Far from Heaven (2002) directed by Todd Haynes

Oh, to be Julianne Moore openly demonstrating human rights discussion while simultaneously dressing as a fashionable, '50s housewife. Todd Haynes' film Far from Heaven is a very interesting drama with a lot of compelling potential but one that fails to really decide upon a path and stick with it. This film is the epitome of white, milquetoast perspective, as it brings light to a lot of the glaring racism and homophobia issues of the 1950s but does not really have anything to say for itself past the introduction of these themes. Bordering between social critique and takedown of the nuclear household, this film reminds me a lot of American Beauty but without the edge of its dark, satirical comedy. The performances from the main cast and the cinematography throughout this film are absolutely worth nothing for how elegantly they were weaved into the film but when it comes to the direction and script, I just could not get past how bland this otherwise compelling premise turned out to be.

Cathy Whitaker (Julianne Moore) lives as a housewife for her husband Frank (Dennis Quaid) while raising their two children. When Frank's repressed sexuality begins to come to light and Cathy deals with a newfound relationship with her gardener's son Raymond (Dennis Haysbert), all of the troubles and prejudices of the 1950s begin to crash in around her. This film, written and directed by Twitter's favorite filmmaker Todd Haynes, is such an interesting one to examine because of its potential to critique and analyze societal problems much bigger than itself. As Cathy is struggling with her relationship with Raymond, a black man in the 1950s, her husband Frank is also dealing with his relationship with the men in his life and while these two classes of people definitely did not have the easiest time in this era, Far from Heaven did not really do anything to ease that tension. The semi-romantic subplot between Cathy and Raymond was interesting and the repression of urges subplot that Frank displays is just as interesting too but neither were ever really fleshed out. The character of Cathy just sort of meandered around the story, soaking in the cultural issues around her and this movie never tried to really say anything about that, other than bringing awareness to the topics. Focusing a film on the housewife character and giving her a much more emotional range than what has often been seen in film before is a very progressive and fantastic idea. The issue I had with this aspect of the writing is that in order to make said housewife character a good protagonist, there needs to be some kind of change that they go through that is directly caused by them and not just them being submissive. That was my main problem with the character of Cathy is that while it is fantastic seeing how she recognizes and deals with the prejudices that are thrown her way, she never does anything productive herself to better the situation. This is not to say that I expected her to lead some kind of racial, sexual, or cultural revolution but I at least wanted her to have much more agency than she was given.

Even though this film's attempt at providing something unique with its housewife character did not bode entirely well, Haynes' direction does a great job of satirizing the soap opera, overly dramatic style of filmmaking. The way that he paces this story shows so much mastery of the dramatic genre and I loved seeing how well he could handle these multiple subplots. Haynes digs deep into the American suburb, "trouble in paradise" tropes and I did find a lot of enjoyment with his handling of that along with the production design and costuming that helped to set this scene very well. James Lyons' editing also plays into this a lot, as he is very clean with knowing when to cut during dialogue. Focusing on one characters' reactions despite who might be talking is a technique that only sometimes pays off but along with Haynes' reflexive attitude towards the genre, his cutting works so undeniably well. The cinematography from Edward Lachman also stood out to me a lot and every scene of this film seems to be shot with the utmost focus on lighting and mood, which really helps create this uneasy, suburban atmosphere. However, the undoubtedly best part of this entire film was the performance from Julianne Moore. Quaid and Haysbert were both solid in their supporting roles but Moore steals this movie like no one else could. She plays such a perfect sponge, as her character simply absorbs every bad thing happening to people in her life, which makes the occasional, emotional outbursts in her character that much more affecting. The writing may not have given her that much to work with but her acting abilities really up this film's ante and she personifies the submissive housewife incredibly well. I think the restraint that Moore shows throughout this movie is really the highlight of her talent because while she very easily could have fought back or been more blatant about her character's motivations, the subtlety in the emotions of her character were played very well. Like I mentioned, I wish that Moore could have been given something stronger to work with but when placed into a film that does not necessarily have anything memorably strong, it becomes easy for her to be the standout.

Todd Haynes' Far from Heaven is far from perfect and with his lackluster handling of this story's many ideas, I just think there was too much thrown into this movie all at once. Films that center around a protagonist as they are put through the ringer of countless conflicts are very hit or miss and while usually done for comedy, this film could not exactly nail the dramatic aspects of it either. Julianne Moore was definitely the greatest part of this movie, however, and if nothing else, at least we got to see her as a strong lead character for once.

My Rating: ★★★

Nashville (1975) directed by Robert Altman

AFI Top 100: #59

When I chose this film to watch from my list of remaining entries into the AFI's Top 100 list, I was definitely not expecting one of its main, political plots to be so comparable to today. Robert Altman's Nashville is a grand, massive-in-scale film with unexpected, contemporary relevance that unfortunately fails to really deliver on the epic qualities it promises. While I began this film with only the knowledge that it was partially about the country music scene of the 1970s, I was surprised by how many different subplots and character arcs were introduced. That is where I got lost, however, as this film tries to be so much all at once but at the same time, is unable to really say anything at all. The writing was ill-assorted, the performances were incredibly forgettable, and the direction made me feel like I was an unknowing bystander in these characters' lives. Even though the individual themes it touches on were done well and the music was extraordinary, I just could not become engaged with this story in the slightest.

Over the course of five days, a hodgepodge group of Americans travels to the famous city of Nashville, Tennessee to attend a rally for Hal Phillip Walker (Thomas Hal Phillips) as he is the Replacement Party candidate for the office of president. As their stories begin to intersect before the political convention, a slice of American life is explored through their different careers, upbringings, and shared love of country music. For a film that explores how music and its relating culture affect the careers and personalities of people, it does so in a surprising fashion. The script from Joan Tewkesbury is fairly mediocre but if there is one thing it does well, it's the inclusion of music and contrasting behaviors. Nashville touches on a lot of great themes including political persuasion, celebrity culture, and sexual harassment in the music industry but the writing never attempted to make amends for many of its subplots. The problem with this film is that it also never really attaches itself to one overarching message and becomes so incredibly mismanaged. The event of the political rally was sitting right there and while I understand that Tewkesbury might not have wanted to make this an overtly political film, I think the film would have benefitted from the convention evolving into something more than just a setting for the narrative's conclusion. It was such a compelling story point to see all of the various walks of life come together in the city of Nashville but the sheer amount of characters and their accompanying subplots quickly became overwhelming. The scale of this film grew so large to the point that I became disconnected from the characters arcs and the story proves to be much more than I could handle. Yes, Altman was deliriously determined to tell this story in a chaotic manner that it almost requires but that never changed the fact that I was consistently lost and reaching for any semblance of clarity. In fact, this cast is so large that it almost becomes the Avengers of 1970s Hollywood Renaissance film stars and because of the lack of cohesion when it came to their characters, this film quickly devolved into a game of "spot the celebrity cameo."

The direction from Altman also shows a lack of understanding of how to satisfactorily tell a story of this magnitude. Like I had previously mentioned, this movie is so large and does not succeed in tackling so many different things that it comes off as a half-assed attempt to import every little piece of 1970s country culture. I truly think that Altman does better with a group-oriented film setting if the characters he is handling are prioritized into one, central goal. The obvious example being M*A*S*H, as the group of military medics are placed into a comedy setting and work to waste the days away. Nashville, on the other hand, tries to be too many different genres at once and never quite settles on one tone. There is plenty of drama, sex, politics, and a dash of comedy, but never once would I be able to place a genre upon this movie. Which would not necessarily be bad if it had done anything new with the story but instead, the writing just throws all the plots together and hopes for the best when the characters are able to physically be in the same place at the end. One of my main issues with Altman's direction, on top of not hooking me into the story, is that I have never felt more omniscient than I have with this film. Typically, dramas are supposed to get its audience engaged with the story and really relate to and connect with the main characters but I could not help but feel an intensely strong disconnect between me and the leads. I could genuinely sense the screen between me and this story and that is not what you want your audiences to be doing when trying to bring out any bit of emotional attachment. I felt as if I were peeking into the lives of these characters without any intersection and because of how distant I was from their conflicts, it never felt personal. This might also have to do with the cinematography from Paul Lohmann, which was very hard to look at. Nashville, despite its patriotic and beautiful atmosphere, is shot terribly and every scene felt so awkward to look at. I did not appreciate the camerawork and the unsettling movements that Lohmann opted to use, as it felt like a half-baked documentary more than a narrative feature. But hey, at least we got some good music and I firmly believe that Keith Carradine's Oscar-winning performance of "I'm Easy" was the best part of it all.

Robert Altman's Nashville is a semi-classic film that I have never really learned about, nor have I heard anyone praise or discuss. Which is why it came as a surprise to me that a film I thought would be a sleeper hit with a cast so grand ended up being such a convoluted mess. There was so much potential for this movie to be a country music classic and one that showcased all of the best aspects of Altman's directorial style but I just think his goal of making this massive style of narrative proved to be too ambitious. I can plainly see why critics love this and why it has become memorable but the glaring issues with the direction and writing were too prominent for me to ignore.

My Rating: ★★½

The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957) directed by David Lean

AFI Top 100: #36

Another day, another war film crossed off the AFI's Top 100 list, I suppose. David Lean's war epic The Bridge on the River Kwai is a beautifully-shot, brilliantly-acted film that has nothing evidently wrong with it but one that just failed to keep my attention. The story presented here is very interesting and seeing a tale of survival and hope in the midst of a terrible war will never cease to be inspiring but I guess I have just become so numb to this type of storytelling at this point. I can clearly see how and why this has become one of the most famous and referenced war films of its era but I honestly found the script and Lean's direction to be far too slow for my own taste. Even though the film itself looks gorgeous and it is shot much differently than other war stories are, I just could not get past how much this movie lulls in certain sections. I found myself checking my phone during this movie a LOT and for an avid filmgoer like me who actually has an attention span, that is never really a good sign.

Help captive as POWs by Japanese forces, Colonel Nicholson (Alec Guinness) and his group of British soldiers are forced to build a bridge for them to use to transport people and supplies. When the American Navy finds out that the British are being held against their will, they send an undercover officer named Shears (William Holden) along with a group of skilled mercenaries to arm and detonate the bridge with a series of explosives. The script, penned by Carl Foreman and Michael Wilson and adapted from the novel by Pierre Boulle, does its job incredibly well. And by doing its job I mean providing a serviceable and inspiring story about the determination of the army to do good by its fellow countries. The writing itself was fine and there is nothing to complain about with how Foreman and Wilson handle this story but I just did not find the mission of blowing up a bridge too compelling. There are plenty of war films with much more exciting premises and while action does not necessarily equate to a good film, I just did not find this simple mission to be enough to carry an entire story. There were plenty of subplots showing the cruelty of other countries during this time and one regarding the coverups that even the American military forces can gloss over but the main plot just simply failed to keep my attention. It doesn't help that the film was almost three hours long, either, and I feel as if Lean's direction could have picked up the pace quite a bit. Despite the story not feeling too interesting, there is a lot to admire about how these writers handled the dialogue. The interactions between the different ranks of soldiers and how they were all placed on the same level as POWs were very engaging and I also thought that the exploration of how different cultures abided by the Geneva Conventions was fascinating. While it may not be entirely true or heightened for dramatic effect, there are still some shining parts of this script that kept it from becoming far duller.

The performances from Alec Guinness and William Holden are very solid and they definitely stood out as some of the best parts of the entire film. They carried such a unique dynamic because while they were both technically fighting against the Japanese, they also had two different goals in mind when it came to what was going to happen to the bridge. This fresh, inner conflict created one of the best parts throughout The Bridge on the River Kwai and I loved the way these two performers were able to embody their contrast. The cinematography from Jack Hildyard might have been my absolute favorite part of this film, however, as the movie itself was gorgeous. Typically, war films use bleak camerawork to really pound in the gruesomeness and ruthlessness of war, accompanied by depressing color grading. This film took a very different kind of approach, however, as the bright and vivid colors that Hildyard was able to capture blew me away. It must have been the cinemascope working well for him because I was in awe at the wide way he was able to portray this jungle. Very rarely do I see a cinematographer shoot a film set in nature or during a war and focus on the actual, beautiful nature of it all. The wildlife, forestry, and agriculture actually functioned as characters in this film and I adored how it was able to rise above just being part of the setting. Even though this film looked incredible and was interesting in little bursts, I do not think there was enough compression of the plot to make this story as good as it could have been. Lean's direction was fine and he handles the characters and actual story well but the pacing of this film was just tiring. I truly don't think there was enough interesting material to warrant 2 hours and 41 minutes of war film and I quickly grew aware of that. Peter Taylor's editing could have very easily helped to move along this story; while I understand that Lean probably wanted to show off his budget and massive array of beautiful shots, sometimes cutting something down more is much more beneficial and this is definitely one of those cases.

The Bridge on the River Kwai might boast an impressive budget and some serious cinematography talent but that never quite made up for the fact that I became uninterested very quickly. Holden and Guinness are both excellent and hold up this story with their energy very well but not enough to wow me like I had expected. I feel like this film is the epitome of when someone says that their boomer father is into boring war movies. I just could not get myself invested into this as much as other people have and while there is nothing wrong with this storytelling style, it just really, really isn't for me.

My Rating: ★★★

Shithouse (2020) directed by Cooper Raiff

Yes, I often get homesick about seeing my family. Yes, I often have a hard time forming lasting relationships with people. And yes, I love my mom more than any other person on this planet but Cooper Raiff's directorial debut shows that there is absolutely nothing wrong with those feelings. Shithouse is one of the greatest and most painfully authentic films of this entire year and one that I personally resonated with a LOT more than I would care to admit. This 22-year old's debut film is one of the most tender coming-of-age stories I have ever seen and the level of self-taught craftsmanship that is shown throughout this movie is astounding. Raiff's film is one that truly signals our new generation of filmmakers and one that uses its minuscule budget to its absolute advantage. The performances are fantastic, the direction is impeccable, and the mumblecore feeling of the plot makes this story such a viscerally emotional experience that anyone at my age going through the social hell of college can relate with.

Alex (Cooper Raiff) has gone through almost six months of college in California without truly making a single friend. He decides to put himself out there by going to parties and meeting new people when he has an encounter with his dorm's RA named Maggie (Dylan Gelula). The two of them begin to strike up an unlikely and unusual romance as they learn more about each other and grow into themselves in the nightmare that can be a college campus. There are many directions that a story like this could go. It could take the cheesy route, utilizing tropes of the genre ending up with a predictable conclusion, but that would probably be directed by a middle-aged man out of touch with the actual generation he is depicting. It could go the darker and drug-fueled route, honing in on alcoholism and drug use of the youth, but that would probably be directed by someone who is far too into suffering porn. Shithouse, on the other hand, is directed by someone who knows our modern generation better than anyone: a guy who is actually a part of it. Cooper Raiff's writing and direction throughout this film are genuinely fantastic and it does not get more true to the source than a film helmed by someone who can see and brilliantly recognize the social anxieties that our generation all suffers from. The character of Alex is such a well-written embodiment of the contemporary teenager starting college and I adored how Raiff is able to incorporate what I assume are real-world experiences into this film. While I could genuinely relate to Alex on a personal level in terms of his emotional relationship with his mom and his inability to put himself out there socially, I feel like he is very much characterized by our entire culture. Every element of Raiff's storytelling is just rife with humanistic qualities and as I sat in front of the screen watching this, I could see myself and so many people I know. This young filmmaker is only a year older than me and is already able to create a movie as phenomenal and relatable as this one, so if I hadn't felt like enough of a failure before, I sure do now. Although I personally hope to get into film editing as a career in the future, what this film exceeds at most is showing how no matter the age of a filmmaker, there will always be genuine stories to tell that deserve to be listened to.

As Raiff's writing excels in literally every category, his direction also stood out to me very prominently. What I loved about his handling of this story is that it never exactly follows a three-act structure while still keeping you reeled in like crazy. Raiff's self-taught talent proves to pay off because the way he leads this story is unlike any other coming-of-age film that I have seen and I was floored by how natural it all felt. Shithouse finds its success in how disjointed and unbalanced the pacing of this story is. While most filmmakers would have trouble striking a balance with this technique, it comes off as effortless for Raiff. The relationship between Alex and Maggie is struck up over the course of one night which takes up practically the first hour of the film. As the two of them encounter struggles as they go through college, weeks, months, and years are jumped around but this inconsistent timeline works like aces. Relationships might not always work out in the beginning but may find better footing years later. Relationships can feel awkward at times, with either party never quite knowing where they stand in the other's list of emotional priorities. And above all, relationships are surely never as easy as they make it seem in the movies but Shithouse is more reality than it is film, which is what gives this college romance such a remarkably unique tone. The performances from Raiff and Gelula were just astounding and their chemistry together is unmatched. Raiff is so, so good at playing and directing himself into this type of character and he does a great job of making Alex's actions and reactions seem justified. Gelula has been one of my favorite, underrated actresses for a while now and this might be the biggest role I have seen her in so far. She completely nails the complex and funny personality of Maggie and she is truly the marker in making Alex and Maggie's relationship seem bona fide. And on top of all of that, this film is just downright hilarious. So many scenes are things that have played out in my own life and ones which have made me crack up knowing that I had reacted in the same way. The cinematography and editing were both very clean and gave this film a delightfully neutral, visual style but due to the writing and direction, Raiff is the real star here.

IFC has made an incredible decision by releasing this film because not only does Shithouse function well within the studio's creative realm but they have given Raiff an amazing platform to bolster his creative talent. This movie is one of my absolute favorites this year and in a world so congested with terrible things beyond my control, it's nice knowing that there is someone else out there with similar social issues and a passion for filmmaking. I can't wait to see where Raiff goes next, as he is one of the youngest and most sincere talents that audiences should be looking out for.

My Rating: ★★★★½

The Forty-Year-Old Version (2020) directed by Radha Blank

Very rarely does a massive streaming corporation like Netflix surprise me with what they choose to pick up from festivals but if the one exception had to be this film, then wow. Radha Blank's The Forty-Year-Old Version is an absolutely astounding directorial, producing, and acting debut and one that deserves accolades upon accolades. Every element about this movie is flawlessly put together and one thing made clear is that Blank is not an upcoming talent to take for granted. Her cinematic efforts throughout this film paired with the stupendous editing and cinematography make this autobiographical dramedy one of the most compelling stories I have seen this year. While the plot itself follows some typical beats and I did not quite care for one of the subplots, there is so much to love about this film. Even though Blank's career has gone on for decades without many people knowing, this cinematic reboot of her talents proves that she is not a force to be reckoned with.

"30 Under 30" playwright Radha Blank (herself) has an established career as one of the most promising writers of the new age but spends her time teaching acting at a local school. When she decides to reinvent her artistic career by making her own mixtape and putting out her message through lyricism, she struggles with the classic, artist's conundrum: pursuing what one loves vs. selling out in order to make money and survive. Blank is the ultimate, artistic threat throughout this film as she writes, directs, produces, and stars in this autobiographical story of her own experiences. While that amount of work carried on one's back can often lead to a more self-congratulating type of story, the way that she handles her own past about her career was fantastic. Blank is completely earnest with how she was able to reinvent her artistic self and of course, that comes with the ups and downs of starting a music career. I loved how her writing was able to incorporate such honest themes of selling out, the road to success, and the dreaded imposter syndrome and to be able to openly talk about one's own downfalls is so inspiring. It was also such a nice, reassuring touch to throw in the footage of her actual first, musical performance in the end credits and while nothing throughout the film ever suggested inauthenticity, I'm just always a sucker for end credit scenes like that. There may have been a slight diversion in the writing, focusing on Blank's newfound relationship with a beats producer named D (Oswin Benjamin) that I found a bit distracting towards her overall goal, but Blank was able to infuse this aspect decently well. Her direction was also entirely solid and she shows more than anything that she has a strong, strong grasp on how to tell a fluid story. The pacing and emotional beats of The Forty-Year-Old Version were great and while I did find the structure of the movie to venture into predictable territory, the subject matter was never too dull to sway my attention. For a story with as much enthusiasm as this one, though, it is difficult not to completely persuade your audience with a story that is so obviously close to your own heart.

Blank's handling of this story was just wonderful and while her writing/directing abilities rear their confident heads, her performance stood out just as much. There is definitely an art to playing yourself in a film and while I have not really seen any other movies with such engaging performances, Blank absolutely knocks it out of the park. She nails every dramatic scene, every bit of comedic timing, and every little personal detail that goes into creating herself, and I was just blown away by the level of sincerity that I could see from her performance. Not only is this movie self-reflexive but it gives Blank a chance to really air out some of her career pet peeves and truly find herself within this story. Not to mention the fact that she is downright hilarious, as The Forty-Year-Old Version has some of the most real and honest humor that I have seen recently. Along with Blank's portrayal of herself, the technical pieces of this movie and the creative decisions that they made were breathtaking. The cinematography from Eric Branco was just delightful and I loved his use of the handheld camera to tell this story. The slow whips and pans that he uses during scenes to capture most of the dialogue and action in one take were just awesome to watch and really created a sense of environment in her version of New York City. Most films utilize back-and-forths or wider shots to encompass everything happening within each scene but Branco opts to use more movement, which I greatly appreciated because of how well it establishes the setting and characterizes the mental state of our protagonist. I also loved his use of color and how much the black-and-white creative decision played into the plot. There are only certain moments in this film that are shot in color and especially in the ending, the slow fade back into realism was *chef's kiss*. These cinematographic techniques never distracted or took away from Robert Grisby Wilson's editing, however, which was also amazing. The quick cuts that he uses help to push along each scene very well and gives this film a sense of place because of how fluidly the story moves ahead. The cuts within the takes to emphasize dialogue were also a technique that is used very much in French New Wave cinema and indies of the current day. It is always a choice that I will 100% be down to see and honestly, bravo all around.

Radha Blank's The Forty-Year-Old-Version is not just an examination of the contrast between generations but an examination of success. I absolutely adored the focus on Blank's career and sticking to what her heart tells her to despite monetary gain and her direction of herself and the rest of the cast proves to be phenomenal. As mentioned though, not much of the story structure was particularly unique but Blank shows better than I could have expected that she knows how to hit the emotional beats of a story and get an audience to go along with it. All the better for her film, of course, because I could have followed her story until she was forty-one.

My Rating: ★★★★

Love and Monsters (2020) directed by Michael Matthews

The greatest thing about this film is not that it has an adorable dog or even that it features Michael Rooker with a full head of hair, but that it gives its audience exactly what they came for: love and monsters. Love and Monsters is a fantastically fun adventure film that is one of my biggest surprises of this year. I have been excited about this movie for weeks since first seeing the trailer and I am so happy to say that I was not let down. From the unique writing to the incredible creature design, there is so much to love about this harmless, apocalyptic family movie. Sure, the direction can be a bit slow and most of the plot points are fairly predictable but there is nothing to be found in this movie except pure entertainment. This is surprising, given that the idea is wholly original and not based on any previous works but all of its elements come together to make one of the cutest sci-fi stories I have seen in quite some time.

Seven years after the Monsterpocalypse, mutated creatures roam the earth and have taken control of all the land as the remaining humans live underground in bunkers. When Joel (Dylan O'Brien) is finally able to reconnect with his high school girlfriend Aimee (Jessica Henwick) and finds out that she only lives 80 miles away, he decides to risk his life going to the surface and traveling across the monster-ridden land to find her. This futuristic premise is a fantastic blend of genre and as the name implies, contains a great mix of both romance and sci-fi. The script from Brian Duffield and Matthew Robinson is excellent and they are able to brilliantly combine these two genres to make such an exciting, little movie that anyone can rightfully enjoy. The romantic aspects of this film were very John Hughes-esque in the sense that these young characters have fallen so greatly in love with no real, explored history. While there is plenty of background written to justify Joel's choice to leave his bunker, the plot still falls deep into the pit of hopeless romance. But sometimes, and often with this type of adventure film, that willingness to do anything for someone you love is crucial and for Joel, his mission was the most important thing to him. Despite characters that he runs into along the way warning him against such blinding love, such as Clyde (Michael Rooker) and Minnow (Ariana Greenblatt), Joel persists and his steadfast character traits are what make him so lovable. Paired with a tendency to freeze when confronted by the massive monstrosities, Joel is such a quirky and relatable character that I feel a lot of us can connect with on both an emotional and stubborn level. All of the characters throughout Love and Monsters might have been a bit archetypal for this genre of movie but they all played their parts very well. My only issue with this film was Michael Matthews' direction. While he handles the story relatively well, it is much longer than it needs to be and so many scenes follow the same formula over and over again, which became a bit dull. Although Matthews' direction could have used a bit more clarification in parts and could have led the audience in more understandable ways, all of the pieces come together to make this such an imaginative and unique movie.

Love and Monsters might follow a very recognizable formula with the lovely plot fueled by its young characters but there are genuinely some other elements that make it stand out. The part of Duffield and Robinson's script that I loved most was how the ending took a bit more of a twist than I was expecting. Minor (predictable) spoilers ahead but the moment when Joel is finally able to reach Aimee and realizes that she never really wanted him there as a love interest in the first place was such an honest and authentic way of writing this story's climax. It paved the way for Joel to realize that the true and reliable love in his life has always been his community of people in the bunkers. He knows that they will always be there for him and after spending seven years of his life growing and bonding, he has an epiphany of their undying love. This message of loving your family, despite not always being related by blood, is such an overused one but it fits its way into this film like no other. Many movies need to be made to make their audience feel good and Love and Monsters accomplishes just that: by creating this neverending sense of community that the character of Joel can thrive in. Dylan O'Brien embodies this incredibly well too and while his performance might not be anything awards-worthy, he is just having a blast in this film and it is obvious from the get-go. O'Brien is such an awkwardly charming lead that steals this movie like no one else could and getting to see him roam the earth with a dog running away from monsters and learning life lessons is something that can just be so personal. The monster design in this movie is surprisingly well-thought-out and I loved the variance and lore that was explored. All of the insects and amphibians had been mutated due to the apocalypse and the way they were designed to become giant, often disgusting-looking beasts were fantastic. I was never bored by the colorful, dazzling visuals of this film like I often am with apocalypse movies and while it is very apparent loads of CGI were used to create these horrible monsters, it works very well for the tone that this movie is establishing. This film is some of the most fun I've had watching from home this year and I would strongly recommend this for a fun movie night, as it is definitely worth its price.

Michael Matthews' Love and Monsters is an absolutely enormous delight, bringing Dylan O'Brien (one of the original white boys of the month) back into the spotlight in such an admirable way. He is definitely able to carry a purely fun movie such as this and the lovable characters throughout this film make for such an unabashedly goofy time. I am actually zealous that I did not go into this film with incredibly high expectations because when it comes to a movie like this, that is not the route to take. But when it comes to enjoying an exciting and unique take on the ever-popular, apocalyptic genre that we almost seem to be living at this point, Love and Monsters gives us just what we need.

My Rating: ★★★½

All About Eve (1950) directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz

AFI Top 100: #28

Boy, I sure do wish someone would tell me what this movie is all about! All stupid jokes aside, Joseph L. Mankiewicz's All About Eve is a spectacularly classic film that contains some of the involved actors' best performances of their careers. This film is a brilliant, observational piece about the transition from the New York stage acting scene to the hustle and bustle of Hollywood and I loved how the writing and direction handled this unique, rise-to-stardom story. While definitely a unique take on the typical plot of a performer rising towards fame, this movie also beautifully touches on the idea of passing on the torch to a new generation while simultaneously feeling threatened by their ambition. Along with some fantastic, personable cinematography and writing that continued to draw me in, this movie falls into the category of 50s films about filmmaking but stands apart from the rest thanks to its wonderful idiosyncrasy.

Margo (Bette Davis) is one of the most refined actresses of her generation, drawing in crowds in New York like no other. Contrary to the wishes of her best friend Birdie (Thelma Ritter), Margo takes dedicated fan Eve (Anne Baxter) under her wing and begins to train her to become the next great actress, all the while not knowing that Eve has set out to capsize her idol's career. Joseph L. Mankiewicz's long career writing and directing for Hollywood is the perfect primer for the type of story that he is telling here. I, like practically every other cinephile I know, am a sucker for films about filmmaking and especially in this sense, the rise of stars and how new generations of talent eventually take over the spotlight. This story was just entrancing and I loved how it was akin to the original A Star is Born in the same way that it focuses on the rise of one star as the other steadily declines. While All About Eve is not at all a romantic film, its hyperfocus on the eventual downfall of Margo is fantastic and Mankiewicz really knows how to diverge his audience's minds on who they are supposed to be rooting for. There is never really an antagonist in this film, however, as the ebb and flow of generational stardom just happen to be a natural thing. What this movie does best, however, is portray this transition as almost a thing of spite in the characters of Margo and Eve and their close friendship turned competition towards the end of the film was fascinating. I was a bit worrisome about the corniness of Mankiewicz's direction right off the bat, however, because films that start with a character's narration can be very hit or miss. This framing narrative turned out to be worth it, though, and the main plot itself makes the conclusory sequence that much more powerful. One thing about Mankiewicz's writing that I found especially interesting was how this film is actually mostly about New York and the Broadway scene. Most films about moviemaking are set in Los Angeles but the shifted focus on New York and how many performers get their start in theatre was such a pleasantly fresh take for these characters.

The performances from Bette Davis and Anne Baxter absolutely rule this entire film. At the beginning of their relationship, we see Eve doing whatever it takes for Margo in order to become famous, almost to the point of awkward servitude. Mankiewicz's script does a great job of delineating the two with how they dress, talk, and interact with higher-ups and I loved the clear and changing distinction that they both went through. While Eve was much more dutiful towards Margo, I loved seeing how their attitudes towards each other eventually changed. Especially that of Margo, as we as the audience actually focus on her the majority of the time. Seeing her realize that she was slowly going out of style and that she could be an inspiration for aspiring actors was incredible to watch and this was embodied beautifully by the wonderful Davis. Her performance is exceptionally melancholy and like I have mentioned probably a hundred times by now, she pairs wonderfully with the performance from Baxter. Anne Baxter plays such a convincing and grounded character who is easy to see oneself in before she starts to take over the throne. Baxter's performance was just as strong and I adored her more relentless take on the character. The cinematography and editing throughout All About Eve were both fairly standard and while this movie never really stood out to me visually, they were creative enough to at least keep every shot and cut entertaining. Thankfully, this lack of exemplary technical pieces forces the audience to hone in on the writing, which is the best part of the film anyway. I also loved the suppressed use of sets and locations throughout the story. This kept the film very limited and just like the lack of impressive technicals, makes the audience really listen and consider the story that is playing out within the dialogue in front of their very eyes. Along with an unexpected, minor cameo from Marilyn Monroe, this film truly turned out to be a writer's delight and one that is boosted by its iconic cast.

All About Eve is one of the most extraordinary and honest films about the art of acting and storytelling that I have ever seen. While Mankiewicz is a perfectly fine director, the script of this movie is where his brilliance can really be found and I loved everything from the focus on rising stardom to the subtle microaggressions that developed between these leads. Davis and Baxter are just phenomenal together and I could watch them live out their daily lives for hours on end and never fail to stay entertained. This film might not be my favorite from the AFI's Top 100 list but it has more than proved its worth as a quotable, American classic.

My Rating: ★★★★

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) directed by Frank Capra

AFI Top 100: #26

It's astounding to me that a film made in 1939, which may seem dated because of its lingo or questionable policies, can still hold up as a message needing to be heard in today's political climate. Frank Capra's Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is a great political-comedy that succeeds in truly telling it like it is within the confines of its setting and I loved the way that Capra goes about telling this story. This is far from my favorite Capra film or even my favorite Jimmy Stewart performance but everything about this movie works just the way it was intended. This film is not bad by any means but something about it just never really clicked for me. I loved the message about standing up for what you believe in, even in the face of political travesty, but I just ended up relatively indifferent about it all. That being said, I can still see why this has become one of the world's most relevant, political classics.

When a midwestern senator unexpectedly dies, Governor Hopper (Guy Kibbee) is assigned to appoint a new one for the time being. Stuck between his many options on who he will send to be a representative in Washington, he ends up opting for Jefferson Smith (Jimmy Stewart). A naive and easygoing man, Smith soon realizes the corruption that occurs in the government and fights to get a bill passed which will create a boys' camp for the young children that he mentors. This film is such a fantastic and realistic look into the hurdles that regular people have to jump over in order to achieve what they are fighting for. Written by Lewis R. Foster and Sidney Buchman, the script is just teeming with life and I loved how individualistic each character is. From Smith to Hopper to Senator Joseph Paine (Claude Rains) and secretary Saunders (Jean Arthur), every character in this film is perfectly representative of a different breed of politics. Every person, although they may be associated with the same party or group of people, has their own personal politics and this clash of values and personalities is what makes this film the most humorous. The interactions between them all and how far they were willing to go for what they believed in all differed and created for a magnificent exploration into political science. I do believe that this film is much smarter than people give it credit for and despite being mostly comedy, it is able to hit on a lot of important political and social points. Capra's direction is perfect for this as well and he is able to utilize his blend of comedy and drama into the terrifying realm of politics to leave his mark. I was never personally able to relate or sympathize with the characters in this film as much as characters in other Capra films but he still manages to do an excellent job leading them down his predicted path of cinematic delight. However, because I did not entirely enjoy Mr. Smith Goes to Washington as much as other works of his, I ended up feeling fairly indifferent about the story at the end. Of course, the ending filibuster sequence with Stewart leading the charge is respectable but I could see where the story was going from a mile away and I guess I was just expecting a bit more.

Whether or not I was in the right mood for this film, I was a bit bored by it, to be honest, and I feel like it could have been trimmed way down. Capra's direction meandered around for far too long than I would have liked and I feel like making the filibuster scene the most prominent aspect instead of just the ending would have made Mr. Smith Goes to Washington much stronger. The editing by Al Clark and Gene Havlick was great, though, and they pace this film very well despite the lackluster focus. Their fantastic work was especially prominent towards the beginning when Smith first arrives in Washington. The quick and nimble way that they cut his travels around the city experiencing the sights and monuments was very exciting and I thought they excelled the most during these montage sequences. The lead performance from Jimmy Stewart was absolutely wonderful and again, while I do not think this is nearly one of his best performances, he takes this role and runs with it in the most carefree fashion. Stewart is known for being one of the greatest actors of the twentieth-century and his everyman personality fits this character to a tee. Smith was such a humble and often unknowingly goofy, young man who Stewart could grasp his hooks into with ease. I loved his performance throughout this movie, as simple as it may have been for him. Capra knew of Stewart's reputation at the time too and it is obvious that he is utilizing him in these exact, expected ways. Despite Stewart's performance not being my absolute favorite due to its lack of ambition, I found all of his scenes to be incredibly powerful. The concluding filibuster scene that this film has become notorious for is such a powerhouse in one-setting storytelling. The entire film could have been just the filibuster with Stewart flexing his acting capabilities because I was more engrossed in the ending than I was from the start. The emotion that he is able to portray upon realizing the corruption and unproductivity within the government is fantastic and I even found myself rooting for Smith by the end. Although this film handles actual politics in an absurdly hopeful way, it still remains an optimistic and inspiring look at what the world could be if we had people in charge that genuinely cared for the betterment of their own people.

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is one of the best, earliest political-comedies I have ever seen and one that can still translate to the politics of today. Although I don't think a premise as fictionalized or goofy as this would ever happen, the exaggerated effects used help to make this film so powerful. Along with a solid and apt performance from Jimmy Stewart, this film pretty much ended up being exactly what I thought it was going to be: a fun but emotionally relevant time which looking back at it now, is easy to see what has made it such an unforgettable classic.

My Rating: ★★★½

Spontaneous (2020) directed by Brian Duffield

All I'm saying is that if 13 Reasons Why could actually do something unique like this, it would be a whole lot better. Brian Duffield's absolutely wonderful film Spontaneous has taken me by an incredible amount of surprise, as it is the perfect culmination of teenage romance, dark comedy, and existential crisis. I had never even heard about this film until last week when I first saw the trailer and while I was expecting to have a lot of adorable fun with its premise, I was not expecting to fall so in love with the twists and turns that these filmmakers take. I can be such a sucker for romantic-comedies and while the idea of people randomly blowing up appears goofy on the surface, this film actually takes a much darker approach that I appreciated an immense amount. Sure, there is plenty of humor to be found and cheesy romance to obsess over but the absolute rollercoaster of varied emotion that this story is able to invoke is something that I never would have predicted from a film of this genre.

Mara (Katherine Langford) and Dylan (Charlie Plummer) are two completely different kinds of teenagers. When students at their school suddenly start spontaneously combusting, Dylan makes a romantic move on her, as to not hide his crush any longer. As the country works to figure out what is going on, the two are forced to deal with the continuous loss of their friends while falling in love and not knowing what moment may be their last. As wacky of a premise that this may seem, the idea works flawlessly in this genre and pushes forward the romantic aspects of this story, which makes the stereotypical rushed romance make actual sense. Duffield's writing and direction are undeniably solid and he is able to perfectly balance the comedy and drama in this film while also sprinkling in a touch of existential anxiety. However, a romantic, dark comedy can not function well without the performances from its leads and the chemistry that they exhibit. Langford and Plummer are spectacular together and this might be one of the only films I can think of in which I could tangibly feel the connection between these two teenage leads. Their chemistry is just off the charts and I absolutely love the casting of them together. The technical parts of this film are delightful as well, including the editing by Steve Edwards and the score from Joseph Trapanese. So many match cuts and quirky transitions were used throughout this film that absolutely kept me engaged, as generic and fun as they might be. Edwards does a great job of keeping this film flowing and that is scored by Trapanese's efforts as well. The original score throughout this movie was entrancing and paired with the indie soundtrack, the music proved to be one of the most lovely aspects. I'm unsure if I was just too emotional watching this film (in fact, I'm certain) but every piece of this movie came together in the most efficacious way for me, mostly including the stupefying writing.

Upon seeing the trailer for this romantic-comedy, I knew that it was going to be a bit goofy due to its just flat-out ridiculous premise. What I did not expect, however, was the transition that Duffield would take to turn this cutesy, humorous story into a genuinely dark and anxious drama. Despite all of the great, relatable comedy that Duffield utilizes, the moment the audience realizes that these teenagers exploding is a careful metaphor for school shootings is the moment that the comedy morphs into cynical tragedy. There is a specific moment in the first act of the film when a Washington D.C. government official says the often ridiculed phrase "you have our thoughts and prayers" and that is when the realization of what Duffield is implementing truly hit me. I was absolutely floored by this transition and I could never see these characters exploding as a thing of humor again. From that point on, I was riddled with anxiety while following these characters because I could never tell who was next. What I love so much about Duffield's handling of this subject, however, is that the theme was never blatant and he leaves so much of the interpretation up to the audience while maintaining the upbeat and humorous tone. This is not to say, of course, that films with themes as tragic as school shootings should all be handled comedically but simply the way he is able to slip that into the story while keeping me entertained and genuinely engrossed in the writing was phenomenal. I also adored the way that Duffield handles teenage grief because with something as graphically shocking as spontaneous combustion comes the trauma that real people have to deal with afterward. From silent grieving to alcoholic mourning, Spontaneous actually touches on what kids this age would do to process the sudden passing of their friends in an authentic way. While often exaggerated for comedic effect in many scenes, there is just something about this director's handling of the story that worked nearly flawlessly for me. My only issue with this film is that the plot itself was a bit predictable. I could have guessed many of the story points that occurred and while there were still some plot twists to be found (that honestly made me sit up and cover my mouth), it was not horribly challenging in terms of its three-act structure.

Never would I have thought I would be adding spontaneously combusting to my already long list of anxieties but thanks to Brian Duffield, here we are! I quite literally cannot stop thinking about Spontaneous and while it definitely will not be as effective for many people, nearly everything about this film worked for me. From the palpable chemistry between the two leads to the surprisingly dark but well-handled twists, I am head over heels for this movie. Duffield has delivered one of the most creative and darkly comedic takes on this genre and one that I can actually fully get behind.

My Rating: ★★★★½

The Shawshank Redemption (1994) directed by Frank Darabont

AFI Top 100: #72

I hate to be the one to inform you if you're one of the rare and unfortunate people to not like this film but you are just wrong. Frank Darabont's The Shawshank Redemption is an undeniable classic and one that still holds up with its progressive themes to this day. Even though this film might not be the most groundbreaking in terms of its technical features, the writing and performances work together to make this one of the most compassionate, human experiences ever put to the screen. I'm surely not the first to marvel at how amazing this film is from start to finish but it is hard to disagree with the almost unanimous opinion that this movie is one of the best stories ever made. I had not seen this film since I was a kid and while my critical brain is much different than it was then, I was actually able to pick up on a lot of elements that I had not previously thought about. This cast and crew work together to make one of the warmest and most rewatchable films of all time and it surely deserves to be much higher on the AFI's Top 100 list.

Upon being sent to prison for two life sentences for allegedly murdering his wife and her lover, optimist banker Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins) quickly becomes the lighthearted beacon of hope in Shawshank Prison. Over the course of many years, he becomes friends with a man known as Red (Morgan Freeman) and the two of them strike up a friendship dealing out hope as Andy tries to escape his wrongful punishment. Adapted from a Stephen King short story titled "Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption," this story is one of the most uplifting and beautiful looks at unexpected friendship ever written. Frank Darabont's writing and direction turn what was most likely a darker and more dreary look at prison from the acclaimed horror writer into this brilliantly optimistic look at life in the face of eternal imprisonment. His script is just wonderful and especially in the dialogue, the characters are so individualistic right off the bat and they all prove to be such integral parts of the story in one way or another. The focus on multiple characters, mostly Andy and Red, was great and really helped to develop their friendship. Although they might not have been super close right away, the way that Darabont eases the audience into their relationship to actually make it believable is fantastic. Andy is such a kind and easygoing man while Red is more stubborn and involved within the prison community and both of these roles were portrayed beautifully by Robbins and Freeman. These two have some of the greatest chemistry together that I have ever seen and they were practically born for these parts. On top of one of the most emotional ending sequences I have ever seen, these two steal the film and really bring a sense of hopeful aspiration to the people around them. Darabont's direction helps with this as well, as he gives the audience plenty of time and scenes for them to fall in love with these two men and their everlasting friendship. Despite being set in a violent and ruthless prison, Darabont is able to make the men's cells feel like home in a very strange way.

One thing that I was not expecting from this film at all was how it would handle the prison industrial complex. While I remember the general story and the ending, this rewatch just confirmed how much more progressive this film is than I gave it credit for. Showing the unnecessary violence and inhumane treatment of human beings is obviously very hard to watch but this film tells it more honestly than a normal filmmaker would. Darabont is never afraid to show how the prison complex has become so deeply rooted within our capitalistic, American system. What I loved about his take on this setting is that with his script, he never placed these main characters in a prison and said "oh well." Any other filmmaker knows that they could very well just focus on the relationship between the men and entirely ignore the fucked-up realities of where the story is set but instead, Darabont takes this head-on. He knows how much significance the contained atmosphere of this film carries and he never shies away from criticizing the system. This can be seen throughout the entire movie, from the librarian serving his life sentence for over 50 years to the communities of inmates within the walls. As an audience, we can clearly see how genuinely kind and goodhearted these people are and how they are so separated from normal society that they are forced to create their own community. Prison systems are designed to make people suffer and provide little to no rehabilitation opportunities and at its core, that is what The Shawshank Redemption is about. There is no reason why these men serving life sentences have to live out the rest of their lives in solace when they are so clearly changed and the character of Red serves this purpose incredibly well, as he has become so broken with the prison he has almost accepted his fate. That is until Andy comes along and their friendship renews his look on life. The cinematography and editing were solid but did not stand out that much and Darabont proves the technical parts do not have to be as flashy when the writing is this phenomenal.

The Shawshank Redemption is simply one of the greatest stories ever written and its translation from script to screen proves to be one of the best ever made. I always hate to feel like I am jumping on the bandwagon when it comes to universally beloved movies but it is difficult not to when a film like this proves itself in every way imaginable. Robbins, Freeman, and Darabont are truly a match made in storytelling heaven and if anyone ever tries to tell you that they did not instantly fall in love with this film, they are flat-out liars.

My Rating: ★★★★★

Possessor (2020) directed by Brandon Cronenberg

In all honesty, body horror is not really my thing. While I have not indulged myself too much, there is something so meaninglessly disturbing about the subgenre that just grosses me out more than it does compel me. While this particular slice of terror has become attributed over the years to David Cronenberg, his son Brandon Cronenberg is able to take his father's reputation and run with it in a much more contemporary direction. Possessor is one of the most interesting yet uneasy films I have seen this year and one that I was fascinated with from its first frame. With its nearly silent atmosphere and phenomenally creepy performances, this film is unafraid to take its audience to places that they will be wildly uncomfortable with. That is where this movie finds its strengths, though, and even while it is hard to look at some of the shots presented, its pieces come together in the bloodiest, most intoxicatingly gripping fashion.

Tasya (Andrea Riseborough) is an agent working for a company in which her mind gets transferred into that of someone expendable to pull off assassinations for high-profile clients. When she invades the mind of Colin (Christopher Abbott), a young man working at his father-in-law's company, the two fight to regain control of his mind as they fall into a hallucinogenic state of power. This premise of taking over someone else's body is not entirely a new one but I do not think it has ever been taken to such extremes as this. Both written and directed by Brandon Cronenberg, this film is absolutely mesmerizing to watch and sucks you in better than many other sci-fi thrillers I have seen recently. The idea of controlling someone else knowing that they will die at the end of a mission by "suicide" is just haunting and Cronenberg does a great job of making his audience feel like pure shit about the characters' choices. The thing that I was not expecting about this film, however, was that it never quite ventures too much into the horror territory. Sure, it has its moments that made me uncomfortable and a bit queasy but I was never exactly scared of what was on screen. Cronenberg does a fantastic job of keeping this film within the bloody, sci-fi thriller range and while it will undeniably scare many people, he never goes so far as to outwardly spook his audience with surprises or supernatural entities. The atmosphere of this film is what truly makes it that much more effective and the almost silent way Cronenberg shoots his story makes it unsettling. The score from Jim Williams aids in this too, as the droning and spatial use of instruments makes the audience feel as if they are floating on a cloud in a nightmare that they cannot wake up from. The only, small issue I had with Possessor is that its ending did not blow me away as much as I was led to believe. Many films utilize twist endings that bring all of the minute details from the entire plot together but in this film, the twist at the end was only specifically shocking for that one moment. The rest of the film was a bit predictable and while that never took away from the deranged impact, the slow-burn feel of the story definitely dragged down the potential this movie had to be a modern, sci-fi masterpiece.

If it was not for the atmosphere of Possessor, I really do not think it would be as powerful as it ended up being. This was mostly due to the cinematography from Karim Hussain and the performances from the entire cast. Hussain shoots this film in a variety of ways that all played together beautifully. The handheld camera that he uses in the more personal shots of the characters and the close-ups of the brutality was amazing and the almost unnoticeable shakiness lends way to a grand feeling of unease. The way he moves the camera is nauseating and combined with the perfectly creepy editing from Matthew Hannam, the visual storytelling in this film is like no other. Riseborough and Abbott are who truly steals this film, however, and I was constantly terrified of them. Riseborough is unrecognizable as Tasya and her weary but relentless portrayal of this "protagonist" was stellar. The most interesting scenes, however, come when she has invaded the body of Abbot's character Colin. Abbott has to technically play two parts within his same face and the hesitant but affecting aura he gives off is just phenomenal. Seeing these two fight for control of Colin's body is just plain scary and I could watch Cronenberg make them spiral into madness for hours. I was also able to see the Uncut version of Cronenberg's original vision so that definitely plays a part in how graphically effective this film was with its use of sex and violence. While many do not have the stomach to watch something like this, I never felt like the bloody, murderous scenes were at all gratuitous. This is a problem that I have with a lot of sci-fi/horror in that they rely on shock value to get a scare from the audience. Cronenberg never relies on that, as he knows he can create a memorable and terrifying experience without the use of blood and gore: he just chooses to use it to enhance the pain that can be felt. Possessor will go down as one of the most quietly affecting sci-fi films of all time and I was moved by every minute of it. Despite its fairly generic form, Cronenberg uses this bleak morbidity to prove that he can not only live up to but possibly succeed the iconic status in the sci-fi/horror set by his father.

Brandon Cronenberg's Possessor is one of my favorite films of this entire year and while that might say something strange about me as a person, it is hard to deny how visceral of an effect this story had on me. The performances were excellent, the direction from Cronenberg is incredibly solid, and there is no doubt that I left this theater feeling a bit weirder about myself than I would have liked. This level of sensationalism is not for everyone but if you are in the mood for a thrilling and unabashedly bloody time, this new addition into 2020's horror slate is just for you.

My Rating: ★★★★½

On the Rocks (2020) directed by Sofia Coppola

It seems like all directors have one or two of their films diverge from their usual, directorial style and while I may not know much about Sofia Coppola's entire filmography, it seems like this is hers. On the Rocks is an adorable and well-crafted drama with some fantastic performances and simple enough writing to keep me interested. While I had some issues with the pacing of this story and the overall outcome, there was never anything evidently wrong with the choices that Coppola makes. I loved so much about this movie but also felt a bit underwhelmed by the way the film's themes were presented and while that is not necessarily a bad thing, I just felt like it was a bit too dull at times. More than anything, though, I feel like this film was a way for Coppola to air out some dirty laundry about something. Thankfully, however, we are still left with a passable and worthwhile film that provided me with some calm vibes that I very much needed in this time of cinematic uncertainty.

Laura (Rashida Jones) has been happily married to her husband Dean (Marlon Wayans) for years and as she works from home and takes care of their children, she begins to suspect that he is having an affair when he goes on his "business trips." As Laura's father Felix (Bill Murray) ignites the suspicion even more, the two of them go out in New York to try and catch him in the act. Both written and directed by Sofia Coppola, On the Rocks is a decent little comedy that has some simple but solid writing that really made me care about its main characters and their relationships. The most prominent being the father/daughter dynamic between Laura and Felix. I loved the way that Coppola writes these two together and the bond that they share is so evident within their first scene together. There is so much great, parental humor throughout this film, and Coppola proves that she is not afraid to flex her muscles when it comes to dry comedy. I could genuinely watch these two characters drive around New York and bullshit with each other for hours and I feel like there was a lot of missed potential in that aspect. The only element of their relationship that I did not really feel too connected to was the fact that we never get too much depth into their personal histories. Sure, we are able to learn why Murray's character can be unreliable and a bit of a playboy but I still never quite felt like their parent-child relationship was explored enough to warrant their argument scenes. Coppola has the ability fo find strength in context but this film just never really reached that level for me. I also felt like her direction was too unmemorable and it really did not feel at all like a Coppola film. There were no discernible style choices throughout the film and while it was still a relatively quiet and melancholy indie-comedy, I never felt any quirks that make her direction typically stand out. This lack of engaging style combined with her awkward pacing made for a strange experience. The exposition also took too long and I was never sure of the A-plot until about halfway through because of her meandering. Coppola is able to keep this film steady just as I would expect but I would venture to say that this premise would work better for a short film.

A film like On the Rocks relies almost entirely on the chemistry between the characters to sell its story and the familial space shared between Rashida Jones and Bill Murray is just excellent. Both of them are phenomenal performers and their specific performances as Laura and Felix are just wonderful. They are able to bring such new dimensions to what is going on in their characters' minds and even more levels to what may be unspoken in the script. The deadpan, playboy aura that Murray gives off in this film fits his role very well and I loved the focus on how his traditional views on women and relationships contrasted with Laura's more contemporary, progressive views that now rightfully seem correct. Despite the differences that they showed in their characters, it was also very interesting to watch them come to terms with their similarities. Laura and Felix, despite being from radically different generations and having different morals, could agree on so much and the bond that they still shared, despite their fights, was embodied beautifully by Jones and Murray. Rashida Jones is really the standout throughout this entire movie and she steals the spotlight just like she should. Jones absolutely thrives in the smaller world of indie film like this, especially after being constantly sidelined in a more mainstream production like Parks and Recreation. She deserves many more leading roles than she gets and I can not wait to see what films she could dominate next. While On the Rocks might not be the most morally or ethically challenging movie, there is no doubt that Coppola shoots this story better than many other, New York-based filmmakers of the past few years. The cinematography from Philippe Le Sourd is extravagant and stunningly personal. This visual team actually shoots the city of New York in a more amicable sense than what audiences are used to and Le Sourd's use of the camera led the way for Coppola to create a much warmer atmosphere than how the city is typically represented.

Sofia Coppola's On the Rocks is a pleasant film with some fantastic, unexpected writing but ultimately ends up not too memorable. I guess I was expecting a bit more depth to this film but unlike apparently a lot of people, I still decently enjoyed this. While it won't go down as one of my all-time favorites from this year so far, I see myself revisiting it when I need a nice and simple comfort film with some incredibly charming leads. And of course, this also functions as a thirst watch for Jenny Slate, Marlon Wayans, and Rashida Jones in an oversized Beastie Boys tee shirt. I mean, c'mon!

My Rating: ★★★½

The Blair Witch Project (1999) directed by Daniel Myrick, Eduardo Sánchez

"You gonna write us a happy ending, Heather?"

Very few films can be attributed to reviving an entire subgenre and particularly in horror, the found-footage style had been long dead up until 1999. Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez's The Blair Witch Project is an absolutely groundbreaking film that did just that, however, and continues to be the blueprint for found-footage to this day. This absolutely innovative horror film set the standard for both cinematic tension and what filmmakers can achieve using nothing but their creativity due to a minuscule budget. While the technical limitations behind the production of this film makes for a riveting story in and of itself, Myrick and Sánchez find their strengths in what they can show in front of the camera - or more accurately, what they refuse to show.

In October of 1994, three student documentary filmmakers named Heather (Heather Donahue), Josh (Joshua Leonard), and Mike (Michael C. Williams) made their way deep into the forests of Maryland to chase down a rumor of the supposed Blair Witch. As the group of friends venture further and further away from civilization, they eventually find themselves lost, turning on each other, and stalked by an unknown force.

Read my full piece for Cineccentric's 31 Days of Fright here!

My Rating: ★★★★★