The Personal History of David Copperfield (2020) directed by Armando Iannucci

I know just as much about Charles Dickens as I do any modern adaptations of his works (which is next to nothing) but if there were ever a place to start, I feel like it would be Armando Iannucci's The Personal History of David Copperfield. This film is a very interesting, modern take on Dickens' classic story and one that has so many admirable aspects to it but I found myself constantly confused by its eccentric story to the point that I became lost. The performances, visuals, and general aesthetic behind this entire film are all absolutely incredible and while they are thankfully enough to carry it, I was a bit upset by how confusing this plot played out. Again, I know nothing about Dickens adaptations but if any others are as energetic and adorable as this story, then I know I must check them out. This movie was also supposed to premiere at the festival I was interning for earlier this year so it is nice to see it finally gaining deserved recognition.

Orphaned as a little kid, David Copperfield (Dev Patel) grows up living through many, incredible events and meets many incredible characters along the way as well. As he gets older and gains more life knowledge through multiple different jobs, he decides that he wants to become a writer and starts with an autobiography about his own, ridiculously interesting experiences. This script, written by Simon Blackwell and director Armando Iannucci and adapted from the novel by Charles Dickens, is quite interesting and while I think there were plenty of solid attempts at creating an engaging world, not much of it stuck for me. The "life story" type of plot with the framing narrative of the protagonist telling their own story is a trope that has been seen countless times, especially in older such novels and retellings. While I am not usually a fan of protagonist narration, I felt like this was the perfect film to utilize that technique in order to bring a particular, new energy to the story. So many little details that populate this film are fun to watch in and of themselves but I did not ever feel like they blended together well. The pacing and direction of this film from Iannucci were incredibly awkward and there were so many scenes that I feel could have used music or a touch of slower editing to actually get their point across. Many of these ideas are not new but were presented as fresh because of how colorful the script of this film was but I wish Iannucci would have stuck with one, set style. One such example is Copperfield's narration, which was an interesting choice in the beginning and would have been so compelling all the way throughout but since it was so infrequent, it started to blur the lines between fantasy and reality. This goes with Copperfield inserting himself into previous scenes in his life as well: it was such an exciting take on how this story was told but it was not used nearly enough to substantiate its inclusion. Thankfully, this film is chock full of wonderful performances to make it so undoubtedly entertaining; not only from Patel, but Peter Capaldi, Tilda Swinton, Hugh Laurie, and Gwendoline Christie among others were all incredible and made this otherwise dull story very humorous.

Going along with my issues with Iannucci's direction, some aspects of his storytelling were way too fast-paced for my own liking and got so the point that it became muddled what the director was trying to accomplish. The story itself was fine but my main issue was how rapidly characters were introduced without giving the audience any time to process their importance. So many of this film's characters are integral parts to Copperfield's family, love life, and work acquaintances but were brought into the story with little to no background knowledge and because of that, it made it hard for me to care about them or their relation to Copperfield. In a film riddled with so many electric personas and diverse personalities, they all had an effect on the protagonist in one way or another but I just wish that I was able to keep up better. I had a very difficult time latching on to any of the subplots and it was far too much to process at times. This also has to do with the unnecessarily frantic editing from Mick Audsley and Peter Lambert, who cut this film just as quick as I got befuddled. It takes quite a while, but once an audience member gets into the swing of things with how fast this narrative plays out, it starts to become enjoyable. The cinematography from Zac Nicholson also annoyed me quite a bit and after a while, it became hard to watch. There was honestly no reason why nearly every shot in this film had to be handheld and the shakiness of the camera became very distracting. I know it sounds like I strongly dislike this film because of how many of its downfalls I noticed but it is actually wonderful! The adorable story paired with the performances make it incredibly unique but my favorite aspects of this entire production were the costuming and set design. Both of these mostly aesthetic elements of the film were absolutely stunning and the way that the artists were able to simultaneously make these clothes fit the time period but also vivid enough for modern audiences is very impressive. The sets were also built so well and I adored how Iannucci was able to build this world within the confines of its fantastical, London setting.

The Personal History of David Copperfield is a perfectly fine and entertaining movie that does a lot of things right and a lot of things quite wrong. While I was consistently confused by its rapid introduction of plot points, everything comes together in the end in such a nice way that I was willing to forgive it for its previous confusions. More than anything, however, this film confirms to my personal beliefs that I believe in Dev Patel supremacy and I am NOT afraid to show it (now if A24 had the balls to release The Green Knight right now, the world would know his true power).

My Rating: ★★★

The New Mutants (2020) directed by Josh Boone

Josh Boone's long-awaited The New Mutants is particularly difficult to dissect: not because its story is confusing in any sense but because nearly every aspect of this film is so poorly executed that it's hard to determine the true root of its problems. This film is an incredibly terrible, final addition to Fox's X-Men universe and one that turned out to not deserve the hype it has been building for years. From the performances to the chemistry between actors to the script and direction to any kind of attempted choreography, this movie is just a shoddy attempt at introducing some new characters into this shared universe. If there is one thing inside of me that has been slowly dying over the past few years, it's my excitement for seeing the latest superhero story. With a few notable exceptions, I was expecting this uniquely creative film to be the one to hopefully revive this past love but, unfortunately, this disappointing return to the movie theaters has just been yet another nail in the coffin.

After her entire community is killed by an unknown force, Danielle Moonstar (Blu Hunt) wakes up in an eerie hospital, in which kids her age with mutant powers are being held and controlled. Not knowing why she is there or what her powers are, she gets to know Rahne (Maisie Williams), Illyana (Anya Taylor-Joy), Sam (Charlie Heaton), and Roberto (Henry Zaga), as the five of them begin to question the real reason that they are being held captive by the facility's Dr. Reyes (Alice Braga). I will start out by saying I have been decently intrigued by this movie for a while now and especially given its strange circumstance of being consistently postponed, I was actually interested in its seemingly fresh take on the origin story. Setting a superhero film inside one, minor location, and really pushing the limits of the characters is a take that I thought was incredible. There is so much potential to play around with genre in this environment and for a film with a cast as talented as this one, I expected to be fairly blown away. Unfortunately, this new type of superhero premise might be the only good thing about this entire film, as the script by Josh Boone and Knate Lee and direction from the former was supremely disappointing. The writing throughout this film is just as cliché as you would expect from any half-assed blockbuster of today, to the point that I was able to entirely guess what characters would say seconds beforehand. There is nothing profoundly wrong with the plot and themes The New Mutants tries to touch on, but Boone and Lee borrow and recycle bland amounts of everything that ends up presenting absolutely nothing new. Every single one of these characters were so underdeveloped that I never cared about them in the slightest, even knowing that nothing bad was going to happen to them. Given generic powers such as being fiery, blasting off like a rocket, and literally just being a werewolf were some of the dullest traits that Boone could have focused on for his characters. The only memorable character was Taylor-Joy's Illyana and her other-dimensional sword but even then, I never felt the adrenaline that one is supposed to during the action sequences.

Above everything else, these glaring issues were only elevated by the misguided direction from Boone. This film was supposed to take a new approach to the genre and be the first superhero-horror film but apparently, that was either made up by the marketing department or was just never fully committed to. The New Mutants barely dips its toes into horror and when it does, it's quite interesting for the half-second that something creepy is on screen. But this film would have been much better and much less tonally fragmented if Boone were to have entirely committed to making a horror film. The elements of Illyana's past with the faceless monsters provided a great deal of tension for me but that possible terror was intercut with a lame joke or just abandoned altogether. This became irreversibly frustrating because when a compelling idea is introduced, it is almost immediately shot down by the tropes that this film falls victim to. The other massive problem that this film suffers from is the unidentifiable chemistry between the entire cast. There are so many rich examples of films about teenagers that any audience member can just feel how good of friends the actors and actresses are, even off-set. This one is definitely not one of those movies, as Hunt, Williams, Taylor-Joy, Heaton, and Zaga seem like they had only met each other for the first time. Along with their irritating and unnecessary accents, their performances are just atrocious and the presence of their characters simply made every interaction between each other so awkward. Any attempted romantic subplots in this film felt incredibly forced because of just this and while these cast members are very talented on their own, they just do not belong in this comic book world. On top of everything wrong with this film, the fight scenes and visual effects were undeniably corny and the action actually began to feel improvised because of how clumsy it felt. I could honestly keep going with how discouraged I became with this movie regarding its lazy filmmaking and casually racist undertones but that would require much more energy than I'm willing to give (which this film definitely does not deserve).

I love the idea that Boone attempts with The New Mutants, introducing these characters through a minimal and low-budget horror setting, but I can now definitely see why this has been pushed back and rescheduled for quite literally years. However, it's a great thing not that many people are going in hordes to the theaters right now because they, just like I, would be presented with such a vastly underwhelming return to the movies. Fox absolutely should have kept this one shelved but hey, at least with the right precautions and safety measures, I'm back to the movies baby!

My Rating: ★½

A Streetcar Named Desire (1951) directed by Elia Kazan

AFI Top 100: #47

A Streetcar Named Desire is one of those classic films that I have heard about for years: both because of its status as one of the most recognizable plays of all time and its supposedly legendary reputation. I had fantastic expectations going into this film, given that it stars one of the most beautiful actors of all time (wearing QUITE the sweaty t-shirt) and while it still definitely has its merits, I was very underwhelmed by this entire film. Director Elia Kazan's adaptation is a bit far from interesting and while I can not speak on the authenticity of the film from its original stageplay, I was still lost as to why this might be considered one of the greatest American films of all time. This film never quite decides what it wants its central focus to be and this division is the main reason why I became uninterested. The performances from the cast are all fantastic and Kazan makes great use out of such a limited location but I could not help but grow bored because of its mismanaged story.

Stella (Kim Hunter) and Stanley Kowalski (Marlon Brando) are one day greeted by Stella's estranged sister Blanche DuBois (Vivien Leigh) and the couple invites Blanche to stay at their small, New Orleans apartment to reconnect. When Blanche begins to question the power dynamic around the place and Stella tries to keep the peace between her and her husband, the familial relationships between them start to crumble, along with the societal expectations that came with being family at the time. Although I ended up not being the biggest fan of this social drama, there are a lot of elements to love about it and the performances from the cast were absolutely the standout. Leigh, Brando, and Hunter are all extraordinary in their roles and there is no doubting that any other actor cast as their characters would have been much worse. The chemistry between Stella and Blanche as sisters who have not seen each other in quite some time was phenomenal and seeing them interact was very genuine. Blanche having to take care of their parents' old farm and eventually selling it created such a tense environment for her and her sister and this tension made way for some excellent scenes together right out the gate. While Leigh and Hunter shine in their scenes together, Brando was an absolute star as well, taking his character and running with him in the most toxic and honestly hard-to-watch ways. He absolutely nails the uneasy and jealous aura of his character and every scene with his character was extremely difficult to process, which was definitely the point. Another shining element of this movie that redeemed it for me in some minor ways was its set design and utilization of the location. I loved how small-scale this film felt and only having it set it in Stella and Stanley's apartment was such a great choice, especially for ramping up the rigidity between them all. And of course, it makes Marlon Brando absolutely belting out "Stella!" that much more impactful.

The main aspect of Tennessee Williams' script adaptation of his own play that I just could not get behind was how unnecessarily melodramatic the entire story was. There are some fantastic bits and pieces of the previous family life shown that Blanche and Stella shared but updating their history to Stanley just felt way too dramatic for my own taste, especially in the way he responds to everything. The relationships and way that the major plot points are laid out become outlandish and even only twenty minutes in, I felt like we had reached the main climax. A Streetcar Named Desire almost verges into soap-opera territory because of how overly exaggerated everything was and this got to be a bit too much for me, to the point where it almost felt unrealistic. There always has to be a certain level of dramatic flair for a film to stand out but I just do not think that this movie stood out in the right ways. I'm sure that seeing this story on a live stage is absolutely exhilarating given the nature of the plot but for this film, it just felt exhausting. The main cast's performances were solid but placing them in this world with the script that they were given was just strange because I felt like I was invading this small family's life. My other main issue with this film is how unfocused the direction from Kazan is and who I, as an audience member, am supposed to be rooting for. Old films like this don't always have to be black and white in who the directors want their viewers to root for but not enough development was really shown on either side of this story to make me care one way or another. I was frustrated with Stanley being an abusive and gaslighting husband but was also nonchalant about Blanche's struggles and why Stella would even start to care about her whining sister. This dichotomy created quite a contrast in my head and one that I feel Kazan did not handle too well. As mentioned, plots do not have to be black and white but like the film's frankly ugly cinematography from Harry Stradling Sr., it balances on a morally grey thematic pole that I could barely even care about.

Elia Kazan's A Streetcar Named Desire might be an iconic adaptation of one of Tennessee Williams' most notable works but I was, unfortunately, incredibly let down by this film. While I knew nothing of the story going in, I also had no clue what the story was going to shape up to be throughout its runtime but regardless of my blindness towards its plot, I was still only mildly entertained. I think this film could have been much stronger in its direction and despite the chemistry between characters carrying the whole film, I would probably not recommend this movie for much else.

My Rating: ★★★

Rebecca (1940) directed by Alfred Hitchcock

Seeing over the course of a particular director's filmography how their style came to be will always be so compelling to me and one of my favorite aspects of film criticism is being able to analyze those trends. Alfred Hitchcock's Rebecca is a film that I believe can best be utilized to see how his impressive slate of features came to be so iconic, even if it might not be the greatest example of his style. This film definitely feels a lot more like someone trying their hardest to be Hitchcock but given that this was one of his earliest works, that is not necessarily a bad thing. There is plenty to love about this movie, including the wonderful performances and the score that elevates its tension to an incredible level, and it is quite plain to see why this is heralded as being one of his greatest works. It might not have entirely worked for me but this Best Picture winner has just the right amount of his clever direction and brilliant writing to make it a worthy watch for any fan of the suspense genre.

Mrs. de Winter (Jean Fontaine), the second wife of millionaire philanthrope Maxim de Winter (Laurence Olivier), has recently moved into her new husband's estate and wants to begin a new life with him. When she meets the housemaid named Mrs. Danvers (Judith Anderson), she is constantly reminded of her husband's first wife Rebecca's mysterious death, which leads to Mrs. de Winter eventually becoming entangled in a psychological nightmare. The script by Robert E. Sherwood and Joan Harrison, adapted from the classic novel by Daphne Du Maurier, is quite an interesting one and it proves itself undeniably solid. The story has every element that a Hitchcock-helmed film would, rife with twists and turns and an unshakable feeling of uncertainty that his films have become known for. The script did a fantastic job supplying the story to supplement this legendary auteur's direction but I just wish it was a bit more compelling. Perhaps I have just become so familiar with the "dead wife" trope and its related family themes that even something as original as this film does not entirely come off as appealing to me. Hitchcock's direction throughout this film is also just fine but I was not completely sold, unfortunately. Any audience member can easily see shimmers of his iconic and suspenseful style every now and then throughout the film and for that, I was still intrigued where this story was headed. While the writing itself did not necessarily impact me as much as I would have wanted, there is still a lot to love about it, including its fantastic themes of guilt and feeling like one is out of place. Mrs. de Winter not only has to struggle with her own insecurities about not being right for her husband but also having to deal with the looming housekeeper. There are some incredibly tense scenes built from these themes and the craftsmanship behind them helped to elevate them into gripping status. Although it's never explicitly displayed, there are also some fantastic, supernatural vibes that I got from this film, and that really helps to make it even eerier.

A character-driven thriller like this one would not be as effective if not for the performances from its cast and this entire set of people did a fantastic job. Like I previously mentioned, I was not completely sold on the script and did not find it particularly riveting but the portrayals of this grief-stricken "family" from Fontaine, Olivier, and Anderson were just wonderful. Fontaine is brilliant at playing the curious, new wife and her timid aura is great to help her get through some of the story's most difficult scenes. Olivier is great as Maxim but one of the best standouts was Anderson as the skin-crawling Mrs. Danvers. She was a perfect casting choice for this terrifying character and she embodied the jealousy and spite that the character held incredibly well. Just from the scene alone when Danvers is attempting to persuade Mrs. de Winter to jump out of the window, I was so uneasy that it was almost unbearable to watch. I actually wanted to jump out of the window myself just to avoid having to deal with Danvers anymore. While Rebecca is a much more restrained and location-limited film than many of Hitchcock's other works, his style still relatively shows and there was a wonderfully scary tone that radiated throughout. I might not think that his direction worked too memorably with the script, but I still adore how he is able to build suspense, even in just the one or two major locations that are presented throughout this film. The thrilling atmosphere that is created is also due in part to Franz Waxman's score and the gorgeous black and white cinematography from George Barnes. Waxman's delicious musical abilities shine like no other element of this movie and I love how well it paired with every scene. It was undoubtedly corny at times but for the early days of the genre, it worked beautifully. Barnes also shoots this movie like no one else and is able to capture every tense scene and minor detail without losing any bit of his fantastic, visual storytelling, and I am very grateful to see such prowess in such an early film like this one.

Alfred Hitchcock's Rebecca is an excellent, little thriller that capitalizes on his soon-to-be iconic style in subtle ways. I adored the performances, score, and cinematography but I just simply don't think that the writing worked on me in its intended ways. This movie is not one that I would point people towards regarding what makes his direction remarkable but it is certainly one I could recommend to analyze the later impact of his previous works. Although I was mostly unimpressed by this, I can still say that Hitchcock is slowly becoming one of my favorite, classic directors.

My Rating: ★★★½

All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) directed by Lewis Milestone

It takes quite an ambitious story to come roaring out the gates of the innovation of integrated sound in film and leave such a massive impact on history. Lewis Milestone's All Quiet on the Western Front did just that, however, and this movie proves to be one of the greatest lasting examinations into the absolute tragedies and trauma of war. Only about a decade fresh from WWI, these American filmmakers have crafted such an extensively impactful and actually interesting look at how soldiers from all around the world share in the pain of going to war while still maintaining their audience in exciting ways that they had never seen before to this scale. I adored practically everything about this film, from the colossal set pieces to the personal and affecting performances, yet there is so much to praise about this movie that has most likely been said thousands of times before. Even though I think its runtime was a bit too lengthy and could have used some tightening up, it is hard to ignore the sheer spectacle of this incredible film.

A group of young, German men are recruited by a professor in college to go fight in World War I and upon them enlisting, quickly realize that it's not what they expected. Centered around a man named Paul (Lew Ayres), the men go from training to warfare to time home to back at war and over the course of a few years, their numbers are dwindled down and those that are left are crippled by the exhausting terrors of what they have experienced. The script from George Abbott (among many other contributors) and the direction from Lewis Milestone are what truly make this war film unlike other, typical ones that audiences have seen before. This movie, within its first few minutes, reaches heights that I would have never guessed a film from 1930 could, and from the get-go, I was blown away. Right off the bat, this film discusses the hardships that come with going to war and the terrible treatment soldiers receive despite risking their lives for their country. Even for being this early in the era of "talkie" pictures, this film has some of the most innovative and heartwrenching plot points that really put the pressure on its audience to have a conversation about the realities of war. And it does so in the most extravagant ways possible, with some incredible war scenes and ginormous battle sequences. What I loved most about Milestone's direction, however, was the minuscule bits of humanity that he sprinkles in. While many war films focus on a central protagonist and how they exhibit humanity in the face of war, All Quiet on the Western Front is almost 100% horror but in the scenes such as the passing of the water or the butterfly on the boot, Milestone still manages to remind us of the personalities of these men. Just from the scenes in which Paul is ignored by generals who have never stepped foot on the battlefield and then when he confronts his former professor about why it's dangerous for these young boys, so much is told just through these interactions. Generals had no idea what it was actually like for soldiers out there and the professors whose jobs were essentially recruitment officers had no idea what they were preparing these boys for and even then, they chose not to heed Paul's warnings.

Along with showing unrelenting fear in the face of battle, this vehemently anti-war film does a fantastic job of representing how elected people and higher-ups will really do anything to maintain their status without knowing the harm they are doing to people below them. And Paul is a great character to carry this grief with, which makes their interactions that much more compelling. I was genuinely flabbergasted at how well-executed this film's emotions are and while I was not prepared for how many themes this story touches upon, they were happily accepted. Milestone and Abbott also work together to tell an unspoken story very well and I was surprised at how modern this pacing of character development felt. So much of the dialogue was laid out early on in the film regarding how the characters were feeling in certain scenes and while that might have been one of my only issues with the film, it works better much later to help out the plot. Later on in the film after the audience has been exposed to these characters just blatantly discussing how they internally feel, there are silent scenes or introspective shots that really force the audience to decipher those same emotions. I absolutely loved how Milestone laid this out and while it was not only compelling to watch, it was decently challenging for the audience. So many of these internal monologues and emotions are portrayed through the performances by Louis Wolheim, John Wray, Arnold Lucy, and especially the lead Ayres. All of these men were exceptional actors and they embodied their roles very well. My favorite part of the film, however, was the cinematography from Arthur Edeson and Karl Freund. So many moving and energetic shots riddled the screen like the bullets that killed so many of these men and I loved the way that they use the camera to reveal tidbits of information about the story. This really helped to enhance the plot and did so in a fantastic, visual fashion.

There is never anything subtle when it comes to the tragedies of war in All Quiet on the Western Front but that honestly makes it the monumental film that it has become. I loved how relentless this movie was from its actual war scenes to its terrifying emotions and Milestone really holds nothing back when it comes to getting his anti-war message across. I never would have thought that a film like this would have been allowed to be released so soon after the first World War and in the midst of international tensions but if there was ever a movie to best display the atrocities of war so early on in the history of film, I'm glad it was this one.

My Rating: ★★★★

Forrest Gump (1994) directed by Robert Zemeckis

AFI Top 100: #76

One would think that a film chronicling the life of a man with an IQ of 75 throughout the course of many critical, historical events would be much better crafted and for the longest time, I absolutely thought so. However, Robert Zemeckis' arguably most popular film Forrest Gump is frankly not as great as I remember since seeing it when I was a child. This movie does a fantastic job of intercutting history with this newfound character and providing its audience with a fresh perspective on what could be deemed truly important in life, accompanied by a fantastic performance from its lead. What I don't recall from my first viewing of this is how mundane I actually felt about the rest of the characters in this story. While this film might take a fresh new look at how people can see important events through the eyes of a different man, it forgets to actually make us care about what is happening to him and even though I still enjoy this film for multiple reasons, it has proven increasingly harder to defend its iconic status.

Living on the precipice of many world-altering, twentieth-century events, a simple man named Forrest Gump (Tom Hanks) tells his life story on a park bench to anyone willing to listen. Such stories include the multiple occasions on which he met the president, his life serving in Vietnam, and becoming a world-famous table tennis champion, all while trying to win back the love of his childhood best friend Jenny (Robin Wright). The best parts of this film are not its plot or its direction or even its cinematography. The strongest aspects come from its lead performance, supporting performances, and score. To have a film's most standout aspects all be technical is a bit rare to see and while I do not abhorrently dislike the rest of this film, I just think that these parts are actually what makes it genuinely memorable. Alan Silvestri's score is superb and the lighthearted charm that he brings along with it fits the tone of this story wonderfully. The lead performance from Hanks is also exceptional and along with most films that he is in, he becomes the utter star within moments. Although this depiction of a man with mental limitations might be a bit dated compared to today, Hanks does a great and touching job of making his character see the light in everything around him. His innocence towards the world is embodied very well and I loved the way that Hanks can shapeshift to any situation that his character is living through. The supporting performances from Wright, Mykelti Williamson as Gump's friend Bubba, and Gary Sinise as Lieutenant Dan were all just as memorable, however, and they help to make up some of the best parts of this film. More than anything though, I believe that one of the main reasons people hail this film as being such a treasure is because it does its job very well in making the audience feel good. It is difficult not to care about the character of Forrest Gump and it is even more difficult, if not impossible, to not adore Tom Hanks. His performance paired with Zemeckis' direction know how to appeal to their audience and despite its plot issues and major focus problems, the warm vibe that radiates from this movie throughout is not easy to ignore.

Unfortunately, this film has aged like milk and an abundance of its problems have become very evident over the past few decades since its release. The script itself, written by Eric Roth and adapted from the novel by Winston Groom, is very heartwarming and tries incredibly hard to be one of the best portrayals of neverending love despite the passage of time. Roth accomplishes that goal mildly well but I think the issue was showing this film through Gump's eyes. This seems strange, given that is the point of the movie in the first place but I simply think that the perspective should have been skewed more towards the supporting characters and how Gump's positivity affected them. Since Forrest Gump focuses on tragic and world-altering events through Gump's eyes, it makes said events feel comedic or even exuberant. This was a terrible choice for how to represent assassinations, war, and racism amongst other issues, and that tonal choice just did not sit right with me. Instead of me wanting to laugh at this protagonist's antics while JFK gets shot in the head, I should be feeling for Gump struggling to understand the severity of the world. This would have given the film a much more mature feel compared to the unnecessarily childish atmosphere that was created. For a film that does just that: making historical events appear almost benign, it also expects its audience to absorb the drama of Gump's personal plot and these two expectations just do not mix. It almost appears hypocritical because while this film definitely has its fair share of various genres, it never quite settles on one, which I feel like this story desperately needed. This also applies to my argument that the supporting characters do not get as much development as I would have liked to have seen. Bringing in the character of Gump to provide a spark of joy in the traumatic times that these supporting characters are living through instead of making their troubles seem belittled would have been a much smarter approach; it would have made characters such as Jenny, Bubba, and Dan much more dimensional instead of just little slices of plot that whisk by Forrest in a dismissive manner.

Forrest Gump contains one of the most lovable characters of the 1990s and one that audiences, regardless of varied opinion, will quite honestly never forget. The performance from Hanks and score from Silvestri are possibly one of the greatest combinations to ever work together on screen and I adored how tender they made this story. However, I could not get past how mismanaged and messy the actual plot of this film was and it made me question for the first time why it has become such a legendary film. This movie is not bad by any means (it's quite cheery and overly splendid!) but it simply disappointed me a bit upon an actual revisit.

My Rating: ★★½

A Simple Plan (1998) directed by Sam Raimi

When I personally think of a Sam Raimi film, I think of The Evil Dead, Army of Darkness, or even the Tobey Maguire Spider-Man movies (which all rock by the way). I really do not think of, or even knew about, a wildly mediocre crime thriller called A Simple Plan. This 1998 film is a passable drama that excellently revolves around a group of people and how they respond to their newly discovered riches but fails to really make itself stand out as a Raimi film. I was able to predict every plot point, understand every character's motivations with ease, and was not challenged in the slightest when it came to its plot. While I was vastly underwhelmed with how unmemorable this film was, there are lots of things to appreciate about it and it does prove to at least be competent. I really hate seeing incredible talent like Bill Paxton and Billy Bob Thornton wasted but I suppose there are worse films they have been known for.

Hank (Bill Paxton), Jacob (Billy Bob Thornton), and Lou (Brent Briscoe) are three Minnesotans who are looking for Jacob's lost dog one day when they stumble upon a downed airplane full of cash. The three men decide to wait it out before they spend the $4 million but as more and more time passes, they find themselves struggling to remain loyal to themselves, each other, and they begin to spiral out of control. The script from Scott B. Smith, based on his own novel of the same name, is where I think many of this film's problems stem from. This story in itself is not at all boring, in fact, quite the opposite. I am certain that this familial and tense thriller plays out incredibly well on the page and in a long novel, I'm sure that the drama ramps up masterfully. However, I really do not think that A Simple Plan was meant to be adapted to screen because it took me forever to even get mildly invested in what it was trying to sell me. This script was chock full of mediocre dialogue, expected plot points, and little to no character development that ever even tried to make me care. It's not that I was frustrated with this film at all but I have seen this exact scenario countless times, even before 1998: men find money, men try to be smart about it, men fight over money, and then one man is left standing. The only difference in this story is that Smith did a decent job of making me care about the relationships between the people. The way that they were all connected leading to all of their downfalls was great and I really enjoyed seeing them turn on each other and take certain sides. My other main issue with this film was Raimi's direction. This is quite the ostracism compared to the rest of his movies and without his director credit, I honestly would not have been able to guess who helmed this story. It contained absolutely no traits of his previous outings that I would have been able to detect and I was severely let down by his contribution to this film. It was also far too long and an easy half an hour could have been cut out because of how its scenes were so repetitive and unnecessary.

Again, there is nothing objectively bad about this story, it's actually very interesting! I just wish that any semblance of originality could have surfaced to make this film anything more than a forgettable but serviceable thriller. Even though this is arguably one of Raimi's lesser films, there is a lot to love about it, including the cinematography, performances, and visual storytelling that bring the story altogether. The cinematography from Alar Kivilo was absolutely gorgeous and he brought a whole new light to this type of story that is rarely seen. Raimi's typical, quick pushes and pulls were evident and so much of his framing was astute that I was frequently surprised by what I was seeing. Kivilo makes this film stand out more than anyone else and he really elevates it from just another television drama into something genuinely cinematic. Although it might not be anything worth writing home about, he proves to be a fantastic addition to this movie's visual crew. A Simple Plan is constantly dramatic (at times, overly) and the tension that builds was great due to Raimi but the score from Danny Elfman really undercuts it all and skews it in directions that just did not make sense. Elfman is one of the most revered composers of all time and his work is undeniably beautiful, if only it were used in some other movie. The score was incredibly distracting and was far too cheerful for what this movie was trying to accomplish. This strange contrast made the whole movie feel much more cheesy than what I am sure Raimi was trying to accomplish and I just really do not think he was a good choice for this type of project. Despite some of its technical elements working against it, this film has some genuinely great performances from its lead cast. Paxton, Thornton, and Fonda (who plays Hank's wife Sarah) were outstanding and it was obvious how much care they put into their roles. They all enhanced this film and without their talents, it honestly would have been much more forgettable.

A Simple Plan is probably the weakest example of a Raimi film that one could choose out of his entire filmography but it is not bad in any sense of the word: just disappointing. I am glad that this film has so many redeeming aspects to prevent it from falling into the "bad" category but I was also definitely not that impressed. Nothing seems to come together very well and while the writing was predictable, Raimi's direction was also far too spacey to really attract my attention. I would recommend this movie for anyone looking for an easy and decently tense watch but really not for anyone looking to expand their horizons when it comes to groundbreaking filmmaking.

My Rating: ★★★

North by Northwest (1959) directed by Alfred Hitchcock

AFI Top 100: # 55

In honor of Alfred Hitchcock's birthday, I thought it was only appropriate to watch a film of his that I (shamefully) haven't seen before now and my god have I been missing out. North by Northwest has easily become my new favorite movie of his, as it puts his tense direction and masterful blend of genres at the forefront in ways that I have never seen. This film is a perfect blend of hilarious comedy and thrilling adventure that I was not expecting at all. While it is much more expansive than many other films of his, it only continuously proves how brilliant of a mind he has when it comes to world-building. Despite its lengthy runtime compared to other works of his, I was never bored and never felt less than entertained and especially for a film that set many standards for thrillers to come, this was exceptional. Along with absolutely excellent performances from Cary Grant and Eva Marie Saint, this will continue to impress me upon many rewatches and I can already tell that it will be a new favorite.

Roger Thornhill (Cary Grant) is a high-level advertising executive who is kidnapped one day after being mistaken for a man named George Kaplan. Thornhill is taken to the house of a foreign smuggler named Vandamm (James Mason) and questioned but when they do not believe he is telling the truth, he escapes and goes on a cross-country trip along with a dashing woman named Eve Kendall (Eva Marie Saint) in order to escape and clear his name. This film, more than anything, has set the bar incredibly high for spy thrillers of future generations and I loved how this entire story played out. It almost felt like a James Bond story in and of itself and while Grant's protagonist of Thornhill might not be as suave or charming, it definitely made the story humorous. North by Northwest is a fantastic, map-trotting adventure and I can easily see how it has inspired so many blockbusters of today but the part about Ernest Lehman's script that stood out to me the most was by far its humor. This film was authentically funny and whether it came from Thornhill being a goofball or the situational antics these characters find themselves in, it all worked together flawlessly. Very few, classic directors are able to manage this culmination of genre and I was honestly shocked at how well it all worked together. His direction is wonderful and my biggest takeaway is that anyone can tell he is having the time of his life. While this film is not contained in one place or revolves around a certain location, it becomes a huge adventure film, and all the better for it. It was more than entertaining to watch than other of his films, which does not necessarily demean the quality of them, but rather says that this movie is just a blast all around. Even though this film could have ended in multiple spots and felt a bit long at parts, it never ceased to be a grand time. By its conclusion, it is realized that every scene is necessary and that the way this story builds is wonderful and could not have been done by anyone but Hitchcock himself. And thank god for any director who decides to utilize Cary Grant as an absolute himbo.

You can't have an exciting, spy thriller without a likable lead and whether or not that person radiates sex appeal (à la James Bond like previously mentioned) or not is up to the director and thankfully, Hitchcock knew that Grant needed none of that to carry this film. His performance is extraordinary and I love how he embodies both the cluelessness yet good-hearted nature of this character. Thornhill was such a simple character to root for and one that I found myself consistently amused with. Eva Marie Saint's performance as Eve was phenomenal as well and she steals this film with her supporting role very well. The best technical part of this film was the cinematography from Robert Burks. He uses many similar shots throughout the movie to help characterize both the personalities of these characters and to assist in setting the tone and I loved how fluent and just fun his cinematography was. He was also very able to catch the humor that permeates this film within his camera work and he does so in ways that I had not seen in films this early. His sweeping movements and incredibly quick pan-ins worked so well to make the audience feel for the completely misguided character of Thornhill and I definitely appreciated that. Visual storytelling is one of a film's greatest strengths and it is often much more important than the script itself. Such a classic example can be seen in the cropduster scene that Burks shot, as it relies on the camera and performance from Grant entirely. Along with the editing by George Tomasini, this iconic scene alone defines this whole film. The spacious farmlands being the vast area explored by Hitchcock and the slow but meaningful cuts being the tension that builds throughout this film are only some of the elements of this masterfully-cut sequence. Although rarely any words were spoken, Hitchcock and his technical collaborators work together in such a fantastic way that makes North by Northwest shine incredibly bright in a filmography typically associated with dark horror and suspense.

North by Northwest is Hitchcock's absolute masterpiece and I am thoroughly surprised that it is not as acclaimed or remembered as much as his other films. It definitely deserves its spot on the AFI's Top 100 list and while it is only placed at #55, I think many would agree that it is far better than that. I adore this movie and even though it is unafraid to show its lengthiness, which could dissuade many viewers, there is so much clever filmmaking behind the scenes and choices made in the cinematography and performances that make this film nothing short of a masterpiece.

My Rating: ★★★★★

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) directed by John Huston

AFI Top 100: #38

Greed is a theme very often explored in many films and one that can actually become tiring. People get what they have coming for them, money is evil, and our economic situation is the cause for much hatred throughout the world: all of these have been seen in countless movies and while they always seem to get one over on the audience, it's difficult to look past the tropes. John Huston's The Treasure of the Sierra Madre might have all of these tropes contained within its script but it also contains some of the most original and actually interesting characters of the genre that I have seen. Inspiring both financial films of today and the aesthetic of the classic Indiana Jones franchise, there is so much about this movie that I find easy to gawk over. Huston has inarguably created a classic addition to American cinema with this film and this is easily my favorite work of his that he has ever done.

Two homeless Americans living in Mexico named Dobbs (Humphrey Bogart) and Curtin (Tim Holt) hear from the locals that a nearby mountain range might be rich for prospecting gold. They recruit the experience of an old man named Howard (Walter Huston) to help them search it out and along the way run into bandits, rival prospectors, and harsh weather in their search to find the hidden treasure. The most prevalent theme that courses throughout this film's veins is undeniable and unavoidable greed. There is really not that much else to expect when it comes to a film surrounding the world of gold prospecting but it is told by Huston and author B. Traven (who wrote the novel this film is based on) incredibly efficiently. Since greed plays such a big part in this film, it is even foreshadowed in one of the opening scenes of Dobbs and Curtin meeting Howard for the first time. Howard casually states that people, regardless of how good-natured they are, will always turn on each other whether it be violent or not. Howard warns them all from his own experience (and from being on both sides of the argument) that it will inevitably happen and whether or not it is justified, someone will always succumb to the greed. This opening scene is so important because it practically lays out the plot of the rest of the film while Huston continues to deliver little surprises in regard to plot twists. Perspective is also one of the most critical things to remember during this film because, in a sense, each man was right. They all wanted at least a portion of the gold and would do whatever it took but it really boiled down to who was the better man. As Curtin and Howard proved to be the strongest, the audience sees quite the psychological downfall of Dobbs. This decline is portrayed beautifully by Bogart and his performance absolutely helps to cement this film as one of the best examples of western greed.

John Huston's direction over the course of The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is phenomenal and the way that he calmly lays out clues for the development of each character was fascinating. Like mentioned before, the dangers of greed were laid out by Howard and Dobbs ultimately fell victim to them by being nonchalant about it never happening to him. While this was an obvious story device for Huston to utilize, I adored the development in both Curtin and Howard as well. They proved to be the actual beating hearts of this story and their path makes way for an excellent and genuinely emotional ending. Which is strange considering that Humphrey Bogart was one of the biggest up and coming stars of the time and to put him in a more degenerative role was incredibly clever, however shocking it might be to modern audiences. Curtin and Howard both got what they wanted in the latter finding a home with the Native Americans and the former traveling to Dallas to get in touch with the wife of a late prospecting partner. While they might have learned the generic lesson of how money does not really matter and that what matters most is who you are as a person even with the temptation of wealth, this message came across loud and clear and it was done simply but beautifully by Huston. Tim Holt and Walter Huston's performances were also fantastic and they embodied their roles in such an obviously charming fashion. The cinematography by Ted D. McCord stood out to me immensely and his use of framing to reveal parts of the film's visual storytelling was outstanding. So many shots told one story and with a single pan over, revealed it to be different and that motif throughout the film never ceased to be entertaining. It also works very well given the western-inspired genre and leads to this movie becoming the framework for such films as Raiders of the Lost Ark amongst countless other adventure films.

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is a perfect film in and out and I adored everything from the performances to the iconic line delivery about badges to the way that it inspired one of my favorite films of all time. However, the greatest thing about this film isn't the way it was shot or the way it was directed: it's how no matter how selfless of a person you are or even how atrocious you can be to your fellow people, you will always get what is coming to you and that takeaway continues to influence writers and directors up to today.

My Rating: ★★★★★

An American Pickle (2020) directed by Brandon Trost

No matter what you think of his brand of comedy, I will personally always be a supporter of Seth Rogen and the only thing better than one of him is two. Brandon Trost's An American Pickle is an adorable family comedy that shows more than anything that these filmmakers know how to pull at your heartstrings. Rogen gives some of his most human and grounded performances to date, the chemistry between the two different generations of his character was phenomenal, and all of the technical pieces of this film were surprisingly impressive. While there might be a definite lull in this film's direction and trouble with adapting from its source material, there is still so much to love about this tale of tradition, religion, and family that kept me more than entertained. Side note: I used a free trial for HBO Max to see this film and after browsing their catalog, I became highly tempted to get a membership because if they keep putting out fantastic stuff like this, they will easily become a strong streaming competitor.

Herschel Greenbaum (Seth Rogen) is an immigrant worker at a pickle factory in Brooklyn who accidentally falls in a vat and is sealed into the briny vinegar. When it is finally opened a hundred years later, he finds out that his only living relative is a mild-mannered coder named Ben (Seth Rogen). The two form an immediate bond and set out to rediscover their roots. An American Pickle might have one of the most generic setups for a film I have seen recently but that is what brings it so much charm. Adapted from his own short story Sell Out, Simon Rich's script is just pure delight more than anything else. This film might not be anywhere near as goofy or raunchy as Rogen's more known roles but the message and themes of family, tradition, and religion were fantastic. This film's biggest emphasis is on the generational differences between Ben and Herschel and I adored how Rich personified these differences in quite the physical way. Rich writes an incredibly touching story of these two and how they learn to adapt to each others' quirks despite having varied views and I was taken aback by how emotional this film got me to be. One of the best parts of the writing, however, was how Rich portrays Ben as being understanding of the situation with his great-grandfather's reawakening. Instead of writing him as a dumb klutz or desperately trying to connect with Herschel through modern technology, Ben as a character is more sympathetic and smarter than that. This initial generational gap was addressed quick and thankfully, it helped to move the story along from the exposition as well. While Ben and Herschel's differences indeed pave the way for a sweet ending, they also bring a lot of the humor and while none of it was frankly laugh-out-loud, the comedy touches on a lot of modern issues and satirizes so much of today's culture in an amusing way. The dual performances from Seth Rogen were also a huge bonus to making this story absolutely wonderful and he does a fantastic job of really making the audience care about each one of his characters.

The script from Rich might be immensely funny and heartwarming but the execution of his story is what truly makes or breaks it and that is where I, unfortunately, found most of the problems with this story. The direction from Trost is very scattershot throughout this entire film and the story was never really quite sure what to do with itself. Ben and Herschel go from learning about each other's previous and present lives to becoming enemies to tackling political issues all in one. There was never really a defining principle on what this film was about past the first twenty minutes or so and its structure became far too loose. Because of this unfocused direction, I was also very unsure of how I was supposed to feel about the character of Herschel. Of course, since he is from such a different generation, much of the humor comes from how out-of-date his belief system is but that is never really resolved. Instead, it goes the political route and throws him in that scene before promptly taking him out without any real explanation. I was very conflicted about whether he was supposed to be the protagonist or antagonist and the ideas that this film explores within the scenarios that Herschel finds himself in just kept getting thrown around to no avail. As much trouble as Trost has with maintaining the pace of An American Pickle, the execution still manages to be wholeheartedly cute and this story is as quick as it is enjoyable. The technical parts of this movie are also what genuinely surprised me and I ended up really loving a lot of the creative choices that were made in this movie. The score by Nami Melumad and Michael Giacchino was extraordinary and it really made me feel warm inside about this cute little family tale. The editing by Lisa Zeno Churgin and the cinematography from John Guleserian work together to tell this visual story incredibly well too. I was surprised at how much talent was put into these cinematic aspects and the constant style adjustments were very entertaining. From the aspect ratio change to the quick cuts and transitions, this film changed how it was shot and edited depending on when the story took place and little details like that never cease to amaze me.

An American Pickle might take an already established premise and just twist it around a little bit for the sake of comedy but it is nevertheless wildly entertaining. I love the simple take on this story that Trost, Rich, and Rogen pursue and this film is honestly just what I needed right now. It never attempts to be anything groundbreaking and it never really needs to be, either. Sometimes all that an audience needs is Seth Rogen, a goofy premise, and predictable storytelling and I thank him and his producing partner Evan Goldberg for constantly churning out these lovable stories.

My Rating: ★★★

Shane (1953) directed by George Stevens

AFI Top 100: #45

The western genre doesn't get any more classic than this and I am honestly surprised that director George Stevens and a cast full of performers I did not entirely recognize could be the ones to bring this experience to me. Shane is an excellent western film that truly embodies what the genre brings to the table compared to other films of this era and I think it does a fantastic job of just that. While I was never completely sold on the story in regards to my emotions or care for the characters, there is so much to love about this film and it never ceases to be a solid watch, regardless if one enjoys films of this variety or not. The technicals throughout this film are what really hold it together too, as the cinematography and production design carries this movie better than so many others I have ever seen. It is quite obvious why this film made it on the AFI's Top 100 list and I can plainly see why it has become one of the most influential westerns of all time.

Retired gunslinger Shane (Alan Ladd) arrives at a small homestead headed by Joe Starrett (Van Heflin) and is hired to be a helping hand as he hopes to settle down. As he begins to become part of the family along with Joe's wife Marian (Jean Arthur) and son Joey (Brandon De Wilde), a local group of beef ranchers led by Rufus Ryker (Emile Meyer) start to cause trouble and Shane is brought into their conflict of who rightfully owns the land. A.B. Guthrie Jr.'s script, adapted from the novel by Jack Schaefer, was absolutely solid and this film honestly contains some of the most western elements I have ever seen. From the main, gunslinging hero to the black-and-white conflict of good vs. evil, Shane really contains everything that fans of this genre come to expect. The titular character of Shane is such an interesting one for Stevens and Guthrie Jr. to revolve this film around and he became my almost immediate point of interest. Choosing him as the "main" character was a bit strange as this film mostly focuses on the Starrett family but I loved how these filmmakers framed Shane as the catalyst for change. It is important that Shane showed to help the town for the better but without the previously established backstory or lore, it was just a bit hard to believe the credibility of how plot-progressive Shane could actually be. While often predictable, Stevens' direction and the path that he follows to tell this story are also very generic. There was nothing wrong with the way that he tells this film but it could have honestly been directed by anyone and I would not have known the difference. Compared to one of his previous films Swing Time, so many comparisons can be made about the hero's journey, and even in just examining these two films, the similar style can be seen. Stevens might not have a distinguishable aesthetic to his films but he proves his competency in handling a story better than most. All these storytelling elements diverge to make a great western and while the story itself never fully engrossed me due to its lack of lore, it was a simple enough watch to keep me quite entertained.

While the writing and direction itself felt a bit mundane throughout the course of this whole film, the technical pieces are really what opened my eyes to this story's beauty. The cinematography by Loyal Griggs, in particular, as his use of the camera is absolutely phenomenal. He builds this film in a visual storytelling sense better than any of the other crew members possibly could and I was constantly enthralled by seeing how this film played out; not just in its writing but with how he could originally and creatively shoot this tale. The sweeping shots of this stretch of land where the story took place were stunning and I genuinely felt like I was there within every shot. That might seem a bit cliché, given that the camera is typically the most important creative part of a film, but Shane embodies this like no other color film of this time. Every crisp mountain point and every grimy foot of dirt was expressed beautifully to create such a picture-perfect western environment. Along with the camerawork, the editing by William Hornbeck and Tom McAdoo was fantastic and worked with the camera to really show off this world. Their choices of cuts were fantastic and definitely built some of the best tension in this genre I have ever seen: especially in that of the action sequences. Just like many westerns that became popular in America at this time, the set design and costuming were incredibly important and those departments did not let down either. They were incredible and this really felt like a true western in every sense of the word. The small-scale sets of Starrett's house and the accompanying town actually felt huge and the way that Griggs moves his camera around these settings was unlike anything I have seen before. They helped to give this film such an individual and personal look that not only gives it some character but makes its audience care for its characters even more. Although the writing and direction left a little bit originality to be desired, there is so much beauty and inspiration to be found in the amazing technical work throughout this film.

I very much enjoyed Shane more than I probably should have and all of its pieces come together in a simple but very effective way. Stevens' direction and the restrained performance from Ladd are only a few of the things I loved so much about this movie but they all really come together to make an exceptional little story. If it weren't for the gorgeous cinematography and breathtaking production design, I honestly don't think that this film would have been as good as it was but thankfully, they did nothing but enhance the world around this story. I would definitely recommend this movie and I am glad that this film was a genuinely enjoyable experience.

My Rating: ★★★½

The Philadelphia Story (1940) directed by George Cukor

AFI Top 100: #44

First off, I'd like to thank George Cukor for giving us incredibly drunk Jimmy Stewart carrying Katharine Hepburn and belting "Over the Rainbow" because that is not only what defines my aesthetic but what honestly makes this entire film worth a watch. The Philadelphia Story is an exceptional romantic-comedy that defined how to make a story like this back in the 1940s. I really enjoyed this movie for everything that it was and there is frankly not much that I would do to change it. Although it might come off as generic in terms of the plot and its predictability, Cukor's film is an excellent examination of the hilarity that can ensue from not a love triangle, but rather a love square. Accompanied by some fantastic performances from its entire cast, musical cues, and editing that really enhance the experience, it is not difficult to fall desperately in love with this story.

When rich socialite Tracy Lord (Katharine Hepburn) is set to be married to George Kittredge (John Howard), her ex-fiancée C.K. Dexter Haven (Cary Grant) is hired by his publisher to cover the wedding. Tagging along with him is writer Macaulay Connor (Jimmy Stewart) and photographer Elizabeth Imbrie (Ruth Hussey), who all end up entangled in a mess of an upcoming marriage. The script from Donald Ogden Stewart, based on the play of the same name by Philip Barry, is brilliant, and especially in the dialogue between the characters, so much chemistry is shown. What really carries this film is the relationships and dynamics between the characters and they were all nothing short of charming. I adored the romantic vibes that radiated from this film and this is honestly one of the more funnier ones of this era that I have seen. The Philadelphia Story does an incredible job of executing its premise of a four-way love conflict and the interactions between them all were not only believable but also hilarious. I absolutely adored all of the humor in this movie and it is used in just the right times to make its characters that much more exciting. This all would not have been possible, however, if not for the performances from the entire cast. Hepburn, Grant, Hussey, and Howard made for the perfect little group of elites, and the way that this film simultaneously mocks them and makes you feel for them is embodied perfectly by the cast. They are all phenomenal together but Stewart is honestly who steals the show for me (surprise, surprise) and even though he is a supporting character, he embodies the lovestruck best friend character better than I could have imagined. As strange as it sounds, this film is the perfect vehicle for Stewart to not be in the spotlight because I believe that not as much pressure was put on him to be a leading man. This gave way for one of the funniest performances of his that I can remember and it also further deepens my love for his genre-crossing talents.

This film might not contain the most original plot or premise ever written, but I will always be a sap for a good ending and Cukor absolutely nails this. Every emotional beat that should be felt during a romantic-comedy such as this one is prevalent and Cukor proves that he knows how to get emotion out of his audience. From the genuinely funny one-liners to the longing that I felt during so many of this film's romantic scenes, they are all balanced together well and Cukor deserves nothing but praise for his simply excellent story. His direction is also great because he is able to handle every character with ease and gave them all plenty of time to develop on their own. He also did this without ever making the film feel dull and I really appreciate how he paces the entire movie. Tracy could have ended up with either of the three men and I honestly would have been happy because more than anything, this film is about her as a character. It takes until the end of the film to realize but Hepburn is the emotional center of this story and the final scene cements just that. It's also surprising that The Philadelphia Story also only takes place in one house and in a few select locations because I am typically not that entertained by films that limit themselves such as this. Especially in this genre, I am usually expecting something wild to happen to the characters or for them to travel to a strange location but this film did just fine with itself by staying within certain boundaries. That goes for the plot as well: no unnecessary risks were taken with who the audience thought Tracy might end up with but it was compelling all the same. Neither the cinematography nor editing were anything spectacular (partly due to the fact that the same location was used) but they all worked together to tell a decently exciting visual story.

The Philadelphia Story is not at all what I was expecting but I am more than glad that it surpassed said expectations. Based on the poster, one might think that this film was much more of a noir or family drama but the smack in the face that was the romantic tone from scene one was a welcome addition into what I thought would be a much duller experience. As I have mentioned countless times before, Jimmy Stewart will always make a film better and while the entire cast was exceptional, his charm will always elevate a film into legendary, entertaining status.

My Rating: ★★★★½