Hillbilly Elegy (2020) directed by Ron Howard

I'm not quite sure when people are going to realize that Ron Howard is not a very mindful director but hopefully, this film will be an absolute wake-up call. Hillbilly Elegy is one of the most mindless and insufferable movies made this entire year and one that will, unfortunately, be a favorite among Oscar voters come 2021. This film has no real sense of purpose and no real sense of what it wants to say and goes about this nothingness in the most morally circumventing fashion. Not only was Howard the vastly wrong choice to helm this story but almost every technical piece seems to have worked against him when bringing this story together. The performances are shoddy and cheap, the editing actually breaks up any semblance of pace that was trying to be established, and the cinematography was just plain boring. There are some genuinely good films out there with real stories to tell about growing into success out of a hard life in the South but this movie is definitely not one of them.

J.D. Vance (Gabriel Basso) is a Yale law student who is brought back to his Appalachian hometown when he finds out that his mother Bev (Amy Adams) is in the hospital. After coming back, he is forced to reevaluate and reassess the generational relationships he left behind, including with his grandmother Mamaw (Glenn Close) and sister Lindsay (Haley Bennett). Let's start right off the bat: if there is one thing I thought that this movie could at least execute, it would be competence. Putting the questionable morals and work ethic of Vance aside, there is nothing stopping this film from just being a bland, competent, success story with enough dramatic plot points and performances to warrant a good film. That is what Hillbilly Elegy really could have been and even though we all would have forgotten about it within weeks, Howard and screenwriter Vanessa Taylor take this story in such a dissatisfying direction. Based on the autobiography from Vance himself, this film tries its hardest to be a portrait of American life from the perspective of an Appalachian family and while I'm sure his book covers that to some degree, this film had absolutely nothing to say. Apart from blatantly and cheaply inserted scenes showing how life is like in the South, this movie says nothing about the kind of home Vance grew up in. The writing surrounding his relationship with his mother and grandmother was so broken and there was never a sense of purpose to their interactions. There is plenty of family and drug-related drama to keep this film moving but the constant dogpiling of plot points further confused me. No real reason for Bev's drug addiction was ever explored, no real reason for the maternal abuse was ever explored, and no real reason for Vance's academic success was ever explored. Taylor never writes plot points that make sense together and it feels like she just took bullet points from Vance's novel and loosely structured them into what she thought would be a passable story. The main issue with films like these is not even that they don't have anything new to say but that they refuse to take a stance on anything. Howard and Taylor had a lot of opportunities to critique Vance's upbringing and how it made him into who he is today but they instead go the safe route of saying absolutely nothing.

Ron Howard is really just showing his weaknesses at this point and while there are plenty of excellent films throughout his body of work to be proud of, movies like Hillbilly Elegy are starting to take over what he is known for. His direction throughout this film is incredibly misinformed and more scattershot than it should have ever been. There never seems to be an order to the movie and for something as easy as a three-act structure, it never even felt like that was attempted. Every dramatic and supposedly climactic scene would escalate to a ridiculous, unexplained level and then de-escalate like nothing had happened. This happens an ungodly amount of times throughout the already too-long film and there was nothing for this drama to build towards. The editing from James Wilcox contributes to this aimless form of storytelling because the flashback scenes contrasted with the current day scenes never had any real reason to be connected. Editing is supposed to take scenes and drive a story forward but I never felt that with this movie. And like I said before, Howard never tries to take a stance on this often riveting story of Vance. He could have used his novel as an opportunity to criticize Vance's upbringing and how it created him into the public speaker and venture capitalist that he is today but instead opts to go the emotional route but fails immensely. Howard is almost known at this point for his "nice-guy" sense of filmmaking and this general tone was not the right choice for the direction of the story. He never chooses what he wants to do with the film and never lets his audience know what he thinks of Vance and dancing on this middle ground does nothing for either the audience's appreciation for the subject matter or for Howard's talents as a filmmaker. The performances from Adams and Close were pretty abysmal and it honestly hurts me just to type that. They are both some of the most talented and respected actresses in the game for many reasons and it is such a shame to see them go all-out for an offensive and meaningless script such as this one. Both of their performances just felt so plastic and over-the-top and perhaps that's because the rest of the film didn't match up to their talents but it made them appear even worse. Basso and Bennett were *fine* in their roles but something about the energy Adams and Close exuded just never sat right with me. Along with the casual, unwarranted racism and unnecessary amount of screaming, Hillbilly Elegy is just a magnificent failure at anything that has made Howard's previous work at least adequate to the average audience member.

The last thing I would ever want to say about an Amy Adams and Ron Howard collaboration would be that it's superficial but oh god was this superficial. Hillbilly Elegy has no reason to exist outside of its original, novel format, and I feel like if anything, this movie is a warning to any venture capitalists out there who think their story is anything special. Audiences don't want to see your whiny upbringing. Audiences don't want to see your current vanilla life with nothing worthy of complaining about. And above all, audiences do NOT want to see the magnificent talents of Amy Adams and Glenn Close wasted on a script like this.

My Rating: ★½

Dreamland (2020) directed by Miles Joris-Peyrafitte

Okay listen, if I was an impressionable young man living during the Great Depression with nothing to lose, you can bet your ass I would go anywhere with Margot Robbie regardless of what she might have done. Miles Joris-Peyrafitte's Dreamland is a surprisingly solid, little drama and one that continued to entertain me despite its obvious downfalls. This movie takes every turn one could expect it to take and never really tries to stray from its own, beaten path. However, for a film that almost solely focuses on a Dust Bowl romance and has every right to be grimy and boring, this movie is genuinely filled to the brim with awesome stylistic choices. So much of the direction, editing, and cinematography were just phenomenal and while I could definitely tell these crew members were not working together very well, it almost becomes a sort of beautiful mishmash. This film has every right to be bad and to many, it will be, but this movie had just the right amount of creative complacency for me to enjoy.

Eugene Evans (Finn Cole) lives with his family on a small homestead during the Great Depression. When their community finds out that wanted criminal and bank robber Allison Wells (Margot Robbie) is passing through town, the manhunt for her begins but not before Eugene has a firsthand encounter. He ends up sheltering her from the police and while the two of them grow closer and closer, Eugene winds up falling more into her lifestyle than he could have ever bargained for. This script, written by Nicolaas Zwart, contains so many great parts but also fails to really deliver on anything incredibly original. Dreamland goes about its story in the most expected and safe ways possible and while going into this film, that is kind of exactly what I had anticipated. Every plot point was predictable, the pacing of when the biggest, dramatic events would occur was easy to tell, and each and every character went about the plot in such a way that it felt like someone fresh out of screenwriting school could have cooked up. This is so painfully true to the point that a lot of the dialogue even felt ingenuine. Of course, this film is set during the Great Depression era and Western folk speak much differently than we do now but a lot of the terms and phrases that these characters used felt very forced, like something out of an old-timey, political cartoon. Thankfully, this never really detracted from my enjoyment of the film and quite honestly, it added a level of goofiness that worked really well. This movie also never really takes itself too seriously and that can be seen in so many choices with the humor, coming-of-age tone, and lightheartedness that was paired with a lot of the action. Yes, many can rightfully compare this film to the classic Bonnie and Clyde but why would anyone want to when the only trait they share is that they revolve around bank robbers? Dreamland takes what made that classic movie so popular and riffs on the genre with its own, lighter set of feet. Another part of the writing that I really appreciated was the way that Zwart flips the gender tropes of this genre and places the character of Eugene into a much more sensitive, inexperienced, and immature role. Seeing Robbie's character Allison become a lover and also a sort of mentor to him in the ways of being a criminal was fascinating to see and I loved this writer's mild, progressive choices.

Within the first few minutes of this movie, Joris-Peyrafitte makes it quite obvious how many different, creative fountains he sipped from before helming this story. This movie's visual style is such an interesting one to explore because there never seems to be one distinct inspiration or style that Joris-Peyrafitte is trying to emulate. The cinematography from Lyle Vincent was gorgeous and along with many establishing shots, his quicker-than-life movement of the camera was incredibly exciting. There were a lot of camera moves he opted to do that would feel very cheesy or amateurish in any kind of movie, but Dreamland carries that strange quality that always made the camera work. The editing from Abbi Jutkowitz and Brett M. Reed was just as weirdly cooperative as the camera was and so many of the flashback sequences and rapid-fire cuts would stand out in your normal drama fare but worked so well for the blithe tone of this film. While all of these pieces put together might be a bit frantic to follow, I still think it worked for the outlandish story and the chaos that ensued from them working together on-screen could very well be the visual style that Joris-Peyrafitte was going for all along. Accompanying the incredibly unique forms of storytelling were the performances from Cole and Robbie. I have known about Finn Cole as an actor since he has been leading one of my favorite television dramas Animal Kingdom and seeing him in something wildly different was such a nice change of pace. He is one of the most unknown and underrated actors that I have seen working today and I really think he deserves a bigger role to push him into the spotlight. Then again, I think he would also dominate really well in a smaller-budget environment, and that way I could continue to enjoy the work he does without fear of him becoming overexposed. And just like practically all of the films that she does, Margot Robbie disappears into this role and really makes the best of her character. Allison Wells might not be the most compelling case study for a character ever written but Robbie is able to hold her own incredibly well. Like I said before, this film is not going to be everyone's cup of tea but for me, every element worked together to make it a decently fun waste of just more than 90 minutes.

Miles Joris-Peyrafitte's Dreamland is that rare film I feel like no one else has any strong opinions on but one that I am not at all disappointed I paid a bit of money to rent. Cole and Robbie are just fantastic together and along with the wonderful cinematography, editing, and production design, this film ended up being much better than I actually expected. While there are and always will be more unique and more original takes on this kind of outlaw story, I am pleasantly satisfied with what I got in this film and would strongly recommend it to any other fans of the genre.

My Rating: ★★★½

Freaky (2020) directed by Christopher Landon

The slasher genre desperately needs a reimagining and thank god for Christopher Landon for being the one to hopefully set it on the right path. Freaky is not the best horror film ever made nor is it the most creative but there is something so hopeful and downright fun about almost everything that Blumhouse puts out. This film is no exception and it proves to be such an outright delight in every sense of the word. The idea taken from Freaky Friday is actually something that I am surprised a horror film has never done before (or if one has, I have not heard of it) and Landon tackles this premise with ease. From the performances to the unabashedly goofy writing, this film knows exactly how to play with its genre in the best ways possible. I might not have been as much of a fan of this as other people it seems like but if there is one thing for certain I can agree on, it's that Vince Vaughn needs to do more genuine horror.

Unpopular girl Millie (Kathryn Newton) is always ridiculed at her school for being unlikable and a bit awkward. The night of the homecoming football game, she is caught by her small town's fabled murderer, The Blissfield Butcher (Vince Vaughn), and after being stabbed by a mystical knife, the two of them switch bodies. Millie then has to go to her friends for help, as they realize she only has 24 hours to get her body back. What I have been absolutely loving about Christopher Landon's films is how he takes previously established and very well-known premises and completely flips them on their heads with a horror-comedy twist. While Happy Death Day might be the best example of this, taking the "over-and-over again" idea of Groundhog Day and throwing in a murderer in the mix, Freaky takes the body-switching theme of the Disney classic and incorporates the murderer as one of the main characters. This is such a radically original idea and one that had so much potential for twists and turns that the audience wouldn't be able to see coming for miles. However, while I do think the idea was executed very well by Landon's direction, it ran out of steam very quickly. The first fifteen minutes or so of this film is spectacular and really gives this movie its drive, as the slasher elements reared their head quite immensely. There are some excruciatingly painful and creative kills throughout this entire film but most are used right off the bat in the beginning. The very opening prologue is really the only time I would classify this film as a slasher because once the body-switching plot point happens, it becomes almost entirely a comedy. This isn't necessarily a bad thing but I was expecting a much stronger blend of the two contrasting genres and I was a bit disappointed when the film played out exactly like I thought it would. The story itself becomes really predictable and I feel like Landon did not utilize nearly enough creative potential that this premise had. There are some genuinely good moments that capitalize on the characters switching bodies but neither the horror nor the comedy sides were prevalent enough to make a huge impact on me. Which sucks because this kind of movie is very much my shit.

From the trailers, it was obvious that the biggest draw of this entire film was going to be Vince Vaughn, and just as I expected, he was undoubtedly the best part. Vaughn's performance as the killer and then as Millie trapped in his body was absolutely spectacular and he embodies both much better than I could have predicted. Vaughn as the Blissfield Butcher was fantastic and his massive build and frankly intimidating demeanor make for a perfect movie murderer and one that I feel like he should be getting more roles for. Vaughn as Millie, however, was just as great and his dainty, bodily movements paired with the painfully stereotypical, teenage lingo was just wonderful and made for quite a hilarious time. This really was the perfect vehicle for Vaughn to thrive in and while there were some moments in here that I would never guess Vaughn would be comfortable doing, he really goes all-out for us and shows no restraint. Newton was astounding too and while her initial character of Millie was practically just your conventional white blonde, the transition into a killer was great. A lot of moments in Freaky are very over-acted, including Newton's transformation into the butcher but if anything, it showed off how talented she is with nonverbal acting. I have seen her in a few, minor roles before but she really gets the chance to shine throughout this whole film. The technical pieces of this movie were never really anything special, but the editing, cinematography, and music choices all played along decently well to make this teenage horror-comedy into something pretty unique. Landon is starting to make a name for himself when it comes to his satires of the horror genre and as long as he keeps putting out products like this, I will happily pay money to see whatever he makes next. There are plenty of better examples of horror-comedies that parody the genre but for what it's worth, Freaky stands on its own as an adorably fun addition to the genre that is worth watching just for the kills alone.

Christopher Landon's Freaky is not one of the most memorable or remarkable horror-comedies to come out of the last few years but it is just wonderful enough to make for a fun experience. Vaughn and Newton are absolutely fantastic in their roles as each other (?) and I am so glad that we are able to get a cute and fun film like this to pass the time. It's no Happy Death Day, that's for sure, but there is just enough substance in this movie to make me want to watch it again. And like I said, cast Vince Vaughn in more horror because he deserves a fun resurgence more than anyone.

My Rating: ★★★

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) directed by Peter Jackson

AFI Top 100: #50

Catching up on massively beloved franchises that I have never experienced before is always one of the most rewarding things for me and even though this was my first time seeing Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, practically every expectation I had was met AND surpassed. This film is one of the most astounding sci-fi/fantasy stories ever made and might just well be the most faithful adaptation of an epic in modern cinema. There are so many aspects to adore about this film, from the devoted performances to the thrilling storytelling to the absolutely stunning visuals and there is frankly nothing that I (or anyone for that matter) could suggest to change regarding how impactful this story is. I have never been too into medieval content or anything along the lines of novel-based fantasy but I have a strong feeling that is going to change. This is the best start to a franchise I have ever seen and along with the perfect blend of heart, humor, and action, this might be the start of my new addiction.

In Middle-earth, there exist twenty rings, one of which belongs to the evil entity Sauron (Sala Baker), who devotes his life to corruption. Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen) has entrusted a young hobbit named Frodo (Elijah Wood) and his group of allies to take Sauron's evil ring to Mount Doom to destroy it and along the way, he must endure some of the most terrifying and mystical trials to ever exist. Adapted from the classic novel by J.R.R. Tolkien, this film contains one of the most heartfelt and genuinely exciting stories I have ever seen. The script, written by Fran Walsh, Phillippa Boyens, and the director Peter Jackson himself, is absolutely wonderful and perfectly captures the inspiring sense of adventure that radiates throughout this entire film. As we start the film with an amazingly ominous prologue, the audience is able to get a great sense of the world that we are about to uncover and Jackson sets it up incredibly well. Traversing throughout the film, however, is the best part, as the script flawlessly maneuvers from drama to fantasy to wonder to comedy without ever missing a beat. This film actually had a much more lighthearted tone than I expected and even in the most dramatic or dire of scenes, I felt like there was an airiness to it that I genuinely appreciated. Too many fantasy and sci-fi films take themselves too seriously but with The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Jackson knows how to perfectly balance the tone of this story. He never lets the film get too serious but also never pretends like the story is to be laughed off and this embrace of joyously fantastical storytelling pays off quite handsomely. Jackson's direction was just spectacular and he paces this film with ease as his cast of characters journey from one distinct location to the next. The heart of this film, however, lies in its characters and while the cast itself may be enormous, it never felt overwhelming with how much diversity there was in the characters' backgrounds. I think that the very ending of this film speaks to just that because simplifying the story down to just Frodo and his friend Samwise (Sean Astin) while the rest of the characters go about their subplots is an absolutely stellar way to continue this franchise into its final two installments.

If there is one thing about this film that I have known about for years now but was not allowed to speak on due to me not having ever seen it is the visuals. Fantasy films are almost required to be interesting to look at but I feel as if too many, even from the time period around 2001, rely far too heavily on one technique. Either the entire film feels fake due to the overuse of CGI and computer animation or the entire film feels amateurish and cheap due to poorly designed costumes and sets. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, however, strikes the perfect balance between the two to make this universe as visually pleasing as all hell. The costuming throughout this film is wondrous and it was so mesmerizing to see how every character really had their own unique style. I could tell every race of mystical character apart very easily and the absolute range of costumes and set design build this world better than I would have ever believed. The computer side of the visuals is what really impressed me, however, as the CGI and VFX absolutely blew me away. It is no wonder why this movie has become so renowned for its visuals and at this point, it is practically a baseline for what your fantasy-adventure film should look like. Although I still do not think many other films have achieved the level of artistry and pure care that this one has, it is still flabbergasting to see how well this film has held up. The performances from the entire cast were also fantastic and it is so rare that a cast as big as this all get along so well and all actually seem like they are happy to be there on set. The performances from Wood, Astin, and McKellen were stupendous and while this film is also occupied by the talents of Cate Blanchett, Orlando Bloom, Sean Bean, Christopher Lee, and John Rhys-Davis among others, it was great seeing them all so devoted to their parts. This cast is one of the best ensembles ever assembled and the sheer passion that can be seen in their performances just truly cements how much better a film can be when it's made by a bunch of nerds.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring is an undisputed work of pure art whose three-hour runtime flies by like no one's business. Peter Jackson has undoubtedly made a name for himself for a reason and with this franchise, I really believe that he might be one of the best fantasy filmmakers to ever have lived. Even though I have never been too into the fantasy genre, this film has undeniably helped to change my mind and I can thank Jackson for that as well. Now all I need to do is devote myself to watching the extended versions if I ever want to call myself a TRUE fan.

My Rating: ★★★★½

Ammonite (2020) directed by Francis Lee

I tried my hardest, guys. I REALLY tried my hardest not to compare this to Portrait of a Lady on Fire but when a film like Francis Lee's Ammonite is as tenderly made as it is and focuses on a period-piece romance between two women, it is very hard not to see the comparisons. For many reasons, though, I really don't think that Lee's film has come even close to the mastery of the genre as Céline Sciamma's masterpiece. This film is a very well-acted and gorgeous-looking story that touches on just about every element a romance film needs in order to be effective but for the life of me, I was just never sold on any bit of it. The chemistry between the two leads was practically absent and while the sex scenes were definitely... a choice... I just could not get myself to care about their romance in the slightest. It's quite a pity, actually, because when you have two amazingly talented performers and a masterful crew who obviously know what they are doing, it's a shame to have it all go to waste on an unmemorable and frankly fetishized film like this.

Paleontologist Mary Anning (Kate Winslet) works along a shoreline in 1840s England, running a shop with her mother Molly (Gemma Jones). When a man named Roderick Murchison (James McArdle) stops by, he proposes that his wife Charlotte (Saoirse Ronan) learn from Mary in order to give her something to do because of her melancholia. After time spent together, Mary and Charlotte soon discover a romance deeper inside themselves just waiting to happen. It would seem almost impossible for a film starring Saoirse Ronan and Kate Winslet to be bad because these two incredible artists are so at the top of their game and this film could have been the perfect vehicle for them. Their performances are the best parts of this movie and they each give so much energy towards their characters that really shows how mature and skillful their careers have become, especially Ronan. Seeing them on screen together, however, was where I began to have issues. The chemistry between these two is just plain awkward and I don't believe that they were the best together for this film. Individually, they absolutely rock but when their characters' stories begin to intersect is when I just had a really hard time feeling anything. This is mostly due to Francis Lee's writing and direction, which is honestly the core of Ammonite's problems. There is nothing outwardly wrong with the way that this story plays out and Lee even shows great handling of the romance genre but his writing just felt inappropriate for the time period and tone that this story was trying to go for. There is a weird veil of humor throughout this whole movie that I couldn't help but feel was incredibly corny and so many of these moments undercut what should have been a more emotional beat. This strange comedy that pulses through the plot's drama did not fit too well and I just think that Lee had a very hard time deciding the direction for this film. Lee also includes some offensively obvious symbolism throughout this film that nearly made me laugh in the theater. From Charlotte's wedding ring falling off before her and Mary's first kiss to Mary literally eating hard-boiled eggs after going down on Charlotte, I just did not appreciate the direct, thematic approach that Lee takes with so many choices in this film, as they only made the tone more bewildering.

The direction that Lee takes with this story is highly predictable and it's never really a good sign when I can tell early on in a film exactly what is going to happen. All of this movie's emotional beats and story developments are laid out very early on and are never really given much time to develop themselves. Because instead of telling the potentially beautiful story that was right in front of him, Lee spends too much time on the eroticism of his characters. The romance between Mary and Charlotte never felt earned and their stories just felt mashed together for the sake of a relationship between the two. The proceeding sex scenes that happened between them were also quite strange, to say the least, and I just could not get past the fact that they were written and directed by a straight, white, man. I would never say who is right or wrong when it comes to sexuality and sexual behavior but these scenes just felt fetishized to the extreme and I still do think it's important to remember that it was Lee writing and directing. I was a bit uncomfortable with those sequences and although Ronan and Winslet have stated in interviews that they felt comfortable with each other and what they were doing (which is great! It's how sex scenes SHOULD be conducted), I never felt like they were earned at all because of the lack of genuine chemistry and textual romance. However, despite the fact that this story and its accompanying romance almost felt undeserved and unfinished in its entirety, it was gorgeous to look at. If nothing else, the cinematography from Stéphane Fontaine paired with the sound design was just exquisite and made Ammonite feel gorgeous. Fontaine is able to capture the dreary atmosphere and still life of England in this time period very well and his utilization of closeups was just great. I could feel every rock surface that Mary climbed and hear every little scrape of her cleaning tools and thanks to this film's technical departments, I was at least able to enjoy the visual storytelling that I was watching unfold.

Francis Lee's Ammonite is a forgettable and unremarkable romance film that has so much potential going for it wasted on the skewed vision of a male filmmaker. It might sound like I am absolutely bashing on this movie (which I am!) but it's important for me to remember not to discredit the work of all the people on set. There are so many incredible elements that make this film look and sound amazing but at the core of its story is where I find too many faults to ignore. I hate to make comparisons like these, especially between two films released very close together but Ammonite is just the result of a straight, white, man who saw Portrait of a Lady on Fire and thought "hey, let me try!" And just as is the case for many generations of film and its particular genres, the French have done it far better.

My Rating: ★★½

Spartacus (1960) directed by Stanley Kubrick

AFI Top 100: #81

Nothing better than 3+ hours of naked dudes fighting for what they think is rightfully theirs. Stanley Kubrick's Spartacus is one of the most epic-in-scale films I have ever seen and one whose beauty lives up to those massive standards set by his direction. While I did not know exactly what this film was about going in, I left with both an appreciation for history and a renewed look at the power of filmmaking. Although this film is an incredibly gorgeous and detailed look at love and revenge, I could not help but feel like it was helmed by literally anyone else. Kubrick himself despites this film and I can definitely see why because of its shifty tone and lack of distinct, creative vision. Thankfully, that never detracts from how impactful this film ended up being and there are still plenty of genuinely emotional moments that got to me more than I would have believed. From the performances to the set design to the cinematography, this film is a technical marvel that makes it very clear early on why it has become such a classic.

After nearly dying of starvation as a slave, Spartacus (Kirk Douglas) is sold to a gladiator trainer named Batiatus (Peter Ustinov) to train as a fighter. Eventually, Spartacus is able to outsmart his captors and lead a rebellion of the slaves and while their numbers continue to grow after moving from town to town, they make their way to Italy where they plan on returning to their homes. This is one of the largest-scale films of this era that I have ever seen and Spartacus has the script to go along with that as well. The screenplay from Dalton Trumbo, based on the novel by Howard Fast, is incredibly expansive and if there is anything that can be said about Trumbo's script, it's that he left no stone unturned. The incredibly deep exploration of love and revenge throughout this movie was brilliant and I adored the blend of small-scale drama with the actual armies of people fighting against each other. There was truly something for everyone to love throughout the writing and it is not difficult to become invested in a plot of this sheer magnitude. Simply seeing the waves of people and extras in this film in the war sequences and ginormous gladiator battles is impressive enough and the only other film around this era that I can think of to compare this movie to would be Ben-Hur. Both of these films gain much of their notoriety and value from how unbelievably big the productions are and I think that this style of filmmaking works equally as well for both. Kubrick's direction in this film, however, did not ever really stand out to me like I thought it would. Being one of the most famous, auteur directors of all time, I really thought that Kubrick would be able to bring more of his own style to this film to make it stand out amongst the rest of the historical war films but I never really felt like this was a Kubrick movie. There was plenty of studio interference and creative decisions made that were out of his control but I just think that a film about one of the most famous Thracians to have ever lived could have been given a much more memorable treatment by someone as acclaimed as Kubrick.

The performances from this entire cast were just phenomenal but some of my favorite standouts included Kirk Douglas, Jean Simmons, and Laurence Olivier. Douglas, playing the titular protagonist of this film, was just astounding in both a physical and emotional capacity. Every scene of him fighting in the gladiator arena contrasted with the scenes of him falling in love with Simmons' character Varinia were all played to perfection. Douglas is such a legendary actor and this film really showcases his undeniable talent to express any and every kind of emotion. His chemistry with Simmons was fantastic as well and her portrayal of Spartacus' love interest was just great. Olivier plays such an amazing antagonist as well, as his character of the Roman leader Crassus was simply vile. The way he treated people and women and disregarded any kind of human existence was embodied amazingly by Olivier and he plays an opposite to Douglas in such a mesmerizing way. These two men command the screen more than anyone else at the time and placing them in this historical epic together was one of the best artistic (and marketable) choices of all time. While the story and performances throughout this film blew me away, I was also surprised at how beautiful this story looked. The cinematography from Russell Metty was stunning and his wide encapsulation of this story was perfect for how grand it was. The way the camera moves through every scene almost makes it become a character in itself and I loved how Metty framed every shot of this undoubtedly magnificent film. The production design and costuming in Spartacus were also wonderful and while it might seem like a talented crew on that front is required for a film like this, they really went above and beyond. The costumes for every main and even minor, background character in this film were all so incredible to look at and the budget behind this must have been insane. The sets and production design were also very obviously meticulous and like I mentioned before, the pure scale of this film is nothing short of a marvel itself.

Stanley Kubrick's Spartacus might not exactly feel like a Kubrick film but there are enough technical pieces of this movie that make it worth a watch. Douglas is particularly stunning in this titular role and along with the grandiose design team behind this entire film, it is hard not to at least be impressed by the level of craftsmanship and detail that went into its making. I am still not a huge fan of this epic, historical, war genre but luckily I could find so much to enjoy throughout this film that I was never too bored or distracted by anything else that was going on.

My Rating: ★★★½

Shiva Baby (2020) directed by Emma Seligman

If my social anxiety could manifest itself into a physical form, it would quite literally be this film. Emma Seligman's Shiva Baby is an absurdly quick and brilliant movie that touches on so many different elements of contemporary culture in such a short runtime but does so in a way that never outstays its welcome. Everyone can agree that family, past relationships, and current flings can be some of the most stressful pieces of a person's life, and having them all crash in on each other during a funeral service seems like the modern millennial's nightmare. With an outstanding feature performance from Rachel Sennott and some excellently propelling direction from Seligman, this film turns out to be one of the most anxious yet relatable little stories of this entire year. Equal parts hilarious and authentic, this movie excels in all that it sets out to achieve and I would not be surprised if this becomes the underdog classic of the year.

Danielle (Rachel Sennott) is a young, bisexual, Jewish woman who is attending the shiva of a family friend as a favor for her mom Debbie (Polly Draper) and dad Joel (Fred Melamed). When she arrives, she finds out that other people in attendance include her ex-girlfriend Maya (Molly Gordon) and sugar daddy Max (Danny Deferrari), who all quickly start to cause problems for her as she tries to make it through the day. Adapted from a short film* of the same name from 2018, Shiva Baby is the perfect culmination of everything that can easily make someone anxious. Emma Seligman's writing and direction perfectly complement each other to create this deeply unsettling atmosphere and placing its complex main character in the midst of it all creates such a wild conflict. The anxiety of seeing an ex at a public function when things were left unfinished or complicated is incredibly harrowing and the way Seligman explores this relationship between Danielle and Maya was extraordinary. The anxiety of having to deal with family at every turn of the day is excruciatingly painful and especially being placed in close quarters, the sound design and overlapping mania of this whole story is a very relatable kind of overwhelming. And finally, the anxiety of sharing a space with someone you just hooked up with and are being paid by (in Danielle's case, her sugar daddy) can be a special kind of stressful but stressful nonetheless. Combining all of these character arcs and blending the fears that Danielle exhibits is no easy task but Seligman does it in such a hilarious and genuine fashion. I loved her handling of the script and being able to tell this one-location story in a tight, 77 minutes shows off Seligman's remarkable talent very well. The anxiety and relentless paranoia felt by Danielle throughout the film were presented beautifully both visually and in the writing and I was able to relate to Danielle's internal struggles much more than I would have thought. This is like if Uncut Gems revolved around a bisexual, Jewish woman at a shiva and Seligman makes this story's tone outrightly and unabashedly nerve-wracking in the best way possible.

It would seem that the premise of this movie would only work well for its original format of a short film but Seligman is able to expand this story into feature-length without ever missing a beat. Her pacing is just incredible and with the help of Hanna A. Park's editing, this story is launched forward without ever going through a single lull. So many of the most anxious scenes are cut by Park in the most frantic way that really made me experience this panic from Danielle's eyes. The constant ebb and flow of the easygoing and then maniacal editing were fascinating to see and the creative choices made in this area of post-production were just wonderful. I also adored the simple but effective score from Ariel Marx, who is able to brilliantly craft such a fitting musical accompaniment. Riddling every transitional scene and climactic turning point, Marx's score full of nervously-plucked string instruments was fantastic and really set the tone of this film in its most important moments. The music stood out to me more than I feel like it did for other viewers but the music's power to push along this story became very prevalent. However, the best standout aspect of this entire film has to be the performance from Sennott and the supporting characters around her. Sennott is just deadpan wonderful throughout the entirety of Shiva Baby and her line deliveries alone make this film worth a watch. She brings along her trademark dry wit and unabashedly horny style of comedy that she has come to be known for and she does so in the greatest way imaginable. She is able to hit every emotional beat incredibly well too and puts so much emotion into her character of Danielle while simultaneously embodying the breakdowns and overwhelming nature of her character's dilemma. Along with the supporting cast of characters that backed up Danielle's story and contributed to her mental state, this film is truly one of the most 21st-century stories I have ever seen and done so by a filmmaker and crew who show that they know the modern struggles of our generation.

Sennott could not have been a better choice for this lead role and her ability to carry this little film remains absolutely unmatched. Paired with the anxiety-fueled direction from Seligman and musical cues that were even able to make me feel secondhand anxious, Shiva Baby feels like a warm acknowledgment from someone at a party who knows exactly what you're going through. Not only will this movie soon dominate the Twittersphere of the internet but it rightfully deserves to be seen by everyone, regardless of age, religion, or whether or not you rely on a sugar daddy for income (which may be more people than you think).

* poster used is from the original 2018 short film as the theatrical poster is not yet available

My Rating: ★★★★

The Deer Hunter (1978) directed by Michael Cimino

AFI Top 100: #53

Wow, okay. Didn't think I could be made even more nervous about watching people play Russian roulette. Michael Cimino's absolutely excellent film The Deer Hunter is probably the best Vietnam war movie I have ever seen, as it takes the genre in an expected direction but has some of the greatest performances ever given for this kind of story. This film is chock full of some of the best-directed moments I have ever seen, as Cimino is able to really pull out the emotion and grief from his brilliant cast of actors. The cinematography and editing were miraculous, the sound design was fantastic, and I was thoroughly engaged in this world for its entire runtime. Although it does fall well within the realm of the war genre, along with its predictable tropes, the absolute mastery of craft that Cimino and his crew are able to exhibit is incredibly impressive. Just as I think I am completely done and tired of the genre, this film is able to reinvigorate my belief in what these types of stories can accomplish.

Lifelong friends Michael (Robert De Niro), Nick (Christopher Walken), and Steven (John Savage) volunteer to join the military and serve their country in the Vietnam War. Before they go, they decide to go on one last hunting trip and after the three of them suffer the horrors of war, they end up coming home and having to deal with the repercussions of their trauma, including the fact that both Michael and Nick are in love with the same girl Linda (Meryl Streep). The writing throughout this film from Deric Washburn's script was just phenomenal. While the story itself comes from a handful of different people, Washburn is able to bring this story together in such an interesting way that I never would have expected. His script is able to hit so many emotional beats and cover ground on so many, different life events without ever making the audience feel scattered. I often find that films like these that try to cover a long period of time or a topic as expansive as the Vietnam war can meander around and not really focus on an A-plot but Washburn is brilliantly able to establish the characters and story right off the bat, send them into conflict, and bring the ending home in such a compelling fashion. There was a lot of genuinely good humor and drama blended in together to propel each scene into the next to make some of the most impactful moments ever. The fantastic direction from Cimino helps this too, as the film itself did not ever feel like it was three hours long. Cimino gives us such an amazing look at the different ways veterans handle PTSD and how not all returning soldiers are able to cope and make it out with their sanity. In fact, the recurring idea of the deadly game of Russian roulette is not only a dangerous one but one that had so many lasting, psychological effects on the entire story and the arcs of its characters. I loved how this game played such a huge part of the story and how the characters of Michael, Nick, and Steven were able to show how it affected them. The Deer Hunter also handles postwar mental health a lot better than I could have predicted and I adored practically every thematic idea that Cimino chose to explore.

The performances from the entire cast of this film took me by surprise because I had no idea how much sheer talent was put into one movie. De Niro, Walken, Cazale, and Streep give some of the best and most genuinely humanistic performances of their careers and I absolutely adored the paths that they chose with their acting. I loved the palpable chemistry between them all and I really could not see anyone else occupying these characters other than them. De Niro and Walken, in particular, turn in some of the most honest but at times unhinged performances I have ever seen and this is really the first time that either of them has acted in a scene that has almost made me cry. The last scene that these two shared together was one of the tensest and most devastating sequences ever put to film and I was on edge for its entirety. While a lot of that tension's credit has to go to Cimino, the pure artistry seen between these two performers was just magic. This whole cast of different character and method actors put together makes for such a wonderful ensemble that I feel like modern audiences skip over way too easily. The technical aspects of this film also astounded me, as the cinematography from Vilmos Zsigmond and editing from Peter Zinner were just spectacular. Zsigmond's use of the camera is just beautiful and he is able to perfectly capture both the explosiveness of war and the more personable, closeup shots of the characters' emotions very well. Not only was The Deer Hunter grand in scale, but it was just gorgeous to look at too: from the painting-worthy shots of the mountains during their hunting trip to the coziness of a home during the most emotional scenes, I was terribly engrossed in every shot of this. Zinner's editing was my favorite part of this film, however, as his work was particularly jarring and effective throughout the entire film. The pacing he was able to use was brilliant and along with Cimino, they were able to make this three-hour film fly by in a breeze. The best part of his editing, however, was the painfully hard cut after the first act of this film. Cutting from the tranquility and brotherhood that these characters were experiencing in the bar scene directly into the apocalyptic ruination of the Vietnamese village was just captivating. Zinner makes this film take such impressive, chronological turns, so much to the point that I was simply blown away.

It's difficult to argue against Robert De Niro's reputation as one of the greatest actors of all time and Cimino's The Deer Hunter only strengthens the argument in his favor. This film is my new, personal favorite war movie and one that touches on so many different aspects of grief and the mental traumas that come with the hardships of war. Packed with a plethora of genuinely thrilling moments and some creative choices that left me more than impressed, this film has really proven its place in the history of cinema in a much more artistic way than the war genre has seen before.

My Rating: ★★★★½

The Best Years of Our Lives (1946) directed by William Wyler

AFI Top 100: #37

War movies can be some of the greatest, technical spectacles in the history of film, as their tendency to use the vastness of the world to their advantage is often impressive. However, what impresses me most is when filmmakers are able to use the timeliness of world events to make a film unlike anything audiences could expect. William Wyler's The Best Years of Our Lives is a very different kind of wartime film and one that entirely focuses on the effects of war on veterans returning home. Set in a small town and placed within the drama genre, this film does a fantastic job of following its characters' stories as they navigate post-war life and try to readjust to the working class. However, I really do not think that this movie had enough interesting substance to warrant a full three hours. Wyler's direction and pacing of this film are incredibly slow and I found myself frustrated with the unnecessarily extended subplots. The melodrama of it all did not really work for me either, but if there is one thing that this film does great, it's present a unique vision of what a war film from this era can be.

Returning home from WWII, three veterans named Fred Derry (Dana Andrews), Al Stephenson (Fredric March), and Homer Parrish (Harold Russell) bond on the plane flight and end up becoming friends, as they live in the same small town. As the three of them have many troubles readjusting to civilian life and finding their place in a postwar world, they also have to navigate their refreshed relationships with the people that they left behind. If there is one, overarching element of this film that I genuinely appreciate more than anything, it's the representation of veterans coming home from war and the focus on their readjustment struggles. The writing behind this film, by Robert E. Sherwood and based on a novel by MacKinlay Kantor, is great in this regard and I loved how this movie took a more dramatic, family-based approach to the war genre. There are no massive battles, there are no gunfights, and there are no overly philosophical analyzations of trauma, but there is a genuine and down-to-earth vision of what it's actually like for veterans to come home. I loved this fresh take on the genre and especially being so recent after WWII actually ended, this choice to focus the story on people coming home was very progressive for the time. The three main characters themselves are fantastic and I loved seeing the developed relationships between them all and how they continued to struggle with life at home. The performances that accompanied these characters from Andrews, March, and Russell are all incredible in their own right. They each play such a different character but are able to bring a distinct personality and background to every one of their interactions. Gregg Toland's cinematography, however, is what stood out to me the most throughout The Best Years of Our Lives. His use of shadows and dark contrast in his camerawork was phenomenal and if nothing else, this film is worth seeing for his shots alone. So much movement and crazy rigging and overlaying of shots were all used to make this one of the most visually entertaining films of this era I have ever seen.

The writing, although it had its very strong points within the characters and the premise of this film, was a bit too much at times. I feel like this film is trying to tackle too many subplots at once and while I liked the blanket theme of societal reincorporation, the individual characters' arcs proved to be too much. I could never really attach myself to any of these characters and watching their lives go on, intersect, and often crash down around them just never paid off for me. There was plenty of compelling story choices made with the characters' relationships and marriages back at home but I still think that these screenwriters' eyes were bigger than their stomachs. This was also mostly due to Wyler's direction and how mismanaged I felt like this story was. His direction shows that he knows how to handle a gargantuan story like this but I feel as if his scale was far too large. A story like The Best Years of Our Lives deserves to have a very personable and relatable treatment, as its focus on these small characters returning to their lives almost requires a small-scale, dramatic setting. Wyler's choice to expand upon these characters' stories in the most grandiose form possible made it really hard for me to feel for these men. I do not think that the treatment this story was given was very appropriate and I just had an overall hard time connecting with the subplots in any emotional capacity. This tremendous scale of direction would work really well for Wyler in the future with his biblical adventure film Ben-Hur but for something as dramatic and cathartic as this movie, I was not a fan. And on top of all my problems with this film's direction, I was just plain old bored. I appreciate what Wyler and the writers did with handling these veterans but I just thought that maybe they could have touched on their actual mental health and its impacts more. That is a lot to ask from a film released in 1946 but I grew disinterested very quickly with their predictable and frankly unimportant little side drama. For a film about the effects of war, this movie sure spends a lot of time making its characters incredibly horny, and for what?

William Wyler's The Best Years of Our Lives is a solid film with a great premise that presents a fresh vision of life for the characters of these veterans. Even though the script and Wyler's direction tried their best to sell the plot of the relationships and melodrama throughout the film, I could never really get into it because of how long this film was stretched out. A much shorter runtime would have made this film a more concise exploration of the postwar lives of veterans and while this film never failed at doing that, I just wish Wyler did a better job of keeping my attention.

My Rating: ★★★½

The Sound of Music (1965) directed by Robert Wise

AFI Top 100: #40

Didn't think I would be typing the words "this film needs more Nazis" today yet here we are. It is easy to see how Robert Wise's incredibly renowned and beloved The Sound of Music has become one of the world's go-to, feel-good classics but it is not so easy for me to see why people have simply skipped over the fact that its entire story changes in the last half an hour? While this movie has some of the most memorable, cheery, and ultimately pestering music accompanied by some fantastic performances from its main cast, I could not get past the jarring shift that this story took and was not warned ahead of time that it would happen. There is so much to love about this movie and the fantastically creative decisions that Wise makes with his musical adaptation but I was never completely sold on the plot past the initial love story premise. This film may have been very pretty to look at but if people were to notice the inconsistency of the writing, I really think that its classic status would be bumped down a notch or two.

Upon being suggested to work elsewhere by her covenant of nuns, Maria (Julie Andrews) goes to work for a wealthy naval Captain named Von Trapp (Christopher Plummer). She is assigned to be a caretaker for his seven children because his wife had recently passed away and they had yet to find a woman who was fit enough to raise them. As Maria teaches the children about the wondrous joys of life, she also sparks up a romance with Von Trapp that she finds hard to keep under wraps. The writing throughout this film was fairly good for the first two and a half hours. The developed romance between Maria and Von Trapp was decent and I definitely believed their cinematic relationship, despite how obviously forced and unrealistic it was for the sake of the musical narrative. The story ended up being incredibly predictable, which is why when the last thirty minutes hit, I was absolutely shaken. Wise's hard pivot in The Sound of Music from jovial musical to suspenseful war thriller was something that I was not at all expecting but also proved to be something that hurt the film overall. I am still trying to process or even understand why he would include this section of the film to cap the conclusion off and while I know it has to do something with timely relevance and political connectedness, it just fragments this story so painfully much. If this film would have ended with Maria and Von Trapp's wedding, I could have pleasantly gone about my day. Sure, it still would have been overly cheery and artificial but at least we would be left with a happy ending. Or, I honestly would have liked to seen Wise go the opposite route. If this film quickly turned into this wartime narrative in the beginning and the film flashed back to when these characters were naive and happy, I would have been much more into that. I just do not think that a proper balance was ever struck between the two and because of that, I was left so frustrated. Wise's direction is also much slower than it needed to be and there is no reason why this film had to be almost three hours long. So much could have been cut to speed up the actual plot of the film and it would have been a much more concise, entertaining time.

What makes The Sound of Music so apparently spectacular, however, is in the title itself: the sound of its music. The score and musical sequences throughout this movie are absolutely iconic but really failed to get me to feel anything. I guess because I have heard these songs countless times in different forms of media but the constant repetition of the same four musical numbers throughout this film really started to get on my nerves. I don't expect there to be a song for every passing moment of the movie but hearing the same notes and the same melodies over and over again for three hours definitely tested me. The musicality and performances from the cast were incredible, however, as Julie Andrews and Christopher Plummer prove to be some of the best parts of the movie. They are just brilliant actors and bring so much life to their characters while simultaneously being able to belt out these show tunes with ease. Their relationship was also fantastic and the chemistry and tension they were able to play off each other were great to see. Although I had a lot of issues with this film's writing, handling of music, and abrupt shift in tone, it is hard to see past how gorgeous the movie is. The cinematography from Ted D. McCord is just stunning and his use of soft glows around the characters and wide shots during many of the film's musical sequences was beautiful. He also uses shadows very well and in many shots that would constitute a screenshot in itself, he is able to use this film's visual storytelling to tell a story of his own. I was also in awe of the massive, sweeping, aerial shots that directly started this film. Even though they might have been there just to show off the fact that this crew could pull off a majestic shot such as that, it worked well for the tone of the movie and the breezy, comedic atmosphere of most of this film plays into why it has become such a (mostly) lighthearted classic.

The Sound of Music is not inherently bad nor do I think it deserves the acclaim that it has garnered over the past 55 years of its lifespan. Andrews and Plummer are both wonderfully talented performers and Wise, along with the success of West Side Story, proves that he knows his way around a movie camera. My issues, however, come with this film's inability to decide what path to take and what audience they are trying to appeal to and I just can't wrap my head around some of those writing choices or why Wise took this completely wild path. Now excuse me while I lose my mind to the tune of "My Favorite Things" for the hundredth fucking time.

My Rating: ★★★