Lovelace (2013) directed by Rob Epstein, Jeffrey Friedman

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

American Gigolo (1980) directed by Paul Schrader

I'm going to be completely honest when I say that I am not really a fan of Richard Gere at all. I've seen Pretty Woman and Hachi: A Dog's Tale (honestly the latter was better) and so, based off of his reputation as an 80's heartthrob, I was just expecting mediocre acting with a large focus on his body and face that everyone seems to love. And I was not disappointed in that sense, because that's exactly what I got: mediocre acting and body shots.

I have not heard of this film before I watched it for my Introduction to Film class, and I guess there is a reason for that. The main focus of the film in regards to my class was its use of displaying the male body and the role-reversal of its main protagonist. It is very interesting to see how Gere's body was the one that was ogled over the entire time instead of the woman. However, I felt like that's all the appeal that this film had. I assume the writers of the film heard that Gere was on board with the project and then relinquished their hard work to rely on him to carry the film no matter what crap they wrote. That didn't work. The plot of the film was a basic murder drama, and it was so dull that I could not pay attention to what was happening or when the critical points were supposed to be. This got confusing at times, because I wanted to be interested in this film. I thought the idea of a male prostitute, excuse me, ESCORT, was very interesting to see how the gender roles were reversed in this type of situation. But throwing in a lackluster plot left me feeling uneasy, especially because there seemed to be no sense of direction. As for the ending, the actual murder of the gay manager sending Gere's character to prison was very sudden and unnecessary, and leading to the very last scene where Gere is begging the woman to help him get out of jail was anti-climactic to say the least. The entire film just felt very drawn-out and lost.

The other elements in the film that I did not like were the acting and the music choices. Richard Gere, while considered a great actor in his own sense, did not seem to be fully invested in this film. It may be my personal judgment that is stopping me from seeing what everyone else apparently is, but I truly think that Gere was only cast in this so he could take his clothes off and everyone could see his dick. His acting was wildly mediocre, but he did make a convincing male escort so I will give him credit for that. Another piece of this film that I found laughable was the soundtrack. The film opens with Blondie's classic "Call Me," which makes sense because Gere's character is an escort. But I guess they used all of the film's budget on hiring Gere because the same recognizable rhythm of "Call Me" was used in a lot of different contexts throughout. For example, when Gere is sad about accidentally killing his gay manager, a depressing version of the song was quietly playing in the background. I couldn't help but to laugh during this, no matter how serious the scene. This film wasn't bad in any sense, it was just too long and extremely boring. My favorite aspect is the gender reversal plot device, but there wasn't much else to the story for the audience to hang on to.

American Gigolo is a very tedious and honestly unnecessary film that easily could have been made into a short film or a short scene in something else. While Richard Gere is eye candy for two hours, that is about all he provides. I wouldn't exactly recommend this film, unless you are REALLY dedicated to Gere's, umm, personality.

My Rating: ★★½

Thor: Ragnarok (2017) directed by Taika Waititi

The latest addition to the Thor franchise and Marvel Universe, Thor: Ragnarok is a fun and exciting superhero film that is definitely worth your money. While there are multiple problems and dull moments, the heart of this film is very hilarious and action-packed. Past these problems, however, Waititi has definitely delivered one of the best Marvel films in the past few years.

I'll start with the good parts of this film, because there were, indeed, many of them. My personal favorite aspect would have to be the addition of Hulk into the film. This has definitely assisted the Marvel universe in explaining what Thor and Hulk were up to during the events of Captain America: Civil War. Fans were left in suspense for a while, and it was very refreshing to see what they were doing while Cap and Iron Man were busy having a "whose-dick-is-bigger" tussle. The best part of this film was the inclusion of Hulk, as he made the film as great as it was. Hulk is now capable of speaking almost full sentences, and that character development was really important in developing him throughout. The relationship that was built between Ruffalo and Hemsworth's characters is so important to this film, because it delivered the comedy that we needed. In the initial two Thor films, and the two Avengers films, Thor has been the stoic and brave ancient warrior that was honestly only included for his strength and firepower. He has not changed personality-wise through those four films, but this one was critical in developing the character that we needed. Thor was very sarcastic and had a strong sense of a dry humor, which made his character actually watchable. And the dynamic between him and Hulk prospered due to these character changes.

A few other aspects that I really enjoyed were the performances of Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo, and especially Jeff Goldblum's villainous Grandmaster. I was not expecting Goldblum's character to be so evil, but the Grandmaster was a devious battle-creator who exploited Hulk so infamously. Then again, Jeff Goldblum tends to play the same character in a lot of his films: the dry yet somehow handsome character that you cannot love nor hate. While it seems confusing, you have to get a grip of his acting to really understand him. Either way, he had a great performance alongside Hulk and Thor. Other smaller parts that I loved were the inclusion of the character Korg and the color used in the film. Korg, actually voiced and motion-captured by the director, was absolutely adorable and in my opinion, provided the most memorable moments. And the color used in the film was more than any of the other Thor films, and it did very well. Along with the humor, it provided me more of an intergalactic Guardians of the Galaxy vibe, and that worked so well. And the appearance of Doctor Strange excited me a lot, because it was so unexpected and handled quite well.

The few problems with this film vary in size, but are present nonetheless. The main problem was the villain Hela's arc and the majority of the plot of the film. Hela, through the marketing, was made out to be one of the biggest baddies in the Marvel universe. However, she did not play the best part in the film. The best parts were with Hulk on the Grandmaster's planet, and honestly I forgot that Hela was a threat at times. She took over Asgard, but the main story seemed to focus on Thor's revival with Hulk. Which is why I believe that the heart of this film belongs to Planet Hulk. If Marvel would have made a Planet Hulk film and had an appearance by Thor, I feel like that would have worked with the tone much better. As threatening and exciting as Ragnarok is, 80% of the plot was focused on Hulk, which it did good in that sense.

Thor: Ragnarok is a funny and great adventure to take part in, and critical in developing the overall story of the Marvel universe, leading up to Infinity War. It had some problems, however, with the generic "take-over-the-land" villain and its confusion on what the focus of the plot was. Regardless, this is a fun movie and was great to see more development in two of the least-publicized Avengers.

My Rating: ★★★½

The Room (2003) directed by Tommy Wiseau

After 18 years of being in love with movies and beginning my film major in college, I am excited to announce that I have finally done it. I finally lost my Tommy Wiseau virginity. The Room is a film that any fan of pure entertainment will agree is one of the must-sees of the century. This film is so well-done in all of its aspects and there is nothing that could stop me from giving it the praise it deserves.

There are so many fantastic parts of this film that it astounds me the Academy has not picked up on this cult classic. The acting, cinematography, and special effects throughout this film are truly ahead of its time. Let's begin with the acting. Tommy Wiseau has proven himself as one of the greats, giving an absolutely flawless performance as Johnny. All of his actions and reactions were so perfect for his character, and I believe that is what makes a fantastic actor. Truly embodying your role is what makes the audience believe in what you are selling, and Wiseau did just that. Other great performances from notable actors such as Greg Sestero (Mark) and Juliette Danielle (Lisa) were proven to be just as magnificent. One of the best parts of this film was the resolution of the subplots. Every single character was treated very well, and their individual stories were all wrapped up very nicely. The production quality and thought put behind each characters' motives was flawless, on account of The Room's excellent writing.

Speaking of the writing, the story, written by Wiseau himself, is the compelling and dramatic story that this decade of film desperately needed. In the wake of awful storytelling in 2003, as seen in such films as Mystic River and The Return of the King, this film is so fresh and innovative. The audience is truly drawn into the story of Johnny and his girlfriend Lisa, and is really made to despise the latter. After she cheats on him with Johnny's best friend Mark, the story stays so attention-grabbing that one can not help but to wonder what will happen next. I, personally, was moved so much by this film and its dramatic elements. Another outstanding aspect that caught my focus was the cinematography and editing. The DP really draws you in to the world of San Francisco and the cuts that take place throughout are so well-done. Not a single shot was out of focus or out-of-the-ordinary and the cinematographer deserves credit where credit is due. My personal favorite scenes involve Johnny purchasing some roses from a local business and the classic rooftop confrontation. The phenomenal acting and world-building really took my breath away.

While this film is just extraordinary in every aspect, there is always room for improvement. While said room is very small, there still is some for this film. A few very minor issues that I had with Wiseau's masterpiece was its lack of a coherent plot or subplots, completely disgusting performances by every character involved, an absence of narrative unity and production quality, a camera that might have been found in a dumpster (along with the DP), out-of-focus shots that should have been burned, very gratuitous sex scenes, horrendous use of effects and green-screening, and an absolutely degrading death scene in the conclusion of the film. But I guess we can't all be perfect.

In conclusion, The Room is a fine film made by the inspiring visionary director Tommy Wiseau. Any rational person or fan of movies will agree that this film deserves to be highlighted in the Hall of Fame for the rest of eternity. Or at least until someone breaks the news to Wiseau that he can't write, direct, or act for his life.

My Rating: ★★★★★½

The Silence of the Lambs (1991) directed by Jonathon Demme

AFI Top 100: #74

Watching this film for the first time the other night was very eye-opening to me. While I know of the infamous cannibal Hannibal Lecter, I never knew what made him so evil or the story behind the man. I can honestly say that I was expecting a more horror-like film, and when I got a crime thriller, I still was not disappointed. The Silence of the Lambs is a fantastic movie with amazing elements that kicks off the incomparable legacy of Hannibal Lecter.

There was only one problem that I had with this film, and I might as well get it out of the way now. It involves the story of Hannibal Lecter, and I think they could have used more of it. I was expecting Hannibal to be the main villain of the film, but he was more of an accessory villain to the real threat throughout. While he did end up escaping in the end (and successfully setting up possible sequels), I personally think that they could have used more of his backstory for this film. I have not seen any of the other films in the franchise so they might have explored more of him in those, but I would have liked to seen what made him a cannibal and do the god-awful things that he did to people. He was definitely the most interesting character in this film, cementing him in suspense history, but that infamous mask should have been taken off, metaphorically.

This film has so many memorable scenes and elements, and it is worthy of all of the praise it received. One of the best parts in the film was the performances by Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins. Although he might play a psychotic cannibal while she plays a mild-mannered FBI trainee, they had such amazing on-screen chemistry. Their roles fit them so well as the humility of Foster's character contrasted the stark and controlling nature of Hopkins' character. Even though their characters worked beautifully together, the best part of this film was the female empowerment portrayed by Foster's character Clarice Starling. She was one of the only females that had succeeded in the rigorous FBI training program, and she still did not give in to any of her male counterparts, even surpassing them. She had been asked out twice in the film, and handled her male superiors with the greatest attitude ever. She truly showed how independently strong and successful a woman can be without being influenced negatively by those damn boys. Starling was very bold and career-oriented, which we can thank the writers of this film for making such an inspiring and well-rounded character.

In conclusion, The Silence of the Lambs is a very powerful and moving crime thriller, with the reputation of Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins backing it up. While it presented a new criminal that would have an impact on people for years, it also presented one of the strongest women in film. I would recommend this film for anyone who is interested in a good suspenseful movie, because this film has some of the best writing of its genre.

My Rating: ★★★★

Victor Victoria (1982) directed by Blake Edwards

Victor Victoria is a very strange film indeed. This film, about a woman disguised as a man disguised as a woman in order to get a theatrical role she was auditioning for, tends to get very confusing at many points throughout. It is a bit hard to follow, but is redeemed in some aspects by Julie Andrews' remarkable performance, as always, and the beautiful and skillful cinematography.

I don't want to diminish the importance of this film by leaving bad feedback, but there is one main problem throughout that left me feeling so confused. The plot of the film can get a bit complicated at times regarding her disguises and motives behind why the Julie Andrews character Victoria does what she does. It makes sense that in 1930's Paris, only men would be praised for their acting abilities and so that gives way to why Victoria decides to dress up as a man. It gets confusing, however, when as a man, she has to disguise herself as a woman once more. I understood that it might have been a statement regarding sexuality and gay rights back in those times, but the reasoning behind why she did what she did got quite confusing. Another part that really bugged me, as simple as it was, is the naming element. It seems like if a woman named Victoria who was infamously fired from one of her roles wanted to re-brand herself as a man, that she would pick a different name than Victor. Especially since she (or he) auditioned for a role with the same company. And a simple glance at her face would have been ample enough information to realize that it's the same woman. Either that, or 1930's Frenchmen were just really dumb.

There are many amazing aspects of this film, however, which actually made me want to sit through it. Some of these include the representation and fight for the LGBT community, the performances, and the gorgeous camera work. The main premise of the film was that the protagonist's best friend, who was gay, could not get a role because he was homosexual. So Victoria, filled with talent, dressed as a man to get the role as a woman. Times were very very different in the 1930's obviously, and this might have actually been the case for many starving actors and actresses. And as confusing as the plot is, I appreciated the story's effort to fight for equality and gay representation, even if it was 80 years ago. Another part that I really enjoyed was the work of Dick Bush, the cinematographer. Especially in the scene where the antagonist is attempting to sneak into Victoria's apartment so that he can uncover the truth. That entire sequence was shot so well, including the hiding behind the walls and the spacial unity that it entailed. The running gag of the man putting his shoes out to shine was one of the funniest parts of the film, and helped push that scene along very well. The very last piece of this cinematic puzzle that really brought everything together were the performances by Julie Andrews and Robert Preston. Julie Andrews, as widespread and stunning as her career currently is, did a fantastic job alongside her character's gay best friend played by Preston. Only one word could be used to describe their work together, and it would be charisma. They had such good on-screen chemistry and I am surprised at how much life they brought to the screen.

Victor Victoria is a good film that many cult followers of Julie Andrews will adore. It has a lot of catchy musical numbers, as well as great actors, actresses, and a stunning man behind the camera. The plot of the film runs on for a whopping 2 hours and 14 minutes and becomes quite dull and confusing, but I loved the representational message they were attempting to get across.

My Rating: ★★★

Cold Prey (2006) directed by Roar Uthaug

What better way to get in the spirit of Halloween than by watching Nordic horror? I recently watched Cold Prey and while it is not the greatest thriller ever made, it definitely does not disappoint fans of the horror genre. This film seems like one that would be on the "foreign" category of Netflix and seen by no one, but in all honesty, it should be getting more attention. Even though it is spoken originally in Norwegian, the English dub is not too bad. The plot of this film is suspenseful, thrilling, and deserves much of the praise that it has received.

There are many great aspects of this film that make it so original and appealing. For starters, almost all of the horror film stereotypes were broken. In most horror films, the very sexually active woman is typically the first to die by the hands of the monster, and the clean-cut virgin girl is always the last one alive, usually escaping to tell her story. In Cold Prey, however, the very first victim of the monster is the virgin girl who refuses to have sex with her boyfriend. This was very surprising, especially since the only one to survive in the end was the polar opposite. The last one to live was the sexually-active woman and this is almost never seen in this genre because of its "shaming" of sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll. Another aspect that I thoroughly enjoyed was the setting of this film. It was very original because not many films are able to effectively take place in the winter mountains of a foreign country. This film did it very well, however, as they did not have to incorporate any actual science-fiction monsters or avalanches to progress the story, which are typical of snow-mountain settings.

Speaking of the killer in the film, his actions were very interesting. I loved how his killings were very clean (in a sense) and he had a clear mission. He wanted to protect his snow lodge and, after killing the intruders, steal their belongings for himself. Often in many horror films, the monster just kills because it can, or because of its insatiable bloodlust. The monster in this film had a clear goal and the foreshadowing showed his backstory and why he became the way he is. The final scene where the monster was dumping the bodies into the cliff was very powerful for me, and I appreciated how it displayed the monster's cleanliness and sense of respect (in a weird way).

I do have a few concerns about this film though. Both of them happen to occur in the final act of the film, and they are just very confusing. My first is a very small complaint about the final fight scene between the monster and the man with the broken leg. He had a shotgun with one shell and, after wasting it on accident on his friend, he still held the gun and threatened to shoot the monster. If the killer lived in that lodge all of his life, it would seem like he would have a pretty decent knowledge of his inventory. The other problem with this film, in my opinion, was its very predictable plot twist, if you can call it that. In the beginning of the film when the protagonists are searching the lodge, they find pictures and articles about a young boy with a scar on his face that went missing in those mountains years before. It would seem very obvious that without any further explanation, that the killer would be the boy all grown up, possibly attempting to get revenge on his parents through his victims. So when the final girl ripped off his mask and showed the scar on his face, I was not surprised at all. This is the one typical trope that this film used, and I feel like they could have done a bit better at hiding the reveal.

Cold Prey is a very original and enthralling story that any fan of the horror genre should love. I would strongly recommend this film to anyone that is looking for a good story and a fun time on this spooky Halloween night.

My Rating: ★★★½

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) directed by Steven Spielberg

AFI Top 100: #66

The Indiana Jones trilogy is my personal favorite of all time. And yes, I said trilogy. Sorry Shia LaBouf. LaBuff? LaBoof? Either way, I do not include the fourth one. Raiders of the Lost Ark is such an astounding film in many aspects. While it is very original for its time, it also incorporates the fantastic skills of Spielberg without resorting to absurd science fiction, which was my main problem with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. This film could be on loop for days on end, and I would be completely okay with it, because every time you watch this fantastic film, you can catch something new.

The story of this film is something very innovative for its time, and it is honestly a surprise that it did so well in the box office. In the midst of the Star Wars and Star Trek hype, Spielberg manages to pull a classic out of his bag and dominate the world. None of the major studios could have ever thought that in 1981, a film about a 1930's adventurer would be successful. They neglected to remember, however, how big of a star Harrison Ford was at the time. Not only that, but this genre was unheard of since the 50's and 60's, and the story was so inviting and attention-grabbing. Mixing elements of the Nazis and Egyptian tomb-raiding worked so well for the film. The plot of this film draws you in and doesn't let you go until the very end, and even then you are begging for more.

In all honesty, I do not have many things to say about this film, positive or negative. Positively, this is one of the greatest, if not THE greatest, adventure film ever made. You simply have to see it for yourself in order to get the entire experience. One of my favorite aspects of the film was that it never once objectified women. Marion, played by Karen Allen, was perfect for her role and her character was so independently badass that she might not have even needed Indy's help. Indy never once made a remark about a woman in the film, and he viewed women with the utmost respect. This was awesome writing, especially for a character in this position in the 30's. On the negative side, I have absolutely nothing to say. This might be the shortest review I have ever written, but this is one of those rare films where it is such an instant classic that there is nothing to say that will do it justice, other than seeing it for yourself. I can not stress that enough.

If you have never seen Raiders of the Lost Ark, do yourself a favor and see it. Only then will you truly know how majestic and triumphant the whip-slinging, ass-kicking, and charming character that Indiana Jones is. I would strongly recommend this film to anyone who hasn't seen it yet.

My Rating: ★★★★★

Tropic Thunder (2008) directed by Ben Stiller

Tropic Thunder is a very interesting film in so many ways. On one hand, it is a very smart film aimed at satirizing typical war films and the attitudes of the actors getting paid millions. But on the other hand, it is simply just a ridiculous and grossly violent jab at your typical soldier-type. There is not a very fine line between these two depictions, but either way, Tropic Thunder is definitely one to be discussed.

The plot of this film revolves around a group of actors that have been sent to a Vietnam-like island in order to shoot a classic action film. They were put there in order to get the real sense of what war was like in the jungles, but they also didn't know that an actual war was occurring. Which, of course, they get involved in. Ben Stiller directs and leads in this film, and honestly, his performance was pretty good, along with Jack Black, Jay Baruchel, and the fresh-out-of-rehab Robert Downey Jr. While they each individually have their own films that they starred in before (within the film), their characters manage to get along with each other. Except for Stiller and Downey Jr.'s characters. There is a lot of talk of racial differences in this film, and it can be perceived as, like mentioned earlier, either extremely smart or extremely insensitive. The biggest example, of course, was Downey Jr.'s character in a form of blackface. His character had pigmentation surgery done to him for the soldier role in the film, but this film failed to mention why that was important for his character, besides that he was a "method" actor. So essentially, Robert Downey Jr. was playing an Australian guy playing a black guy. While it was for comedic effect of course, the film seemed to focus too much on that fact, instead of letting it be the typical ludicrous American comedy. There was also the fact that the antagonists in the film were the stereotypical Asian drug dealers that operated out of a shithole in the middle of Jungle, Nowhere. But I digress.

Another of my main problems with this film was its representation of special needs people. Ben Stiller's character in the film acted in a film called Simple Jack, and he played a mentally-challenged farm boy named Jack. I understand that the writers of Tropic Thunder did not mean for this element to be offensive, in fact, they were meaning for it to be quite the opposite. However, I personally feel like the line was crossed because it tends to be very hard to differentiate satire and plain, offensive humor in this film. That was my only other complaint about this film, was that its level of satire was so extreme that it reached a point where even the most complacent moviegoer might think "wow, they really just said that."

Other than the fact that racial issues and mental disability were not represented well, this film does well in its other categories, including basic humor, plot, and soundtrack. All three of these were done fairly well, and I enjoyed those parts more than the others. All of the actors performed extremely well, and they excelled in making a movie about making a movie about making a movie, as confusing as that can be. And no war film set around the time of Vietnam would be complete without at least one track from Creedance Clearwater Revival. That would be preposterous. In conclusion, Tropic Thunder is a decent war comedy with a semi-confusing plot that is entertaining, to say the most. Let's just hope you don't get easily offended.

My Rating: ★★½

Friday the 13th (1980) directed by Sean S. Cunningham

Alright it's time for a review that many cult followers of this franchise might not find very good, to say the least. I recently saw the original Friday the 13th for the first time in my life, surprisingly. I am a huge fan of horror films, but have never ventured to see this one, as I know of Jason Voorhees and his ridiculous legacy already (hence the 10 sequels and the 2009 remake). After seeing this film, however, I can't lie and say that it lived up to the classic hype, because for me, it definitely did not.

After seeing countless sequels and reboots of many franchises, I begin to wonder if Hollywood really is running out of ideas. Then I see a film like Jason X or Freddy vs. Jason and that thought is chased out of my mind. While some argue that there are no more original movies left, I do not agree. I just think there are more films being produced that incorporate other aspects from various films in brilliant ways. Friday the 13th, however, was the complete opposite of what I was expecting. I was expecting an original slasher film that began the decades-old legacy of the hockey mask-wearing psychopath Jason. However, I was honestly very disappointed to find out that Jason was not even in this film as the classic version of himself that horror fans love. Given the marketing and posters and hype before I saw this film, I was expecting to see the actual face of this franchise, but that was not the case. Even one of the original posters has the hockey mask on it, so I was very misled. Keep in mind that I have never seen this film before, so I guess I just did not know what to expect.

Another thing that was a concern for me was this film's lack of A. original content and B. diversity. As for original content, this film was nothing more than an hour-and-a-half slasher fest. Which I have come to expect from these kinds of horror films, but being one of the founding films of this genre, I expected a lot more. My biggest problem was the straight-up ripoff of a lot of the plot of Hitchcock's Psycho. Given that film is one of the best and influential horror films of all time, it is easy to take some elements here and there to modify for a film. Friday the 13th, however, had almost identical characteristics of Hitchcock's masterpiece. The mother/son plot twist and psychological elements were practically the same idea. And the fact that the main antagonist wields a massive knife? How original. I expected to see more original uses of weapons and death in this film, but I understand that laziness in filmmaking is a big problem. My other problem with this film was its lack of diversity. It was the modern 1980, and not one actor of color had a leading role in the film. This might not have been the director's intention, but nowadays that would be a huge problem.

Speaking of the cast of the film, those who were involved played their parts very well. I for one had no clue that baby Kevin Bacon was in this film, so I was pleasantly surprised by his great performance. The true protagonist of the film, who of course did not drink, smoke, or have sex, was Alice, the final girl (played by Adrienne King). Her relentlessness against the killer, who ended up being Pamela Voorhees, was formidable, and she held up to be the best part of the film. Not just the good acting part, but her character seemed to be the only reasonable one as well.

Overall, Friday the 13th is an entertaining start to the legendary franchise, but nothing to rave about. It refused to show any original ideas other than the beginning of Jason Voorhees, which even then, did not show him until the end coming out of the lake. I would recommend this film to beginners of the slasher genre, but do not expect too much.

My Rating: ★★★

It Follows (2014) directed by David Robert Mitchell

I have not seen very many original horror films in the past few years, but It Follows was a definite exception. The original plot combined with the youthful exuberance of the cast made this film a very quiet but intense experience. This film took one of the biggest tropes of horror films and made it into a very enjoyable premise.

This film is a magnificent example of purposeful sexuality in horror cinema. In most common horror films, the stereotype of the sexually-active couple are always the ones to get killed first. It seems to have been rooted in our culture that if you have sex, smoke, or drink in a horror film, the monster will most certainly get you. It was genius writing to take the sexual activity and make it the main premise of the film. The monster is only after the last person to have sex, and it is transferred like a disease, beginning the STD metaphor conversation surrounding this film after its release. I personally enjoyed the idea of having the monster be sexually transmitted, and I know that the filmmakers, especially after talking with Fred Green (executive producer) in class the other day, were in love with their idea. This film also worked very well with this premise because of its low budget. Since the monster was not CGI or special effects-driven, they used various humans as the monster and was only seen following the protagonists. This, in some way, worked much better than having the traditional evil monster in the film.

The acting in this film was amazing too, and the young cast brought so much life to their roles. The other aspect of this film I adored was its use of music. The soundtrack is nothing exceptional or extraordinary, like the Jaws theme or the shower violin from Psycho, but the music was very subtle and at times, silent. This gave that much more power to the scenes and the actors, and they truly brought life into it.

Some of my favorite scenes in the film included the long shots and the use of space in the backgrounds. One example would be when two of the protagonists are at the high school researching the real name of the man who gave the monster to Jay. As the camera panned around almost 720 degrees, the monster was seen in the shape of an older woman slowly approaching the window pane. This was very creepy, but done so well because the audience does not realize what is happening until it is right in their face. The other part that I thought was done very well was the ending shot. Jay and Paul, who she had passed the monster to, are walking down the street holding hands while someone walks slowly behind them. This person behind them is almost invisible and I had to view the scene twice to see them, but it was clear that it was the monster. This adds so much to the story, because it leaves the audience in a sense of wondering whether or not the two would face the monster or just keep running.

In conclusion, It Follows is a new and innovative horror film that, even with an independent budget, was done beautifully. It is absolutely worth watching, and I would strongly suggest this film.

My Rating: ★★★★

Requiem for a Dream (2000) directed by Darren Aronofsky

Boosting the careers of many now-famous performers including Jared Leto, Marlon Wayans, and Jennifer Connelly, this film is absolutely brilliant in almost every way. I consider this to be Darren Aronofsky's best film, as it plunges the audience into the harsh world of drugs and shows the gritty reality of it all in a great way. This film does not hold back when it comes to showing what these characters go through, and I believe that is the most important part. The performances in this film were so great and could not have been portrayed by better actors.

One of the most gripping parts of the film was the world that was created by Aronofsky. In many films, the stereotypical drug users are bums that come from off the streets and are typically African-American. What was so innovative about Requiem for a Dream was it showed that drug addiction can happen to anyone. It showed the downfall of multiple types of people, from a middle-class man and his mother, to his girlfriend and best friend. They were all hooked on different types of drugs, ranging from heroin to marijuana to prescription weight-loss pills. While this film was not meant to be an anti-drug PSA, it really showcased how dangerous drugs can be and the awful consequences of them.

The actors and actresses involved all did a phenomenal job of selling their characters to the audience. One of my favorite performances was from the now-popular Jared Leto. This was his first breakout role in film, and continues to be one of his best. I really felt for his character Harry, especially seeing the development in the relationship with his mother. They went from extremely connected to even more extremely distant, and all because of the effects of the drugs they had gotten mixed up with. While Harry's mother Sara was obsessed with being a big TV star on the infomercial she had kept seeing, she was more focused on that than maintaining the relationship with her only son. The TV show ended up driving her insane, however, and her life spiraled down as she took weight-loss pill after weight-loss pill, attempting to fit into the same red dress that she had worn for Harry's graduation. This dress had become a sort of motif throughout the film, as it was the final goal of Sara throughout the entire film. This same red dress was also seen in Harry's dream sequences, but being worn by an unfamiliar face at the end of the dock. This might have been my only concern with this film was the woman on the dock. It was never explained who she was or why Harry was dreaming about her. It was simply a piece of his imagination that was never fully uncovered. The use of music in this film was genius, however, as its overtures and symphonies used helped the tone very well. And the film's use of punchy editing and camera tricks to convey the rush that drugs bring to the characters was very powerful.

There is not much to say about this film because of its trippy editing and peculiar plot patterns, but I would absolutely suggest you watch it and form an opinion for yourself. One thing that is not debatable was the spectacular performances by the cast and their development over the course of their drug-fueled and dwindling lives. It was so new for the time, and continues to be one of the best examples of fantastic and attention-grabbing filmmaking. I would definitely recommend this film, just not if you have epilepsy of any kind, as those constant flashing lights and drug transitions can be a little too much to handle.

My Rating: ★★★★

Hacksaw Ridge (2016) directed by Mel Gibson

I have never been a fan of war films in my life. The only reason why I enjoyed history in high school was because it gave me a decent chance to get some sleep. Hacksaw Ridge, however, shed some very new light on the genre for me, and I can actually say that I enjoyed it just as much as other films. Who would have guessed that this masterpiece of a period film could have been directed by Mel Gibson? Following the fallout of his infamous 2006 rant, Gibson has not seen a lot of work, for obvious reasons. I believe his work on this film has redeemed, at least, his creative qualities in the industry, as I was thoroughly impressed.

There are many parts of this film to love, and the main being that it is not your traditional war film. In the war genre, we typically see the soldier go off to war in the beginning of the film, experience some hardship while on the fighting front, and then return home after his traumatic time to a loving wife and kid that he didn't knew he had. This is typical and expected of a lot of these kinds of films, but Hacksaw Ridge breaks from this norm. The main hero of this film, excellently played by Andrew Garfield, was Desmond Doss, a passionate Christian who refused to handle a gun during his time in WWII. While the drama surrounding that belief played out through the film, the aspect I loved the most was that the actual war did not start until the third act of the movie. Character development was the main focus, and that worked very well for the story that was being told. War was not necessary to show until Doss heroically risked his life to save as many American soldiers as possible, while under siege by the Japanese. Being the conscientious objector that he was, it gave that much more power to this true story, because of his reluctance to use a firearm. Andrew Garfield embodied this role very well, and the story worked well with his character's ultimate goal.

While the character maturation and delaying the war was my favorite part of this movie, I also enjoyed the portrayal of Sergeant Howell by Vince Vaughn. The only actor I knew was part of this project before I saw it was Andrew Garfield, and so seeing Vaughn as a hard-ass military sergeant definitely threw me for a loop. But it ended up being the best loop possible. While Vince Vaughn is definitively known for his comedies such as Wedding Crashers or Dodgeball, he has not been cast in very many dramatic roles, and for good reason. After the crash-and-burn mess that was the Psycho remake of 1998, it makes sense for Vaughn to stick to comedy. However, along with Gibson's redemption into the world of film, I honestly believe that Vaughn was redeemed by his role in this film. He did so well in playing this character, and I was pretty terrified of his confidence at times throughout the film.

In conclusion, while I went into this film very pessimistically, I left feeling very satisfied with this new addition to the war genre. The only negative comment I have would be a personal opinion of mine, which would be the amount of gore shown during the actual war scene. I do not get bothered by blood and disfigurement very easily, but I admit I had to turn away a few times. I understand that that was the hard reality that many had to face during the war, I just would not be able to stomach it. Other than the difficult-to-watch scenes for some viewers, Hacksaw Ridge is a fantastic film with amazing performances and an original story definitely worthy of the Oscars that it won and was nominated for.

My Rating: ★★★★½

Pulp Fiction (1994) directed by Quentin Tarantino

AFI Top 100: #94

I seem to have a lot of favorite movies lately. While Baby Driver stays at the top of the list, I recently watched Pulp Fiction again and realized that right next to Reservoir Dogs, it is definitely my favorite Tarantino film. There are so many aspects to love about this film, including its amazing performances and confusing chronology which is just a part of its groundbreaking charm. After a recent lecture about the study of mixed genre, I realized that this film is so much more than the memes associated with it. Ain't that neat.

One of the best parts of this film was its use of events that are not in chronological order. This is trademark of Tarantino's style, and was also used in his first  big-budget film Reservoir Dogs. This type of narrative structure provides so many more questions than answers, but I believe that is what keeps the audience drawn in. Finally finding out what some of the biggest unanswered questions are feel so rewarding to the audience. Aspects that I loved about this film the most were the performances. Especially that of Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta. Their characters Jules and Vincent, respectively, were embodied so well by them. Starting and ending the film with their characters was a very smart choice because they were absolutely the highlight acting of the film. Other parts that I loved were the character development seen in basically all of the characters. They each had their own story arcs which, eventually tying together, had their own motivations and goals. This film was also one of the first to openly display rape in a public setting. While there have been obvious films in the past that explored this touchy subject, Tarantino had the guts to tackle it head-on. Including extremely racist background with the perpetrators made this scene that much more uncomfortable, but necessary to tell the harsh reality of the story. Either that, or Tarantino just really likes to use the n-word. Probably a little bit of both.

One of the best, and my favorite, elements of this film is the genre it is included in. Since it is considered a mixed genre, that means that it has a little bit of everything included in it. If someone were to ask you what genre this film was, you would probably answer gangster drama comedy thriller. Which makes sense in your mind, because it definitely pulls many qualities from all of those, and more. I love this film so much because you can not truly understand the title of the film until you understand that it is a mixed genre. Hence the name Pulp Fiction.

The only negative comments that I have about this film includes the story with Bruce Willis's character Butch, the boxer. His story was probably the most loosely-connected one of them all, and I would have wanted to seen more of his interactions with the characters of Vincent and Jules. A large majority of Butch's story has been left unanswered, and it is up to speculation many parts about him. The biggest example would be that of his father. We never hear anything about him until the scene with Christopher Walken, and even then, it is questionable whether or not Walken's character was telling the truth or not. In any case, Willis's character was portrayed very well, and definitely would not have had the same effect with any other actor.

This review seems short, but that's because you have to see this film for yourself. If you haven't ever seen Pulp Fiction, I would strongly recommend it, as it is arguably one of the most popular cult classics of all time. Giving us amazing scenes ranging from the burger confrontation to Jules's mid-life crisis, this film has a little bit of everything for everyone.

My Rating: ★★★★½

Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982) directed by Amy Heckerling

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.