Tigertail (2020) directed by Alan Yang

Stories about lower-class workers from different countries coming to America to find better jobs will always be interesting to me and throwing in a multi-generational, coming-of-age story does not hurt, either. Alan Yang's directorial debut Tigertail is an undeniably compelling look at a young man's journey and desire to move to America but, unfortunately, failed to really connect with me on any level due to its weak script and unmemorable characters. Based on the story of his own father, Yang's film is definitely quite personal to him but despite the charming uses of the camera, I could not get past how generic the entirety of this story was. Perhaps I am looking at this with too critical of an eye, but with how plastic this entire movie felt, it was hard for me to feel what Yang was attempting to convey. I always appreciate what streaming companies and modern studios do to promote up-and-coming filmmakers, but I also am not quite sure what else I was expecting from a Netflix original film of this variety that had so much potential otherwise.

Grover (Hong-Chi Lee) is a young man living in Taiwan who is being raised by his grandmother and eventually decides that he wants to leave his factory job to pursue a more profitable life in America. As he gets older (Tzi Ma), he must reconcile with his daughter Angela (Christine Ko) after being emotionally unavailable for her entire life. Some of the best parts of this film were its technicals, and especially in Nigel Bluck's cinematography. His camera work was phenomenal and there are so many interesting shots that particularly point out the environment in which these characters were living. I adored how the flashback scenes scattered throughout this film were shot on film while the modern scenes were shot digitally. This little detail was just a really bold, aesthetic choice that is hard to gloss over. However, Yang's storytelling is where I just failed to ever become attached. His writing made it hard for me to ever understand where any of these characters' minds were and many of this film's themes of growing up in some certain subplots were never fully explored. I understand that the point of the film was to portray how emotionally cold Grover was his entire life, especially to Angela, but due to the lack of characterization, I just honestly began to dislike him as a person entirely. Not even the mildly warm and comforting music from Zach Cowie was able to offset this unsettling tone and despite his intentions being in the right place, the message never stuck. Yang very deliberately knows the beats of a good, emotional story, but I just really wish the script could have stronger in order to back up his structuring abilities.

I can visibly tell how passionate Yang is about telling this story, especially for his debut feature, but the lack of detail just made everything appear disingenuous. It's very difficult to speak on the authenticity of a story like this since I am neither Alan Yang or his father, but whether or not this film was actually how Grover's life was, its representation was just frankly boring. Yang's writing in this movie is incredibly weak, as the dialogue and written characters never managed to make an impression on me. The dialogue was as generic as it could have been and after a good while, I honestly could not delineate between which of the characters were talking. The characters throughout this film were very flat as well, almost to the point of reducing them down to archetypes. This lack of strong characteristics left me feeling like every one of these characters was a supporting character and that we were just waiting for the actual protagonist to eventually show up. There was not nearly enough detail on any of these people and I became incredibly frustrated with how unremarkable of people they ended up becoming. I will always be a sucker for a multi-generational story such as Tigertail but it just really needs any amount of depth to it. We are never able to find out why Grover transitioned from a lively youth into his distant, older age and while we are led to believe it was because of his love life, it is never made clear enough. Don't get me wrong, this film does a great job of expressing an immigrant's culture shock and how its main character had troubles relating to his daughter her entire life, but do not expect any form of groundbreaking storytelling or anything that will remotely leave a mark on an audience member.

Alan Yang's Tigertail is a promising story with so much potential for generational greatness that was never really able to achieve said wonder. While I think the performances and cinematographic choices throughout this film were fabulous, they really only had a mediocre script to work with, thus making the entire film feel utterly dull. This story has been told countless times before, often in greater fashion and while the theme of family connection is obviously important to Yang, I just wish he could have focused on making his story seem not so painfully generic.

My Rating: ★★★

Inception (2010) directed by Christopher Nolan

Christopher Nolan is one of those directors in which I have already seen most of his films, but typically just once years ago upon their first release. His revered 2010 film Inception is exactly one of these and while it is still an incredibly original and exciting movie, I actually find it to be one of his weaker films. Greatly outlived by the meme culture of the time and its puzzling reputation, this film is an endlessly fun thrill ride that, unfortunately, never seems to find its footing. Nolan, as much as it might pain me to say, thrives on order and even though his films have the tendency to stir minds and get people talking, there is a limit to what he can do in his filmmaking before it becomes unintelligible. This movie seems to be one of those stories and even though it is not that difficult to understand, the approach in his direction is far too messy for my taste. The chaotic energy of this movie might be a bit different than what Nolan usually tackles and while I do appreciate that, I just could not get myself to vibe with this as much as I hoped.

Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a specialist in removing bad things from peoples' minds and with the help of his dream-state technology, is instead hired by a CEO named Saito (Ken Watanabe) to plant an idea into the mind of rival Fischer (Cillian Murphy). In order to do so, he must reach down into three levels of dreaming, otherwise known as inception, and he gathers a team of the most skilled neuro-spies such as Eames (Tom Hardy), Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), and Ariadne (Ellen Page) to pull it off. The premise behind this film is what really excites me more than anything. The idea of pulling off a mental heist by planting an idea in someone's head is so strange and creative: something that only Nolan could dream up and execute. There is no doubt that he is the best choice for writing and directing this film but I think that his idea greatly outweighed his execution. A story this ambitious takes a lot of focus in order to fluidly combine the plotlines and especially in this film, which takes place in multiple levels of reality. I found this movie to be so unnecessarily chaotic and while I am certain that was what Nolan was going for, I don't think it fits his style particularly well. Nolan is known for his solid, beautiful, direction and unforgettable technicals and I believe that the confusing nature of this movie muddles all of the best parts of his style. Despite all of this, Christopher Nolan is on another plane of criticism when it comes to filmmaking, as he is undoubtedly one of the best storytellers of our generation. A lesser Nolan film is still better than a great film by any other, cookie-cutter director and no matter the personal taste of someone, it is hard not to at least enjoy his stories to some degree.

I may have not been as on board with this story and its attempted emotional beats as much as I have been with Nolan's other features, but just like his other movies, it is nonetheless phenomenally well-made. The cinematography from Wally Pfister is extraordinary and his expansive use of the camera fits this story unbelievably well. The CGI and visual effects utilized throughout this movie also help Pfister to tell its visual story incredibly well. Some of this movie's most memorable and jawdropping scenes include the city streets turning over on themselves and some of the illusions that are utilized by the characters. These scenes themselves helped to make this deceptive world so entrancing and there is no doubt that this movie has still stood the test of time as being awe-inspiring. Hans Zimmer's score is once again amazing, and even though his use of bass and droning atmospheres has become an almost trademark, it suits Nolan's filmmaking better than any other composer honestly could. The performances from the whole cast are also solid and while I don't think any of them are entirely known for their performances in this film (the entire cast are much better in other films), they take what they are given and run with it very well. The entire cast, from DiCaprio to Hardy to Page, are all fantastic performers and they fit in with this action-packed world incredibly well. I would really love to see more group films like these made today with such a loaded cast and original script because this has proven to be one of the best. This movie is really such a grand technical achievement and all of those parts are what really stood out to me more than anything. Inception has every element that makes a Nolan film a Nolan film and has proven itself more than worthy of its visual, critical acclaim.

Inception has become such a widely used term for the levels of mental confusion that it is almost laughable and honestly, good for this film for inspiring such a facet of our culture. I can not say much about the rest of it, however, and even though I do think this is a fun and exciting movie, I much prefer Nolan in a completely different kind of element. There is no doubt that this movie will be discussed and referenced until the end of time, and rightfully so, but they can have it. I'll stick to my Interstellar.

My Rating: ★★★½

The Wizard of Oz (1939) directed by Victor Fleming

AFI Top 100: #10

Writing multiple paragraphs about a classic film that is more than 80 years old and has been seen by virtually everyone on Earth at least once in their lives is something that is quite unnecessary, but alas, I am passionate about. Victor Fleming's The Wizard of Oz is an undeniable classic of film history and a fantasy tale that will forever stand the test of time. Not only does this film have some of the most memorable performances and songs in it but the themes of childhood wonder and optimism are some things that are definitely needed in today's times. While this movie was never a huge part of my childhood or even one that inspired me as a filmmaker, it is one that anyone can look back on and see why it has become so influential and so endlessly referenced throughout pop culture. The technicals are gorgeous, the set design is phenomenal, and the story is simple but sweet enough to provide for lifetimes of entertainment and in a wondrous setting like Oz, that is all that audiences could ever ask for.

Dorothy Gale (Judy Garland), a young girl living in Kansas, is swept away by a tornado and lands in the magical land of Oz, where she finds many strange creatures and witches that immediately enchant her. Struggling to figure out how to get home, she encounters and enlists the help of a scarecrow (Ray Bolger), a cowardly lion (Bert Lahr), and a tin man (Jack Haley) in order to reach the Wizard of Oz (Frank Morgan), who supposedly knows how she can get home. This film is such a classic at this point that I really don't have to explain what the movie is about, but its simple premise still holds up to this day. There is something so magical about this story that is easily able to transport you into the fantastical world of Oz and that is due to so many various elements. One of my favorite parts about this movie is the costuming and set design throughout every scene. While many of the backgrounds and backdrops were very obviously staged and painted upon, they were gorgeous nonetheless and made every scene and every interaction between Dorothy and her newfound friends so memorable. Along with this, the music in the film is incredible and despite some of them being less catchy or not as well-composed as others, every character's individual breakouts and vocals were absolutely solid. I love how well the music personalizes every character and their individual arcs were great. All of these unforgettable characters work together with such a whimsical dynamic that is quite easy to fall in love with. This movie is truly such an amazing technical achievement of the time and everything about it, from the cinematography to the expansive use of color in one of its most pivotal scenes, is breathtaking and continues to have that same effect today.

What makes a lot of The Wizard of Oz so successful and memorable are the performances from the entire cast. Garland, Bolger, Lahr, and Haley are all fantastic as the main, traveling cast, and their chemistry together is palpable. It's a bit ridiculous that so many of these absolute strangers would get along so well all of a sudden but the way Fleming frames their relationships make it very believable. It also helps that the comedy in this movie is light and easy to chuckle to but I strongly believe in how effective it was. My only issue with this film is the framing of Dorothy as the main character and how little she develops. I find the scarecrow, tin man, and cowardly lion to be the most interesting characters throughout this movie, mostly because they are looking for something that they are missing, whether it be a brain, heart, or courage. These made for some excellent character traits but Dorothy seemed to carry the same, naive energy with her throughout the movie. I honestly became a bit annoyed by her optimism at times and although Garland is perfect in the role, I do not understand why she had to be the main focus. This script, however, is wonderful and adapts the novel in such an interesting way. The dialogue, even for a fantasy film, felt so natural for each character and the childlike wonder radiated through every word. There is not much I can say about the magic that stems from this film that hasn't already been said but it's true regardless. So much of this movie has been made iconic due to its powerful, lasting effect and even now, as someone who is close to graduating with a degree in Film and Media Productions, it is hard to gloss over how strong that said effect is. Countless fantasy and drama films of today use some tropes and themes from this film to help build their story and Victor Fleming's direction really ties this adorable world together.

The Wizard of Oz is one of, if not the, greatest and most impactful fantasy film of all time and even while it was made more than eighty years ago, still holds up incredibly well. While Garland is most famously known for her role as Dorothy, I believe that every other element of this movie is what really elevates it to the classic status that it has achieved. Victor Fleming's cinematic adaptation of this story is undoubtedly more popular than the novel itself and despite the issues with this film's production, it all came together to make one of the most beloved movies of all time.

My Rating: ★★★★½

Ready or Not (2019) directed by Matt Bettinelli-Olpin, Tyler Gillett

Blonde women are the queens of modern horror, especially in 2019, and there is nothing anyone can do to convince me otherwise. Samara Weaving proves this incredibly well as she continues this reputation in Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett's Ready or Not, an incredibly hilarious horror-comedy and one hell of a fun ride. This film, although clouded by its B-level premise and standard screenwriting, is definitely enhanced by the performance from the lead and its impeccable direction. While this movie might not be the most original horror film of all time or the most original comedy of all time, it does a stupendous job of blending the two genres to make a bloody and ridiculously good time. I desperately wish I would have had more time to get around to seeing this last year because I know for certain it would have ended up being one of my favorites. I guess now is as good of a time as ever to catch up on underrated gems I missed out on and now that I've finally seen this film, I absolutely understand the hype that everyone had been talking about.

On the day of her wedding, Grace's (Samara Weaving) soon-to-be-husband Alex (Mark O'Brien) offers her an out and suggests that the two of them practically elope. Wanting to be with the love of her life, they decide to go through with it but Grace eventually finds out about a twisted tradition that Alex's family holds: playing a random game the night someone new enters the family. As she unknowingly picks hide and seek, Grace soon finds out that Alex's entire family is tasked with killing her before dawn and she must fight to survive until the sun rises. Class warfare was an unexpectedly huge theme throughout cinema in 2019 and I never would have believed how well a film like this could have tackled it. Guy Busick and R. Christopher Murphy's script was incredible and they show how capable they are of writing a very appealing story. The dialogue might have been a bit generic and the story plays out in a typical, horror structure but this script is able to provide so many little twists and turns that definitely help keep the audience engaged, with the help of its brief runtime. Ready or Not also never tries to be as heavy-handed or impactful as something like Parasite but it really does not have to be. The sprinkles of dialogue about doing what your family has always done and never breaking tradition regardless of wealth are so effective. They may only rear their head once in a while throughout the film, as it rather focuses on the bloody, never-ending chase, but they never seem out of place either. This world established by the writers was brought to life by all of the simple but beautiful technical pieces too. The set design, costuming, and cinematography were all so stylistic and made this horror story so lively. As simple as wedding garb and an exquisite mansion might sound, these filmmakers made great use of this environment and its limited space to create a fantastic world for the characters to play hide and seek in.

Bettinelli-Olpin and Gillett's direction is what helps tie all of these pieces together in the most entertaining fashion. They absolutely know how to make a fun horror film while keeping the jokes and tone rather humorous and lighthearted, despite the bloody gore and action scenes. I loved their direction throughout this entire movie but what stood out to me the most was how they handled exposition. Most horror films would have fully explained the premise at the beginning in some fashion and then took one precise turn into madness but Bettinelli-Olpin and Gillett took this a bit differently. Pieces of exposition and characteristics of the different family members were revealed slowly but carefully throughout the movie and one of the biggest pieces of plot information was not shown off until the chase for Grace was already on. I found this method of direction to be wildly effective and I love how they were able to save little surprises for particular moments throughout the film. The unbelievable standout of Ready or Not, however, was Samara Weaving's performance as Grace. The way that Weaving personifies the cute and innocent wife stereotype until she is broken down and built back up is spectacular. Most horror heroines just happen to have extensive background training in martial arts or something ridiculous like that but Grace's development was so natural and felt very earned. Weaving was perfect in this role and I earnestly wish that she could become a household name as her talent has more than proved her worth.

Ready or Not is a great horror-comedy that succeeds in delivering everything it promises. I absolutely adored the performance from Weaving and the simultaneously powerful and humorous ending that she embodied. Never would I have thought one of the most effective deliveries of a class warfare theme could be imbued within a horror-comedy with a goofy premise such as hide and seek but here we are. And we have Weaving, Bettinelli-Olpin, and Gillett to thank.

My Rating: ★★★★

Vivarium (2020) directed by Lorcan Finnegan

I can not personally think of anything more horrifying than being stuck in an endless loop with no foreseeable end or escape. Something about the constant repetition of anything with no change in pattern scares the living daylights out of me and if there's one thing that Lorcan Finnegan's suburban nightmare Vivarium does right, it's that. This movie is an undeniably eerie take on the psychological horror genre that has so much potential to be greater, especially with the two leads having as much fantastic talent as they do. Unfortunately, I feel as if this was ultimately wasted due to how lackluster and nonsensical many of this film's choices were. Even though the set design was utilized well and some of the cinematography was interesting, this movie fails to deliver on any front that most modern horror films do. While the drab monotony of suburbia definitely provides for one of this film's most terrifying elements, none of the writing or direction are ever able to bring together a satisfying or understandable story.

Gemma (Imogen Poots) and Tom (Jesse Eisenberg) are a young couple looking to move out of their small apartment into a house of their own and possibly starting a family. When they schedule a home tour with peculiar realtor Martin (Jonathan Aris), he takes them to a community named Yonder in which every home on every street looks identical. Abandoning them there with a tiny infant, the couple begin to fall into a mesmerizing, suburban nightmare. This premise is something that absolutely terrified me from the start. One of my biggest fears is absolute uniformity and while I'm definitely not alone on that, this film really takes that theme and runs with it. My favorite aspect of this film was how well it created this world with such a limited set and the endless possibilities that arose from their situation. The seemingly endless rows of houses and neighborhoods all intertwining made for such an eerie atmosphere and this alone genuinely scared me. I loved the production design and how well these artists turn one single, cookie-cutter house into a hell-hole of terror. Many of the outside shots of the neighborhood looked a bit wonky in regards to the visual effects and not much of it seemed too believable, but I honestly think that actually helped this film. Having Gemma and Tom's world be just slightly offputting or a bit too plastic made the story that much creepier. It's also surprising how well they held up despite what was happening to them because I would have almost instantly gone insane. The performances from Imogen Poots and Jesse Eisenberg were also fantastic. They are both incredibly versatile and seeing them in an actual horror film only solidified how much I appreciate their range of abilities. Senan Jennings and Eanna Hardwicke were also great as the young and older version of the boy, respectively, that they were forced to raise. Both actors carried such an unbelievably unsettling energy to them that suited the story extremely well. While Poots and Eisenberg's portrayals of this couple were the most standout parts, unfortunately, they were far too good for a film like this.

Lorcan Finnegan and Garret Shanley's script was painfully bad and even in the simplest of dialogue, I could not get myself to believe any of these characters. Finnegan is lucky that he had two powerhouse performers in Poots and Eisenberg or else the shining laziness of his script would have come to the forefront much easier. I was never able to feel for any of these characters because of the lack of backstory and the ambiguity of many of this film's choices did not pay off. So many things were left unexplained, such as the alien subplot and some creative choices about the aging of the young child but they were never resolved. A film like this would greatly benefit from some resolution about those things and despite how ridiculous it might make the script, at least people would have a coherent understanding about why they just watched what they did. Worst of all, however, Vivarium suffers from Finnegan's aimless direction, as he never seems to know what to do with this story. The first twenty minutes of this movie are incredibly compelling and the last twenty minutes, despite its predictability, caught my attention as well. The entire middle hour, however, could have been cut and I would have felt the same way about the film as I do now. The entire second act of this film is wasted with unnecessary scenes involving the child and the couple struggling to figure out what to do with it. Included in this middle section were a plethora of scenes highlighting how Gemma's motherly instincts clashed with Tom's desire to straight up off the kid. While this dynamic between them was interesting, I really wish it could have been explored more. Nothing of importance happened in the middle hour of this film to help explain its conclusion and that is typically (always) the point of a second act. Time in this film also never seems to exist and although there is daytime and nighttime, the passing of time itself is made so unclear. I never knew for how long Gemma and Tom were holed up in the house raising the kid, whether it be a few months or even years. This aspect might have added to the ambiguous horror of the story but it definitely did not aid the pacing of the film.

Despite me just recently learning about Vivarium, I was incredibly excited to see what kind of horror energy Eisenberg and Poots could bring over since their fantastic turn in the dark comedy The Art of Self-Defense from last year. However, while these two leads make for the best parts of this movie, they were vastly underappreciated as they were given such a dull and confusing script that never gave them their due justice. This film is an undoubtedly creepy watch if one is simply looking to feel uncomfortable about the tedium of suburban America but in regards to telling an actually interesting horror story, Finnegan massively misses the mark.

My Rating: ★★

Pan's Labyrinth (2006) directed by Guillermo del Toro

Fantasy is a whole other world in cinema that, when done right, is able to transfer its audience into an absolutely immersive atmosphere. When done wrong, however, it can come off as endlessly goofy and thankfully, Guillermo del Toro knows exactly how to create the perfect fantastical universe. His iconic 2006 feature Pan's Labyrinth is the perfect example of this, as he is able to create a mystifying and eerie world unlike any other filmmaker working today. There is a lot to love about this movie and everyone from history buffs to fans of fairy tales will appreciate the careful and beautiful storytelling that del Toro has achieved here. However, I will be honest when I say that this film did not exactly live up to the reputation that I have heard about it. I found the script and direction to be a bit lackluster when working together and there were a lot of creative choices that did not make much sense to me. I will always appreciate del Toro's use of practical effects and creature design but the combination of those elements with his story just did not do much for me.

Young Ofelia (Ivana Baquero) is sent to live with her military step-father Vidal (Sergi López), whom her mother Carmen (Ariadna Gil) married for a "better life." During the middle of a civil war, Ofelia discovers a mysterious labyrinth, in which she stumbles upon a faun (Doug Jones) who offers her an escape from the horrors of reality. First, however, she must complete three tasks which she ends up finding much more difficult than she expected. The premise of this film, while very fantastical in itself, is a relatively basic idea that is expanded upon greatly by del Toro's world-building abilities. He creates a narrative within this movie that is constructed upon such a gorgeous and simple idea of a magical labyrinth. While it takes a much darker approach to that of a typical fairy tale, it is no less mesmerizing. The performances throughout this film from the human characters are all incredible, especially that of Baquero. She embodies this naive innocence that a child of her age would absolutely carry and she is wildly capable of expressing so many different emotions even in scenes shot presumably by herself before makeup or CGI was done. Doug Jones' double-casting as the faun and as the terrifying pale man is also one of the greatest choices in this film. Jones is a frequent collaborator of del Toro's and the two are always able to make complete magic together. The faun is one of the most interesting characters in this film and his mysterious presence really makes you question his motives and which side he is really on. The performance from Jones definitely helps that and his portrayal of the murderous and gruesome pale man does just that as well. All of the creature and world designs in this movie are once again stupendous and there will never be a doubt in my mind that del Toro can come up with the most interesting and wondrous characters. The use of practical effects is brilliant and definitely aids in making the aforementioned scenes even scarier.

Unlike this film's gorgeous technicals and wonderful atmosphere, I found del Toro's script to be a bit incohesive and I was constantly lost throughout the film. A lot of big plot choices in the writing and character motivations were never fully explained and while the human plot was directed well in sync with the fantasy plot, I just think that one should have been given preference over another. They are solid and entertaining stories on their own but I never felt any type of connection between Ofelia's struggles with the three tasks and her struggles with her family during the war. The fantasy labyrinth provided an escape for her but I could never quite tell what it had anything to do with the horrific realities of her home life. The faun's challenges for her provided a means of the coming-of-age aspect of this film but again, I could not feel how they tied into her plot in the real world. It almost felt as if I were watching two different films and while they shared a lead character, the connection between them was not established until the very end. Up until the final scene, I had expected the theme of adults not being able to see the faun or any of the fantasy creatures but I wish that del Toro could have explored that earlier along in the movie. The ending scene as well greatly irritates me and I wish that del Toro's direction could have made the ambiguity clearer. Many films can utilize an unclear ending to their advantage and while del Toro had the opportunity to do so, it just frustrated me more than anything. Whether or not Ofelia actually made it to the golden kingdom that she had envisioned as she lay there dying is up to the viewer but the ambiguous nature of her innocence and how it supposedly overcame the evil did not ever feel satisfactory. I know that this entire movie is really an adult fairy tale but I also know that is not a reason for a story to feel incomplete.

Pan's Labyrinth is NOT about mazes as I was led to believe for years and if one goes into this film expecting such, they will come out quite disappointed. Guillermo del Toro is the best fantasy filmmaker of our generation and his body and variance of work continue to impress me. While I was not as blown away with this story as much as I was his other work, the fact that a film like this can continue to be so culturally referenced and relevant is a feat in and of itself.

My Rating: ★★★½

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) directed by Stanley Kubrick

AFI Top 100: #39

The American Film Institute seems to designate many, many films as classics due to how important they were at the time of their release. Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb is one of these perfect examples, as its timely relevance greatly outweighs its lasting impact. This film is a clever satire on the Arms Race during the Cold War that makes it quite obvious why it was so controversial at the time but frankly, this movie has not held up. At least for me, the comedy only works in some sporadic moments and while there is plenty to keep the film moving for 95 minutes, I could not help but grow incredibly bored. Screenwriters and dialogue aficionados will have an absolute blast with this movie but it was just hard for me to connect with this. I did appreciate a lot about Kubrick's early style and direction throughout this film and how the cinematography was quite humorous but unlike many others apparently, I was not too fond of this story as a whole.

Rogue general Jack Ripper (Sterling Hayden) gives unprecedented orders for his fleet of bombers to drop their bombs on Russia, effectively beginning a new nuclear war. When the War Room of the White House hears about it, President Muffley (Peter Sellers) gathers his men to make a plan to stop it while the peculiar and eclectic Dr. Strangelove (also Peter Sellers) offers weird advice to the council of men who will decide the fate of the human race. This film's script, written by Kubrick, Terry Southern, and Peter George, and based on the novel Red Alert by George, is where I am unable to find most of my enjoyment. The movie is a supposed comedy and satire on the Arms Race during this period in American history but next to none of it worked for me personally. Kubrick does a great job translating this story from page to screen but it is one that I do not actually think needed that treatment. This type of comedy works really well on the page but even with Kubrick's fantastic direction, I did not find it as effective as everyone else. There are only certain moments and gags throughout this film that I found humorous and while the dialogue is indeed witty. it all felt very forced to me. I also find the inclusion of the titular character of Dr. Strangelove to be just that: strange. Sellers' titular and overly exaggerated German scientist did not seem to serve any purpose in this movie other than to cause paranoia in the War Room and he never helped to further the plot at all. Perhaps there is a meaning or message that I am missing but this entire film just felt like a congregation of character actors put together in a slightly ramshackle world and the pieces never quite came together. I can understand why this movie was made and appreciate it as a piece of film history but its intended purpose did not affect me at all.

Whether it's Kubrick's direction or Anthony Harvey's editing, there are so many scenes throughout this film that just felt misplaced. They were never constructed in a way that held my attention and so much of this movie was left unexplained or abrupt. That creative choice definitely characterizes the manic and often deranged energy of a war room and a global emergency, but it just made this whole film feel disjointed and choppy. Thankfully, the hilarious performances throughout the movie and some other technical pieces were done quite well. The performances from Peter Sellers, in particular, were fantastic, as he played three different characters. I'm still not sure what the entire point of that casting choice was, but he embodied every single one to such an impressive degree. Much of the film's humor relied on the delivery from cast members and the irony of its situations and Sellers did an excellent job holding it all together. I also adored Gilbert Taylor's cinematography and how influential it was on comedic camerawork. The quick whips and intense close-ups made this film even more visually striking and the production design with the prop places and set design of the different locations helped to keep Dr. Strangelove's visual storytelling compelling. One of my favorite things about this film, however, is its ending. I completely love how bleak and frankly horrifying it is and I'm certain it was even scarier for people at the time with the looming thought of possible nuclear war. There is a trend in horror films of utilizing pleasant pop songs during a terrifying sequence and Kubrick does this perfectly. The use of Vera Lynn's "We'll Meet Again" is the perfect contrast to the images of nuclear annihilation and this eerie ending is absolutely legendary.

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb is a solid satire of nuclear politics during the 1960s but one that I could not get myself to care about. I do believe that Kubrick is such a talented and diverse filmmaker in which he is able to touch on lots of different genres effectively but I was just never fully entertained by what he presented. Whether it could benefit from tighter storytelling or less unnecessary plot points is up to the viewer and while I appreciated what Kubrick was doing here, the attempted comedy just isn't for me.

My Rating: ★★★

The Nice Guys (2016) directed by Shane Black

It was only a matter of time before some filmmaker noticed Ryan Gosling's comedic abilities and utilized them to their greatest limits. It's a shame that we can't get goofy, mustachioed Gosling more often but Shane Black's The Nice Guys is an excellent vehicle for just that. This film is a fantastic comedy that shows the humorous strengths of the cast incredibly well while providing a genuinely engaging story. With some absolutely shocking moments and a script that is amazingly sharp, there is so much to love about this film. I was a bit underwhelmed by Black's direction and there are many parts of this film that could have used some condensing to make more impactful but in all honestly, I'm quite happy with what we got. I have heard so many rave reviews of the film before this first watch and despite its flaws, I got exactly what I expected. This movie might not be the most laugh-out-loud comedy or most innovative crime drama but the chemistry between the cast and atmosphere that Black creates makes for such an entertaining watch.

Set in 1970s Los Angeles, private investigator Holland March (Ryan Gosling) and hitman Jackson Healy (Russell Crowe) cross paths when they end up entangled in a case regarding a young girl named Amelia (Margaret Qualley) and the death of a local porn star. As they team up to track down Amelia, the two of them realize that their personalities might not be the most compatible and that they both might be getting themselves into something much deeper than they expected. This script, written by Shane Black and Anthony Bagarozzi, is what I found myself consistently focused on. Their writing is so incredibly clever and the very prevalent use of humor throughout this film makes it so entertaining. The comedy in this film is written so well due to its authenticity and how natural it all felt. This comedy element, while most prominent, is blended with the dramatic story with ease and Black makes his version of Los Angeles so easy to fall in love with. The performances from Gosling and Crowe were also stupendous and their chemistry together and how they play off of each other only helps the comedy aspect. This is the funniest film of Gosling's that I have ever seen and his character of March is the shining light throughout this story. His simple deliveries of dialogue and thematic whining throughout his character's arc are absolutely hilarious and give so much characterization to him. March's relationship with his daughter Holly (Angourie Rice) is also a huge part of this film that not only helps the story to further but is so well-developed right off the bat. Their relationship is obviously complicated, as March is a single father raising his daughter but the way that they know each other and the subtleties they share are shown with such humorous tenderness.

Although I genuinely enjoy the writing throughout The Nice Guys and how Black attempts to utilize these multiple genres, there is still so much room for improvement in its execution which could definitely benefit from some technical changes. While the script is hilarious and touches on some serious subjects decently well, this film is a bit forgettable. Wildly entertaining, of course, but there is just something about it that did not sit very well with me. I believe this has to do with Black's direction because there are so many scenes that could have been cut and creative choices made that did not necessarily fit the tone of the rest of the film. This film greatly overstayed its welcome and while the left turns that the story takes could have left me guessing what would happen next, they instead made me wonder when the film would be over. Joel Negron's editing plays a huge technical part of this and I think that much quicker cuts and tightening of every dialogue scene would have entirely enhanced the writing. Concise editing is what truly makes comedy work well, especially in an exciting film like this one and I just felt like this movie was far too spacey for its own good. Shane Black is fantastic at directing action, as the fight scenes were enthralling, but I think his script is where his strongest suit lies. Perhaps I am a bit too nitpicky about the film and its execution but there was so much potential for this movie to be a much more memorable, powerhouse comedy. However, this film is an undeniably fun ride and one that I can easily see there being a sequel too. And quite honestly, I'll be first in line to go see it.

Shane Black's The Nice Guys is a fantastic comedy-thriller that perfectly hits all of the notes it is aiming for. I appreciate Black's knowledge and self-awareness of the tropes throughout this film and the way that he plays with them is excellent. Thanks to the script and performance from Gosling, I definitely see myself revisiting this movie soon and I genuinely love how much fun there is to be had with this story.

My Rating: ★★★½

Modern Times (1936) directed by Charles Chaplin

AFI Top 100: #78

Rounding out the Charlie Chaplin films included on the AFI's Top 100 list is the indisputably greatest installment of his Little Tramp series of films, Modern Times. This movie is an incredible achievement in filmmaking and while Chaplin exhibits his usual wit, he also utilizes so much satire about the filmmaking industry of the time. There is so much to love about this film that makes it one of, if not the, greatest comedy of all time and it is so clear how Chaplin's style has evolved and enhanced for the sake of this movie. Incorporating both comedy and a clever romance subplot to enrichen his story, Chaplin is such a master at engaging his audience and while he uses fantasy and physical comedy more often in this film, it pays off handsomely. I can honestly say that this film took some turns that I was not quite expecting but while it subverted my expectations in that regard, it also subverted my expectations in how genuinely sweet and damn hilarious a silent film could be.

Trying to survive through the industrial revolution and the ever-changing economy, the little tramp (Charlie Chaplin) works in a high-functioning factory but fails to keep up with the ridiculous demands of the job. While he bounces from job to job and inadvertently becomes an infamous political figure, he also falls in love with a young gamin (Paulette Goddard) and the two of them struggle to stay afloat. The tramp's journey with the gamin and the many different locations they visit throughout this film says so much about the economic conditions of the time. While it is very entertaining for them to pretend to be living in high class, their playful nature also plays a lot into the wonderful satire aspect of this film. Chaplin's script for this film is absolutely incredible and he is able to utilize satire to a degree that I have never seen before from a film of this time. Chaplin combines the inescapable class struggle that many people dealt with during this time with such an amazing sense of optimism that is rare to see. His social commentary on the way that factories treated their workers and the hardships that families had to go through was fantastic and he did so with the utmost sense of comedy that never ceases to entertain. I also thought it was such a smart move for Chaplin to use just a hint of early fourth wall breaking in this film. There are certain shots and moments that really do call for this type of self-reflection and because of the themes that this film presents, Chaplin really highlighted those particular moments for the audience to look back on and realize that despite the humor, there were serious problems at play.

The comedy aspect of this entire film is obviously what remains prevalent and the way that Chaplin directs this story and how his character ends up in all of these ludicrous situations is hilarious. Physical comedy is one of this film's strongest points and the recurring theme of the tramp getting thrown in jail provides for so much humor in the face of Chaplin's important messages in his storytelling. Charlie Chaplin is one of the most critical figures in comedy and filmmaking of this period and while he made his career from the silent era, I adore how this film fights back against the innovation of sound in film and how Chaplin maintains his noninclusion of the talkie technology. It's not that he thinks sound and talking in film is a bad thing but the way that he keeps his silent reputation as the tramp while using some sound in the musical sequence and certain lines of dialogue throughout the film is incredibly clever. Chaplin almost fights back against sound in this film while still embracing its advantages. All of this film's technical pieces are astounding as well and help to tell his story with beautiful ease. Roland Totheroh and Ira H. Morgan's cinematography is fantastic and this film includes one of the first, front-facing, tracking shots in this period that I have seen. While the shot did feel a little out of place, it is so interesting to see these cinematographers experiment with the art form so early on. Chaplin's music is once again incredibly well-suited but the editing is what really stood out to me the most throughout Modern Times. Chaplin and Willard Nico's editing is very quick and utilizes cutaways and close-ups brilliantly. Everything about this film is truly perfect and while it might seem a bit cliché to gush about Chaplin's talent as a filmmaker, it is all absolutely warranted.

Modern Times is one of the most satirical and genuinely enjoyable comedies ever made and one that actually still has something to say. While its themes of class struggles and warfare were written to reflect that of the Great Depression, it is still incredibly relevant today and continues to astound. Along with the sharp editing, innovative cinematography, and fantastic comedy, Chaplin still remains one of the most talented filmmakers of all time.

My Rating: ★★★★★

The Shining (1980) directed by Stanley Kubrick

What is there to say about one of the most influential and controversial horror films of all time that hasn't already been said? Stanley Kubrick's The Shining is a spectacular landmark in horror that has paved the way for a new type of psychological, anxiety-induced storytelling for generations to come. Although this film is based on Stephen King's novel, it is widely known that King despises this film and it is obviously his least favorite of any of his story adaptations. While I have not personally read the book, I am still able to find a lot to love about this film and can appreciate how critical it is to our film history. I also definitely agree that this is more of a Kubrick story than a King story but there is still so much to love about this film that will chill you to your bones and leave you questioning whether or not you would be able to survive with those you love most. Along with some fantastic performances and a mesmerizing score, this film is truly one for the ages. All in all, this movie also makes for an excellent quarantine watch!

Looking for a new job and place to isolate and focus on his writing, Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson) takes a job looking after the Overlook Hotel in the snowy mountains of Colorado. He brings along with him his wife Wendy (Shelley Duvall) and son Danny (Danny Lloyd) and together, the three of them get trapped due to a snowstorm while the physical and mental limits of everyone are put to the test. This film has practically set the standard for what a psychological horror film should be and the script, written by Kubrick and Diane Johnson, makes for just that. The Shining takes the very simple premise of cabin fever and elevates it by utilizing its environment and family dynamics to make it so compelling. The background of Jack's abuse towards Danny and alcoholism helps to make this seemingly perfect, little family just the right amount of uncomfortable and placing them all within the snowy confines of a massive resort only heightens that uneasiness. Kubrick's direction is astonishing and he is able to make this typically positive location into a breeding ground for nightmares. Not many of this film's choices with its symbolism are ever fully explained but, regardless, I think Kubrick does a great job of creeping out his audience. My only issue with this film is how unfocused the development of Jack's descent into madness seems to be. While many characters in horror films benefit the most from lack of detailed description, leaving the audience to fill in many of the blanks, I never quite felt that with Jack. He began to go crazy due to the cabin fever and having his writing constantly interrupted by Wendy but it was never explored what made him snap. Perhaps I am just looking into it too deeply, but I wish there could have been some more descriptive explanation into why he decided to want to murder his entire family. Then again, this lack of detail and ambiguity is what makes Kubrick's film so horrifying and it is hard to deny that his direction is incredibly effective.

The performances from the three leads are all spectacular and they make their characters so wildly interesting. Nicholson is undeniably one of the best actors of his time and he embodies this role like nobody else could. Duvall is also so talented and her representation of the caring yet cautious mother is one of the best I have ever seen. Lloyd is great as Danny but what stood out the most to me was their chemistry together as a family. The performances led by Kubrick's direction work in beautiful harmony to tell a story all their own. From their very first shared scene together, the Torrance family gives off such an ingenuine vibe that continues throughout the film, constantly making the audience worried about what might happen. While they could be seen as your typical, happy-go-lucky family based on their attitudes towards each other, the way that changes and devolves into psychological madness is fascinating. All of the technical elements throughout The Shining, just like all of Kubrick's films, are amazingly well-done and breathtakingly beautiful. The cinematography by John Alcott is absolutely wonderful and provides such an expansive look at the Overlook Hotel. His wide, sweeping use of the camera makes this terrifying resort even scarier and he makes the location seem endlessly huge. Ray Lovejoy's editing and use of dissolve transitions were also fantastic and I adore how he portrayed a calm, family life through his breathable cuts, which was obviously contrasted by the eerie events and hallucinations that were actually occurring. All of these elements were brought together beautifully, however, by the legendary and unforgettable score from Wendy Carlos and Rachel Elkind. The music from these two is so classically scary and works so well for the isolated atmosphere of this hotel. Music throughout this film is one of the most chilling parts and even in still shots of characters' faces or simply looking down a hallway, the creepy violins and booming brass make the audience feel incredibly uneasy, as it should.

The Shining is not only one of the most quotable horror films of all time, but one that continues to live up to its terrifying legacy. I was not quite as impacted by this film as much as I was in my childhood but it is obvious to see how this film has inspired new generations of horror storytellers. For better or worse, this movie sets the precedent for how to adapt a Stephen King novel and despite some lasting production issues, this film still remains wildly entertaining.

My Rating: ★★★★

The Hunt (2020) directed by Craig Zobel

Controversial films get pushed back or even blacklisted all the time and if I'm being quite honest, I have yet to see one from our modern culture that has ever lived up to its supposedly notorious reputation. The Hunt is no exception and I really do not believe the substance of this film warrants this kind of discussion. While the film itself is very politically charged and unbelievably gory, too much of it felt on-the-nose to be genuine storytelling. There were a lot of parts throughout this film that I felt were very forced just for the sake of controversy and I personally do not appreciate that very much in terms of writing. Pissing off traditional conservatives and pissing off entitled liberals is what these writers definitely had in mind and while they achieved that, plots like these are just hard to fully get on board with. Luckily, the performance from the lead protagonist and the absolute hilarity and entertainment value that stems from its premise is enough to make this a decently enjoyable watch. And one thing for certain, though: absolutely no one is safe from being offended by the content of this film.

Waking up in a desolate field with nothing but gags in their mouths, a group of strangers soon realize that they have been chosen for The Hunt - an annual tradition where elitist liberals gather a bunch of conservatives and hunt them for sport. Among them are Crystal (Betty Gilpin), Don (Wayne Duvall), and a young woman who seems to not know what's going on (Emma Roberts) and while they struggle to figure out what to do, they also find out that there might be a bigger reason behind what is happening to them. This premise itself for a film is enough to inspire people to talk about it, as absolutely nothing throughout this movie appears to be politically correct. While that element is definitely going to offend some, I thought it was at least a bold move. It was an interesting approach as to how Nick Cuse and Damon Lindelof's script discussed things such as political incorrectness and how they talked about our current culture of the media and who believes what. However, this film never really built up to any kind of concise message to tell its audience, but rather just resorts to screaming insults and utilizing cheesy dialogue. This turned the film into an ineffective social commentary on politics and instead of taking a stance in the middle of the field, telling its audience that it's okay to have different opinions as long as you are correctly informed, it just spends its entire runtime insulting people on both sides of the aisle. There are a lot of forced situations that make these characters reveal something about themselves that is also supposed to serve as a marker for all people with those same opinions but the writing never really got me to care about any of these characters in the first place. Craig Zobel's direction did not entirely help with that either and while I might not have been completely on board with the way that he tries to get his attempted message across, I at least found this film to be entertaining.

Although The Hunt revealed itself to be a lackluster, political, mess, there is a lot of fun to be had with its action sequences and some terrific choices with its storytelling that I was definitely not expecting. The direction from Zobel throws the audience in so many different directions and many of the twists that he included were so far left-field that I never would have expected. For starters, there is a pretty good handful of big names in this film and while I was not expecting Betty Gilpin's Crystal to end up being the lead, I was genuinely taken aback by how quickly Zobel kills off some of these big names. It is such a misleading thing to market this film as being led by these well-known performers and then almost immediately kill a majority of them off but I definitely appreciate how Zobel had the courage to do that and shift his audience's attention to what might happen next. For only having a 90-minute runtime, this film wastes no time telling its story and getting on with the plot and I genuinely enjoyed that about it. The reveal of Hilary Swank as Athena, the antagonist of the film, was also fantastic. While typically cast in much more positive roles, she was perfect for embodying the goody-two-shoes, pretentious liberal who acts like she is helping but is really just in it to prove something to herself. And that's not to say anything about who Swank is as a person, but rather she brought the perfect, reflexive energy to her character. Best of all, however, was the performance from Betty Gilpin as our protagonist. Her comedic timing and incredibly strong presence help her to steal every scene she occupies with every word that comes out of her mouth. Gilpin is such a subtly talented and powerful actress and she made her character so compelling despite the lack of background or reliable information.

The Hunt is an incredibly wild ride of a film that takes no prisoners but also fails to really get me to care in the first place. Even though there tried to be a message here, I could never really latch on due to the film's sheer absurdity and borderline bad dialogue. The way I see it, as long as one only goes into this film looking for an unapologetically bloody and thrilling good time, they will come out happier than ever and more than satisfied for their money.

My Rating: ★★★

First Cow (2020) directed by Kelly Reichardt

The pioneer era of early America is one that is very often explored in cinema, whether it be through horror or typical, period-piece drama. While most of it is fairly expansive in how it shows the countryside of our early settlers and broad in how it explores these legendary stories, very few take the time to connect its audience to the characters and their small-scale stories on a personal level. First Cow is the first film I have seen taking place during this era that I have truly felt invested in the characters. Despite how menial their mission might seem to some audiences, director Kelly Reichardt instills an inescapable sense of humanity into her story that is not just a stylistic choice, but one that helped me to really feel for these settlers. Along with the cinematography, production design, and Reichardt's editing, this movie is a wholesome look at one of the harshest times of our country. I really adored every second of this and while I did have a bit of a double-edged issue with the pacing, Reichardt chocks this film full of the pure kindness and human spirit that we all could use.

After traveling with a group of fur trappers in Oregon, the amicable and skilled chef Cookie (John Magaro) becomes friends with King Lu (Orion Lee), a Chinese immigrant that is just trying to make his living looking for gold. The two of them strike up a business in which they use the milk from the very first cow brought into their region to make and sell small pastries and oily cakes. Their business is threatened, however, when the owner of the cow Chief Factor (Toby Jones) begins to suspect that is getting stolen from. Kelly Reichardt's writing and direction throughout this film are absolutely incredible. Adapting the story from the novel by Jonathan Raymond, she turns this quaint, little story into something absolutely awe-inspiring. I never would have thought that I could be so engaged by a story about two men making tasty cakes in the pioneer days but here we are. Her direction is incredibly soft yet powerful as she tells this story with the most flawless direction. There is something about this film that is infinitely comforting and even in the tensest of scenes, I knew that these characters were going to be in good hands. I also found it to be a very interesting choice to begin the film with a framing narrative and not bring back the young woman (Alia Shawkat) from the very first scenes. Many of Reichardt's choices like these all worked together in order to bring a sort of loneliness to the film. However, many of her storytelling choices did not make the audience feel too down or disparaged throughout the film: quite the opposite. The warmth that radiates through her writing and into the characters provided such a fantastically optimistic atmosphere and one that suits this story incredibly well.

The human spirit is often broken by rough events like the Gold Rush and the way that Reichardt portrays that is excellent. This is seen through the two main characters of Cookie and King Lu and their friendship is so tender and well-developed. I adore how First Cow touches a lot on male friendship and seen through the eyes of such a talented woman filmmaker, a lot of genuine truth is explored. Cookie and King Lu, while very different in upbringings, become best friends despite the difficulties they had to overcome to make their cakes and none of their dialogue ever became too cheesy or unbelievable. I love how Reichardt and Raymond write their relationship and even though the ending of this film might be too bleak for some, it was perfect given the reality of their world. The performances from Magaro and Lee were also incredibly subtle in their emotion yet so powerful. They are truly two soft boys who are able to use their undeniable chemistry together to make the story as impactful as possible. Kelly Reichardt also edited this film and her long, extended takes were gorgeous. I do feel like the film could have benefitted from a little bit tighter of direction, as there were some moments in scenes that I did not feel worked, but her direction and editing worked together very fluidly. And let's not forget about the real star of this film, either: Eve the cow! Her adorable presence brings a much-needed light to this film and her relationship with Cookie was as adorable as it was heartbreaking.

First Cow is a touching, adorable story about the pioneer times that is such a refreshing take on the genre. Reichardt absolutely succeeds in telling this little story the right way and along with her editing, makes sure that it is told in the most humane yet interesting way possible. I definitely see this film being one of my favorites this year; not just because it might be one of the only movies coming out (thanks, coronavirus) but because of its genuine ability to inspire.

My Rating: ★★★★

Big Time Adolescence (2020) directed by Jason Orley

I was never quite sure what to make of it all when I heard that Hulu had acquired a Pete Davidson-led, coming-of-age comedy called Big Time Adolescence but from the first trailer a few weeks back, I was sold. And thankfully, this film actually succeeded my expectations with the kind of emotion it could bring out of me. While most coming-of-age films are marked by certain characteristics such as a tragic realization of truth or a rocky relationship with parents, not many focus on the almost unspoken bond and strange adoration that many young kids form with people who are obviously bad influences. This film is able to portray that beautifully and although not everything ends up working out for this cast of characters, the development of their story together and the exploration of how casually bad influences can transform people was fascinating. Even though this film follows every beat of the genre, it was held together by Jason Orley's tight direction and made even more interesting with a surprising performance from Davidson.

Mo (Griffin Gluck) has looked up to Zeke (Pete Davidson) his entire life, ever since he dated his older sister Kate (Emily Arlook) and has always had a close friendship with him. After being friends for so long of a time, Mo decides to start selling Zeke's drugs and booze at his school parties while being careful not to get caught. Their relationship is tested, however, when Mo's loss of childhood begins to interfere with Zeke's fears of growing up. The defining aspect of this film that made it so memorable to me personally was the relationship between Mo and Zeke. Jason Orley's script and direction are incredible and made this movie feel very personal but altered with a bit of a modern touch. It felt so genuine to the point that perhaps Orley had someone in his own life that he looked up to who got him in a lot of trouble or even the other way around. Regardless, he was able to develop the relationship between Mo and Zeke incredibly well and their changing dynamic throughout the movie kept me so engaged. Mo's battle with enjoying his time hanging out with older people and acting mature vs. his fear of missing out on being a goofy kid was so interesting and made his character incredibly relatable. Zeke's influence on Mo was obviously a bit reckless but the way that he genuinely cared about him was at least endearing to see.

A filmmaker can only do so much with a 91-minute runtime but Orley was able to create such a rich world with these wonderful characters and their intertwining lives with ease. This also has to do with the perfect casting and performances all around, which shocked me just as much as they might you. Pete Davidson is absolutely stellar in this film and his performance all around is something that is so interesting for me to explore. On one hand, Davidson is not a great actor by any stretch of the imagination but he has become so ingrained in our current culture as the "druggie loser" archetype that he has a certain character model under his belt ready to completely nail at a moment's notice. That is what I adored the most about his casting: he never tried to give off an overly dramatic performance or ever tried to change people's minds about him. He seems content with where he is now and even though many people disagree with his lifestyle choices, I'm glad he is able to find such success doing what he does. I would much rather see a bad performance from Davidson in which he is true to himself rather than a decent performance pretending to be someone he's not. He is a special kind of actor in that regard and I have nothing but respect for the roles he chooses and the comedy he pursues. Griffin Gluck was also fantastic in this film as Mo and while he might be considered our next white boy of the month, he smashed this role. Jon Cryer is also surprisingly good in his role as Reuben, Mo's dad, and Euphoria's Sydney Sweeney steals every scene she occupies. She is an absolutely entrancing actress that definitely deserves her own spotlight in a leading role sometime soon.

One thing that audiences seem to forget, especially in comedies, is how these films are made. Bad cinematography or jarring editing in a dramatic film tends to be incredibly obvious because of how sensitive audiences are to engaging with the story. However, comedy is never given that same attention because of audiences' reliance on jokes. If a movie is funny and kept someone entertained, they will recommend it forever but never tend to focus on the technical aspects that actually make a movie. I found Waldemar Centeno's editing throughout Big Time Adolescence to be unbelievably well-time and concise. Whether it's my experience as an editor or not, the timing of his cuts and the way he utilized reaction shots throughout this film made it that much funnier. The timing of humor is one of its most crucial parts in terms of delivery and Centeno completely nailed every scene of this film. This was apparent to me even in the first twenty minutes or so and the way he cuts out of certain scenes and juxtaposes different characters' situations was brilliant. I did find that it was still a bit quick during the dramatic aspects, not giving me much time to process everything, but it was wildly effective regardless. There might not have been anything revolutionary about the storytelling throughout this film but the chemistry between this cast and the stupendous editing make it one of my favorites of this year by far.

If there's one thing that Saturday Night Live can do incredibly well is pair their comedians with a certain branding that will follow them for the rest of their careers. I feel like Davidson has already achieved his brand very well and is able to utilize it perfectly. Big Time Adolescence is an incredible movie and even though its themes have already been done and its story points are fairly generic, there is something about it that just made it feel so unique. I would strongly recommend this film whether or not you are even a fan of Davidson's strange reputation and would definitely recommend it to see some of these young, rising stars who I am certain will find much wider success very soon.

My Rating: ★★★★

The Gold Rush (1925) directed by Charles Chaplin

AFI Top 100: #58

Seeing the diverse range of an actor's filmography, especially in the early days of film, is always so interesting to me. Charlie Chaplin's The Gold Rush is another of these movies that continue to impress me with his use of slapstick and storytelling. As it is one of his earlier films, I was not sure what to expect when it came to how he blended his comedy with his writing but I still believe that he pulled off a decent job. However, I was not as engaged with this one as I was City Lights and it might be for multiple reasons. Whether or not the narration throughout this film worked for me is still up in the air but I'm leaning more towards no. While this film was released before the previously mentioned one, it is still interesting to see how Chaplin's style changed over the years and how he developed the tramp to become one of the most iconic characters that nearly every audience identifies him with today.

The tramp (Charles Chaplin) is a young man who is in search of gold and fame in the treacherous mountains. Prospecting for his future, he meets a man named Black Larsen (Tom Murray) who seems to be his competition in finding the fabled gold treasure. While the tramp searches to survive the wintery conditions and come out rich, he also struggles with the newfound love for the dashing Georgia (Georgia Hale). The script, written by Chaplin himself, is where I found most of my enjoyment from this film. I once again really enjoyed seeing how he structures his story and utilizes his slapstick within the confines of genuine storytelling. The Criterion version that I watched from Amazon had a narration from Chaplin himself talking the audience through the film. While I do not think this original voiceover was there in the original version, it, unfortunately, kind of made me tune out from the story. What I think is the strength of most silent films is how well they are able to tell their story without the use of words, obviously. Visual storytelling is what Chaplin has become a master in but this narration did not exactly work for me. I feel like I did not connect with this film as much as his City Lights solely due to his explanation of the narrative. It is a bummer, though, because I still did genuinely appreciate how Chaplin is able to turn physical humor into serious drama and vice versa. Seeing him flex his talents as a multi-talented filmmaker will never cease to be impressive to me and this film was no exception.

What stood out to me the most throughout this film, however, was Chaplin's use of location and models to express something small as very big. While the majority of this film takes place on the snowy mountains, the way that this film was shot made it appear as if these characters were really facing these life-threatening scenarios. Obviously, much of this film's substance is highly exaggerated for comedic effect, but Chaplin and his director of photography Roland Totheroh were able to turn dramatic situations into comedy with ease. The models that were used, such as the cabin on the mountain and the vast shots of the villages, were beautiful and I love how these artists were able to get this massive world on such a small scale. I also really like how Chaplin was able to take this time period of history and parody it by placing his satirical character of the tramp within its world. It made for some hilarious moments as he made fun of the prospector stereotypes and broke many boundaries of what a successful gold prospector could look like. Of course, his trademark slapstick was present too in order to further make fun of this time period, which only added to the hilarity. Although I did not connect with this film as much as his later works, his talent is still completely there and the fact that he controlled nearly every aspect of this film is what made it that much better. Now I'm just excited to watch Modern Times and see what it is about that film and him specifically that have become so renowned.

The Gold Rush is an earlier look into Chaplin's outing as a star, writer, producer, and director, but one that does not fail to deliver what it promises. He is such an icon in early cinema and will be forever remembered, cherished, and even parodied for the foreseeable forever. Forget the MCU, DCU, or any other universe that tries to build upon themselves; the LTU (Little Tramp Universe) is the only one I want to exclusively follow.

My Rating: ★★★

City Lights (1931) directed by Charles Chaplin

AFI Top 100: #11

Not many stars of film in the 1930s have been as influential or memorable as Charlie Chaplin and this romantic comedy of his is an excellent example of why he has become so legendary. City Lights is a fantastic little silent film that showcases Chaplin's talent in every way imaginable. While I have seen a handful of silent movies and quirky comedies of this time period before, I had yet to see any from the quintessential filmmaker himself. Thankfully, I was not disappointed as I found myself constantly entertained by his hilarious antics and surprisingly sweet story. When it comes to telling a simple story, Chaplin proves that audio is not always necessary and he is the epitome of a visual storyteller. Along with composing the music himself and embodying this goofy character better than anyone ever could, my first Chaplin feature was nothing short of a fascinating experience.

A man known only as the tramp (Charlie Chaplin) spends his days walking the city streets until he stumbles upon a young, blind girl (Virginia Cherrill) and promptly falls in love with her. However, she mistakes him for an eccentric millionaire (Harry Myers) and with the help of the rich man's money, the tramp swindles his way into paying for the girl's rent, medical bills, and eye surgery in order to prove his love for her. Back in the days when films would utilize title cards and transitions to tell their story, there is not really a way to judge the script of one of these films. While Chaplin did write this movie, there is not much I can critique about the writing because of how limited it is but what I can do is appreciate his amazing direction. His storytelling abilities are amazing and even with the limited scope of visual comedy, he pulls out every stop to make his film as compelling as possible. The way that he uses his physicality and quick, bodily movements to enhance the gags that he is a part of is so interesting to watch. Not only is it just pure fun but it is also wildly impressive how he and his crew were able to pull off such risky stunts and make them appear smooth. Chaplin's use of slapstick is great too and while his character of the tramp was seen in a multitude of different situations trying to raise money for the girl, he brings this talent to so many different aspects of the story. I was so impressed by how he tells this story without the need for any unnecessary bits of information and while I do feel like some of the scenes were shot purely for a gag and not as part of the story, they still managed to fit in flawlessly. Then again, I really do not have to defend Chaplin or try to convince people of thinking otherwise because his reputation as the master of silent comedy is proven once more throughout this film.

Along with all of the comedy elements, the romance in City Lights is done beautifully as well. As simple as it may be, two people falling in love solely through their first sight was adorable and seeing how the tramp went about proving his love for her is undoubtedly cute. I felt more for these characters and their relationship without really saying much to each other than I have about so many characters of the modern age and the fact that Chaplin was able to get me to feel this way is remarkable. The simplicity of love is something that he embodies throughout this movie and sometimes, that is all audiences need. This film never attempts to convey a deeper message or anything about society at the time that other silent films have and honestly, all the better for this one. While the cinematography from Gordon Pollock and Roland Totheroh was sharp and succinct, the music is what really stood out to me. Not only did Chaplin write, direct, and star in this film, but he has shown that he is a one-man team and even composed the entire score. The way that the music plays into the film and notifies the audience of something hidden or something subtle is extraordinary. The score was utilized perfectly during the action sequences and even better during the tender moments of love. Even though this is technically a silent film, there is so much sound and effects used in the music to help tell this story even better. It really is stupendous seeing how the filmmakers of this time pulled off these incredible stunts and even more impressive when a film can contain a concise story in it as well.

City Lights is a perfect, quick, rom-com that has everything its audience could ever ask for. While some of the jokes are a bit dated and did not hit as hard as others, there is no denying that this form of slapstick and romantic storytelling are blended beautifully by Chaplin. He is truly the king of the silent era and while plenty of his influence can be seen in comedy even up until today, I was genuinely taken aback by how much I enjoyed his blend of humor and romance.

My Rating: ★★★½