly how much of an insane person Belfort was, to the point that an extra hour of those activities did not do much for his character. This is a sort of double-edged sword, however, because the audience does get an undeniably interesting look into his marriages and personal life, which are great for character development. However, I felt the most interested when FBI agent Denham's (Kyle Chandler) subplot began and I really think that this movie could have benefitted from a stronger balance of these two contrasting stories. This goes for DiCaprio's performance as well. DiCaprio is obviously one of the most energetic and talented performers of today but while people hail this film as his greatest performance, I just can not see why. Similar to Scorsese, he is at his strongest in the last hour or so, and I just can not wrap my head around why DiCaprio doing drugs, having sex with hookers, and screaming a lot earns the title of his "best performance." He has some genuinely fantastic moments towards the end of Belfort's marriage to Naomi and I just really wish the entire film could have showcased more of that energy.

The Wolf of Wall Street is one of the most buck-wild films about money ever made and to think that Scorsese directed it is a bit strange. I love the exploration into the world of stockbroking, doing so through the lens of an infamous figure in the late 1980s, but I never felt emotionally invested in this until the very end. Regardless of how unbalanced I feel that this was, I can not discredit any of these masterful filmmakers for never letting the energy of this movie die down.

My Rating: ★★★½