The Maltese Falcon (1941) directed by John Huston

AFI Top 100: #31

Discovering the exact point at which genre films began has always been fascinating to me and while there has yet to be one that I dislike, this one came painfully close. John Huston's directorial debut The Maltese Falcon is a solid but quite dull start to the noir genre and one that has almost dissuaded me from seeking out any others. There is a lot to appreciate about the filmmaking that Huston puts into this movie, including his wonderful direction and the performances he gets from the entire cast but I guess I was just not meant to enjoy this type of film. With incredibly quick dialogue and a plot so twisted that it almost becomes unbearable to follow along with, I consistently found my attention waning. Thank God that the way this film was made kept it entertaining or else I might not have been able to make it all the way through. I have so much adoration and respect for Huston for practically kicking off this genre but I feel like there are plenty of much more engaging films worthy of someone's time.

Upon the death of his partner, private eye Sam Spade (Humphrey Bogart) meets with former client Brigid O'Shaughnessy (Mary Astor) to discuss an ongoing case that he feels she might be involved in. As their relationship grows, Spade is brought deeper into a web of crime involving a group of peculiar criminals and a priceless statue of a bird. The most evident thing about this movie that cements it as one of the "greatest" noir films of all time would be its plot. Films of this genre are typically known for the twists and turns that the story takes and this film is no different. My issue with it, however, is how utterly confusing it became. Right off the bat, the audience is thrown into this criminal world without much context, which could be a smart move if executed right, but due to the dialogue, I was completely lost. Perhaps I am just not smart enough to really understand the way that this plot snakes around but I found it to be quite tiresome after a while. The first act sets up the world really well and the third act wraps things up in a decent way, but the plot points riddling the middle hour or so of this film became far too unintelligible. It would definitely take a few, good watches of this film before one is able to really comprehend the actions and motivations behind these characters. Another issue I had, which is one that seems to be prevalent in the noir genre, is how bland and abrupt much of the writing felt. Right after Spade's partner Miles Archer (Jerome Cowan) was killed, he jumps right into action to get justice. His character did not seem to have any emotions about it at all and this lack of sensitivity prevailed throughout the rest of the characters as well. I could not get myself to feel for who was going to jail or who ended up with the falcon because the characters were written so stoically.

Even though the plot was incredibly difficult to get invested in, there are a lot of fantastic aspects of this film that make it so understandably iconic. The Maltese Falcon practically kicked off the noir genre and with its depictions of criminal activity and backstabbing, it was almost unseen in that era of film. Not only does this film have some of the most exciting action I have seen of this time (however rare it was) but it also has some great direction to bring it all together. It's strange to think that this movie was Huston's directorial debut, as his later works seem to be much grander in scale. What I really loved about his direction was how he hit the ground running from scene one. Huston wastes no time establishing anything that could be deemed unnecessary and while this might have been offputting for audiences in the early 1940s, it works very well for the atmosphere of how hectic this story became. One of the other, most impressive things about this film is how it all takes place in the matter of just a few rooms and buildings. This entire film could almost function as a bottle episode of a noir television show because of how little sets and special effects are used. There is something so admirable about making a film this way and still making it decently entertaining. The real standouts of this film, however, are the performances from the cast and how they each made their character so unique. Nobody looks better in an oversized suit and tie than Humphrey Bogart and his character of Spade really brings out that over-emphasization. Bogart is fantastic in this film and is aided by the performance from Mary Astor. The two have wonderful chemistry together and I could really feel the pain that Spade felt having to eventually turn her over. Peter Lorre, Sydney Greenstreet, and Elisha Cook Jr. were all great as well in their supporting roles as the eccentric bad guys and the story definitely would have not have been as chaotic without their talent.

If The Maltese Falcon is any indication of what I can expect from the noir genre, then they can honestly count me out. There is a lot about this film that I genuinely loved and appreciated, including the performances and the unstoppable direction but I just really could not get myself to care about the story. This film might be the most exemplary when it comes to fans of the genre but I do not find it the most accessible for easy viewers. Even though that is not necessarily the point, it was just a bit disappointing what the audience gets in a film with a poster as exciting as the one above.

My Rating: ★★★

Vertigo (1958) directed by Alfred Hitchcock

AFI Top 100: #9

Poor Jimmy Stewart: always getting typecast as a creepy man watching people. I kid, of course, but this idea is one that flows through the heart of Alfred Hitchcock's fantastic Vertigo. This movie is such a landmark in suspenseful filmmaking that, even with its handful of problems, does not fail to live up to its reputation. As the themes of mental health and obsession plague this film like the fear of heights plagues its main character, Hitchcock leads his audience on a very well-crafted story that will undeniably make them shudder. Although it shows its age quite prominently, there is a lot to adore about this psychological murder-mystery, including the performances from its entire cast and the absolutely immaculate cinematography. While this might not be my favorite of his films so far, it is plain to see why it has become such a beloved classic in the world of American film history.

John 'Scottie' Ferguson (Jimmy Stewart) is a police detective suffering from a dreadful case of acrophobia - the fear of heights and falling. He is called out of retirement by an old friend named Gavin Elster (Tom Helmore) to follow Elster's wife Madeleine (Kim Novak) when she begins to not act like herself. Scottie soon finds himself down a rabbit hole of mystery as he forms a strange kind of relationship with Madeleine. This script, written by Alec Coppel and Samuel L. Taylor, contains some of the most interesting and taboo themes that a story written in this time could explore. The film's main focus, of course, being the eventual obsession with Madeleine that Scottie goes through and how well it characterizes them as people. Stewart's character is undoubtedly the most compelling part of this film and to see him devolve into what he was fighting against in the first place was so engaging to watch. Turning this story almost about voyeurism into a story about obsession was a fantastic arc for Scottie to go through and it also helped the psychological aspects as well. The mystery elements of this film were fantastic and the script unravels in such a way to keep you guessing. The infamous plot twist in this film is hidden incredibly well and while it might seem obvious once someone sees it, it was written in such a way that only helps to advance the story. Along with the good parts of the script, the performances from Stewart and Novak were phenomenal. Stewart really is an everyman type of actor, as he can brilliantly embody the happy-go-lucky good guy or the more unlikable lead such as Scottie. His charming charisma was perfect for his character and I loved how he was able to utilize his good manners in such an eerie way. Novak was also extraordinary and even for playing two roles, she was able to contrast them in excellent ways. The cinematography from Robert Burks was absolutely stunning and he embodies every little good thing about a Hitchcock film. He shoots San Francisco in such a way that makes it its own character and his use of closeups and animation was groundbreaking.

However, Vertigo would be infinitely better if not for the treatment of its women characters and how disposable the writers treated them. I completely understand how different of a time the 1950s were than they are today and while this misogynist writing was only a pet peeve at first, it became a bit of a problem. I am certain that Hitchcock's goal was for his audience to root against Stewart's character at the end but the issue was with how overly submissive the women were. Novak's character Madeleine was such a fantastic case study in the beginning but became more of an accessory for the story and hard transitioned into a weaker character. Scottie's best friend and former fiancée Midge (Barbara Bel Geddes) also suffered from this same part of the writing. She was a perfectly good character on her own but was completely tossed aside when she did not live up to the expectations of Scottie with her art. These screenwriters had so many opportunities to include any kind of redemption arc or agency for the women characters but refused to do so and instead focused on Stewart's character the entire time. I also wish that Coppel and Taylor could have utilized Scottie's acrophobic condition much more into the film. While the inclusion of this character trait worked for particular, coincidental scenes, it did not do much in terms of the depression that he went through and eventual obsession, which I can argue was the most interesting part of his story. As for Hitchcock's direction, I also wish that the third act of this movie did not drag on for so long. The first hour and a half are perfectly directed and left me with this hanging sense of dread and wonder of what Scottie was going to encounter next but I found the story after the plot twist to be a bit redundant. Much more editing could have been done to personify Scottie's paranoia and it also would have made the abrupt conclusion of this film much more impactful.

Hitchcock's Vertigo is a wonderful mystery film that accomplishes a plot twist better than filmmakers today could ever dream of. Despite issues with some pivotal characters and some direction that could have used a bit of tightening up, it is impossible to not appreciate the unique style that this revered director brings to this adapted story. Never before have I seen a character on screen so obsessed with building his perfect life despite seeing what happens when you struggle with trauma and a superiority complex but if there was one filmmaker to do it, it would be Hitchcock.

My Rating: ★★★★

Shirley (2020) directed by Josephine Decker

The only way that a biopic about the terrifying mind of horror author Shirley Jackson could work is with a fantastic cast and impeccably gothic direction. There is so much potential to make this story as compelling as one might expect, but unfortunately, for director Josephine Decker's Shirley, it never quite reaches that height. There is a lot to love about this film, including the performances from the entire cast and the cinematography that will leave the audience woozy, but there were also a lot more areas that this film could have covered to make its core plot even more interesting. Because of the influence that Jackson has had in the genre of horror and the familiarity I carry with some of her short stories, I was expecting a much more suiting story for audiences to learn more about the author. Decker plays around with a lot of interesting ideas but her failure to commit left me as unnerved as many of Jackon's stories have for decades.

Eloping to start their new life together, Rose (Odessa Young) and Fred (Logan Lerman) are offered free room and board by college professor Stanley Hyman (Michael Stuhlbarg). The only catch is that Rose must look after and care for Stanley's wife, the famed horror author Shirley Jackson (Elisabeth Moss). However, Rose and Shirley's developing relationship begins to threaten both of their marriages as the line between Shirley's fiction and reality begin to blur. This script, written by Sarah Gubbins and adapted from the novel by Susan Scarf Merrell, has some incredibly interesting things going on with it that, when they arose, made for some fantastic storytelling. The best part of this film were the relationships between the wives Shirley and Rose and their husbands Stanley and Fred. It was absolutely compelling to see how the pairs of people influenced each other and how, despite their best and most vocal efforts, Rose and Fred slowly began to turn into Shirley and Stanley. The impact of the older couple was tremendous and it was so interesting to see how Rose begins crawling down the same path that Shirley had once before. It was a strange idea to focus this film on Jackson's writing of her novel Hangasman but it created some fantastic comparisons from her internal reality of the story to the reality of the marriage between Rose and Fred. The performances from the entire cast were phenomenal, especially from Moss and Young and Stuhlbarg even excels as this supporting character. Moss continues being one of the best working actresses today and Young absolutely surprised me with the amount of depth she brought to this character. They all prove to be a captivating team but the technicals stood out to me just as much. The cinematography from Sturla Brandth Grøvlen was amazing and there were some great, characteristic choices to make the camera unsteady. As well made as this film was, however, I found the direction and rest of the script quite dull and, as Stanley puts it in one scene, derivative.

Calling Shirley a biopic about the famed writer would almost be incorrect but calling Shirley a deliriously informative horror film would be just as incorrect, I fear. This is where the majority of my problems with this film lie: the script is full of incredible themes and relationships to follow along with and see how Jackson came up with some of her most terrifying stories, but it never really went too deep into who she was as a person. This story never did much to explain how Jackson got the way that she was, with her plaguing alcohol and anxiety problems, and because of that, I was never fully invested in her as a human being. Moss does the absolute best she can with making Jackson interesting but I do believe she deserved more of Decker's focus, given that it is supposed to be a biopic on her after all. I was never expecting this film to follow the route of the typical biopic, however, as it definitely had the potential to be something much darker. This film could have greatly benefitted from plunging fully into the gothic horror that its titular character is so known for but it is constantly afraid to take that leap. For one of the gothic genre's greatest authors, I did not feel like Shirley did her much justice. The dream sequences and imagination that Jackson had while writing her novel did not happen enough to justify the prospective horror behind them and because of that, they just eventually felt out of place. And when the shy terror of this movie did attempt to show itself, it only came out in small bursts of Kubrick-esque eerieness, akin to the "crazy writer" stereotype made famous by The Shining. This film might not have ever chosen which side of its genre to stick with and while that works for lots of different movies, it just did not bode well for me. Overall, this film just left me feeling uneasy about everything that happened and now knowing who to empathize with because of its tone; so in that regard, I guess Decker did her job incredibly well.

Shirley is a film that is absolutely held up by its cast and technicals and one that a lot of audiences will still be able to learn from, thankfully. While I think Decker's intentions with this film were clear and she did a decent job with it, there is a lot of improvement that I feel could have gone into this movie to make it a much more engaging character study. Throwing in the additions of Rose and Fred was a smart choice to help personify the effect Jackson had on people, but in the long run, I would have much rather preferred a more concise telling of her life story.

My Rating: ★★½

Bringing Up Baby (1938) directed by Howard Hawks

AFI Top 100: #88

I'm a simple man, really. I like chemistry between attractive actors, charming comedy that will leave you snickering, and an outrageous plot that would have only been deemed acceptable in 1938. Thankfully, Howard Hawks' Bringing Up Baby provides all of these simple pleasures in one of the most entertaining comedies I have seen from this time. I knew that this film was going to be right up my alley from its very first scene and I began to fall in love with each aspect of this movie with every passing minute. Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn absolutely rule this movie from start to finish and while they were the definite stars of this hilarious story, the writing and production design helps to make it that much better. I did not know that it was this easy to fall head over heels for a pair of characters but here we are.

Bewildered yet talented paleontologist David (Cary Grant) is on the verge of securing a $1 million dollar donation for his prehistoric museum from an anonymous donor. When David gets unintentionally entangled in the hectic life of a young woman named Susan (Katharine Hepburn), they end up taking a long list of wild misadventures to get back where they started. The script, written by Dudley Nichols and Hagar Wilde, contains some of the most genuinely sweet and heartwarming comedy of a film from this time that I have yet to see. All of the humor holds up very well and nothing was incredibly offensive, even for a time period that seemed to take liberties with that kind of content. I loved the focus on David and Susan's developing relationship and while it might not have been the intent, this film eventually became a bit of a rom-com. The gags throughout this film are also incredibly quick and dialogue-driven and the wordplay coming from these characters' mouths is just as humorous. The script provides the perfect amount of goofy material and puns for this entire cast to play with and I loved how well they all took it and ran. Most of the written humor throughout this film would not have been delivered as well, if not for the near slapstick qualities that Grant brought to the table. Watching David fumble over himself and his words is quite honestly more entertaining than most of our culture's modern comedy. What I loved most about this story, however, was how these filmmakers were able to take dramatic situations and find comedy in them. Forced scenarios for characters in order to squeeze humor out of them has always been an outdated and lazy tactic and while Bringing Up Baby is indeed ridiculous, it was never too much so. The drama of what could have been a much more serious story is flipped on its head and utilized for comedy incredibly well.

The chemistry between Grant and Hepburn throughout the entirety of this movie is something a casting director, even today, can strive towards. Their relationship over the course of this film was just delicious and these characters were written to complement each other so well. Not only were they both very well-suited to deliver some of the lines with comedic ease, but I genuinely believed how this story made them fall in love. Grant's lovable and goofy persona combined with Hepburn's witty and charming persona made for such a fantastic couple that they could only pull off. Some of the technical pieces that I enjoyed as well were the production design and animal handling. I was surprised at how large-scale the design was, as this film does a great job of building upon the world. The gags that they were able to pull off exclusively due to the massive dinosaur built and the sets that they had to work with were extraordinary. I also appreciated how well-trained and comfortable the cast and crew felt with the literal live leopards and dogs throughout this movie. It was delightful to see how Grant and Hepburn reacted to them and it made their shared scenes even more hilarious. My only gripe with this film, however, would be the direction from Hawks. It was definitely fine but it began to feel very slow, especially in the film's third act. Bringing Up Baby works best when it focuses on the random, unexpected misadventures that Susan and David wind up in and I just think that Hawks started to run out of steam with his humor towards the end. It was just a bit unevenly paced and while it might not have been his tightest story ever, Hawks still manages to do a solid job.

Howard Hawks might be known better for his work on more dramatic pieces of storytelling but this comedy is the perfect example of his many talents. Accompanied by the wonderful performances from the cast and a stellar script to work with, Bringing Up Baby is a comedy that is definitely worth the time to check out. I genuinely loved every moment of this film and there is a lot of substance that modern humor can derive from early stories such as this. Long live goofy, relationship-based comedy and long live the allure of Hepburn and Grant.

My Rating: ★★★★

The High Note (2020) directed by Nisha Ganatra

It's really a shame that films such as these are having to be released on home digital instead of a normal, theatrical run because this would have absolutely killed it. Nisha Ganatra's The High Note is a very entertaining and crowd-pleasing story that contains some great performances and music that are sure to get stuck in people's heads for a while. What really brought me into this film was its cast, as I have been seeing more and more of both Dakota Johnson and Kelvin Harrison Jr. that I have been impressed by recently. They were my central draw-in if I'm being honest and while they did not disappoint, I was quite let down by how run-of-the-mill this entire story was. The writing and direction were some of the most cookie-cutter storytelling I have ever seen and it frankly did not do much for me. However, if there's one issue that this film suffers from more than anything else is not its mediocrity but its lens flares. No more lens flares! The world has progressed past the need for more lens flares!

Maggie Sherwoode (Dakota Johnson) has been world-renowned music icon Grace Davis' (Tracee Ellis Ross) personal assistant for three years but dreams of one day becoming a producer of her own. When Maggie meets a young musician named David (Kelvin Harrison Jr.), she begins a double life of producing for him while not trying to jeopardize her career with Grace. What I really like about this film is how invested in it the entire cast and crew felt. While it might not have been the most original film of all time, in fact far from it, there is an evident amount of hard work that these filmmakers put in. The script by Flora Greeson was solid and I really started to feel for these characters. The journies that they took as characters individually were decently interesting and I really enjoy how she tied everything together in the end. What really brought this together were the performances from Johnson, Ross, and Harrison Jr. They are all such amazingly talented performers and I really enjoyed how dedicated to their roles they seemed to be. This story might be a bit too cheesy for the talent of these actors and actresses but they definitely took what they were given and ran with it. I also adored how these three actually sang all of their own parts throughout the catchy music. I had no clue that either Johnson, Ross, or Harrison Jr. had any musical background but they carried each other to the beat incredibly well. The High Note may not be on its way to winning any Grammys but the music by Amie Doherty was very well-written and fit the tone of the story. My one complaint is that many scenes were overlayed with music that felt very out of touch for the moment and I wish that Ganatra could have brought together those moments in a more concise way.

The most glaring part of this film that I could not help but notice was its sheer mediocrity. I am not complaining about how this film was written or directed but I just think that so many of its choices could have been much stronger. Every scene is filled with some of the most stereotypical dialogue and it got to the point that I could not even feel for these characters as people. Then again, it's a bit difficult to make a musical story like this more compelling than the slew of others. More than anything, this film kinda felt like a Disney Channel original movie but with more "mature" themes. Other things that needed desperate improvement were the direction from Ganatra and the cinematography from Jason McCormick. It seems like Ganatra knows that her audience knows how to tell a story and instead of trying to deviate from that norm to tell something interesting, she instead put all the replaceable pieces together in workable order and called it a day. She has an obvious knack for telling these kinds of feel-good and progressive stories but there was nothing in this film that really warranted too much discussion. Deeper themes are hinted at but little to nothing is done to explore what could have been a much more interesting conversation. A film about racism and misogyny in the music industry would have been stellar and while that is hinted at in one line, nothing else is done about it. Just a simple shift of focus from the dull, central story would have been incredibly beneficial. McCormick is also a fantastic talent, as he even shot my favorite movie of 2019, but this entire film felt very commercialized and plastic. Way too many cheap lens flares, way too many establishing shots, and way too many boring ways of staging these characters. A musical film like A Star is Born took its time to really focus on the cinematography and framing and while that film is nothing like The High Note, it at least had a stronger plan of action for its impactful, visual storytelling.

The High Note definitely did not reach any new heights that it so promised, but it is quite serviceable nonetheless. I would not be opposed to visiting this film again because it really contains everything that makes a musical story of this magnitude so rewatchable but this is just amusing background noise at best. I really appreciated the efforts from Ganatra and the entire cast but I feel like a generic story like this is way below them. I know that there is so much talent behind this entire cast and crew but I just never felt like this was the passion project of anyone involved.

My Rating: ★★★

A Night at the Opera (1935) directed by Sam Wood

AFI Top 100: #85

When it comes to early film stars, particularly in comedy, some of the most memorable and hilarious stories come from the Marx brothers. Groucho, Chico, and Harpo are some absolutely fantastic, comedic performers that I just adore and I found them to be especially hilarious together in their earlier work Duck Soup. However, Sam Wood's A Night at the Opera is a bit of a disappointment for me personally. While their signature style is still very much there, so many elements of the plot and its writing fell flat and left me wondering what could have been. It is very obvious to see these brothers grow in their talent but I feel like Wood had much more opportunity to utilize them in a clearer and easier-to-understand story. As a recent fan of this period of comedy, I still very much appreciate this movie and its efforts but I'm also starting to realize that some early comedy films definitely stand stronger than others.

Otis B. Driftwood (Groucho Marx), a slimy but effective business manager, partners with his clownish friends Fiorello (Chico Marx) and Tomasso (Harpo Marx) to help two lowly opera singers achieve their dreams. When the money-hungry opera owner Gottlieb (Sig Ruman) comes on the scene, the couple's dreams of stardom seem to falter but not without a hilarious fight from Driftwood. This film has everything that one could expect to see from the Marx brothers and more. Whether one is a fan of classic slapstick or just witty dialogue writing, director Sam Wood does a solid job bringing it all together. This film is genuinely funny and the chemistry between these characters works extremely well. I did find a lot of the visual gags to come off as almost recycled or ideas that were initially thrown out but they work decently for the types of environments that this set of characters explore. Groucho, in particular, stood out to me in this film and I feel like he is really refining his talent as a comedian in this role. From just minute facial expressions and bodily signals, he is able to get his point across very well and I really enjoyed how much of a smartass he is as Driftwood. Not only does it suit the character well, but it gives him room to play with the comedy to the point that it almost feels like natural improv. All of the performances are more technical pieces of this film are done well too and while it might take some who are new to this era of film by surprise, the massive production value and thought behind every little detail was astounding for being released in 1935.

Many elements of A Night at the Opera work incredibly well and others just seem to feel very out of place. One of these such aspects is the script by George S. Kaufman and Morrie Ryskind and how their story itself feels mismatched. The Marx brothers' characters never felt like they were in the same story as the young opera couple and I kept forgetting that they were out to achieve the same thing. Groucho is practically the face of these humorous brothers, as everyone tends to remember his name and personality the most. This is where I feel like Wood misused the performers, however, because while Groucho led the film with his snarky character of Driftwood, Chico and Harpo felt incredibly shoehorned in. Groucho could have easily led this film on his own without the unnecessary inclusion of Fiorello and Tomasso but if that had been done, there also would be no point in advertising this film as one done by the Marx brothers. This is where I find myself so conflicted because these three brothers succeed so well when they are together but that chemistry depends on the script itself. Kaufman and Ryskind's script sidelines Chico and Harpo so much that their characters become a nuisance more than anything. I never felt like the characters of Fiorello and Tomasso had much reason to exist other than to help with the comedy and add that little touch on slapstick. While they are undoubtedly funny together, they never really fit in with the tone of the story. But then again, this film has a much different type of plot than other films that the Marx brothers have done, which focus more on the trio as a whole. There is still so much to love about the humor infused into this film from Wood but I just desperately wanted to see more of the brothers and less of the half-assed romantic plot between the opera singers.

A Night at the Opera is an amusing comedy from the Marx brothers but one that is far from their best work. While still carrying their trademark brand of wit and slapstick, these brothers are really the best part of this entire film and I really wish that more focus would have been put on them instead of the half-attempted romantic story between the side characters. Regardless, this film is still a decent eduction into how they approach comedy and I will always enjoy just watching them get into absolutely nonsensical situations.

My Rating: ★★★

Swallow (2020) directed by Carlo Mirabella-Davis

Never before would I have thought that seeing someone down a screwdriver would pain me so much. Carlo Mirabella-Davis's Swallow makes for just that right amount of pain, as this movie truly creeped me out with its use of visual storytelling. There is a lot to love about this movie and although I believed going in that it was more focused on body horror, the psychological elements definitely carried enough weight to make that side of the story interesting. Accompanied by a fantastic performance from the lead and some stunning cinematography, I was thoroughly squirmish during this entire runtime. This might be the first time I have ever thought this, but I actually think this film could have benefitted from more graphic imagery in order to get its point across. Despite this film not quite living up to the grotesque reputation I thought it would, there is a lot of great things going on with this psychological story and the filmmakers make sure that some of these scenes are truly hard to swallow.

Hunter Conrad (Haley Bennett), after coming to terms with her tragic past, marries the love of her life Richie (Austin Stowell) and gets pregnant to start a family. However, when she is left in the house alone, she develops a strange affliction towards swallowing peculiar objects and fights to reclaim herself from her addiction to save her relationships. This film, written and directed by Carlo Mirabella-Davis, is a solid exploration into strange addictions and how it can affect the people around you. The only thing I knew of this film going in was that the main character Hunter was addicted to swallowing strange things such as marbles, thumbtacks, and dirt, but I did not know of the psychological elements behind the writing. This film does body horror decently well and while nothing too explicit is ever shown, enough context is given to really put Hunter's internal pain on display. I have never been a huge fan of the body horror genre but in this film's case, it actually could have used more. The scenes that made up the majority of this film's titular theme were fantastic and I could really feel the pain in the involuntary swallowing that Hunter went through. From the audience's point of view, I could really tell that she never meant to hurt her relationships or even herself but just that the boredom and often loneliness she experienced contributed to her desire for literally anything exciting. What I did not think worked as well, however, was the examination into Hunter's past and why she grew this addiction. Enough of the writing is dedicated to explaining Hunter's upbringing and her traumatizing relationship with her mother and father but nothing was ever really related to her oral habit. I definitely would have liked to have seen more connection between the two and this would have made the psychological aspect of the script much tighter and more concise.

A couple of the minor subplots and supporting characters throughout Swallow could have used a bit more depth to them but these are made up for by the performance from Haley Bennett. She is an absolutely phenomenal actress and while this is the first thing I have ever seen her in, it is obvious how capable she is of carrying an interesting story. Innocent housewife turned addict turned psychiatric patient was such a wild ride of development for the character of Hunter and I feel that Bennett locked it down with ease. So many of this movie's scenes were carried by her and without her character's newfound agency when she ran away, Bennett's performance could have been much more stoic. Carlo Mirabella-Davis's direction also proves to be one of the film's strong points. Despite his script needing a bit of work to be more compelling, he carries along the pace of this story with quite an amount of skill. No moment is wasted and every scene has so much weight to it that meant a lot for the development of the overall story. Mirabella-Davis also knows when to imbue just the right amount of sexuality, humor, and horror in his story to make it very effective. The technical piece that really brought Swallow together, however, was the cinematography from Katelin Arizmendi. Her gorgeous camerawork was on display from frame one and while center framing is used very often nowadays to characterize eerieness, her mastery of this was put into good use. The way that Arizmendi shoots food throughout this film is also extraordinary and she manages to actually make some very appetizing plates look horrendous. She shoots all of the objects that Hunter swallows and the normal food cooked throughout the story in a similar fashion and over time, the food became almost repulsive. Her skills as a DP really shine in this film as the leading cause of its fantastic visual imagery. This whole movie could have been silent with just Arizmendi telling the story with her shots and it would have been equally, if not more, effective.

Swallow is quite an interesting psychological film that, while ambitious, never really reaches the horrific heights that I had imagined. That does not detract from how effective the movie is, however, and I really did enjoy so many parts of this. Bennett is incredible throughout this entire film and I really appreciated what she did with this character to also make it such a compelling character study of someone with this real compulsion. And like I had mentioned before (I might not ever say this again), this film could have definitely used some more swallowing.

My Rating: ★★★½

The Lovebirds (2020) directed by Michael Showalter

The comedy formula is starting to get a bit exhausting and so many films are unable to set themselves apart by going against this grain. Michael Showalter's The Lovebirds is one of these unfortunate films that fails to distinguish itself as anything memorable. This movie is an amusing but forgettable mystery-comedy that features some incredible chemistry from its two leads and the occasional writing that made me laugh but is directed at an almost insufferable pace. This film has everything that a studio comedy from Paramount would release and while I'm sure it would have done fine in theaters, the decision to drop this on Netflix was their smartest move. However, if you desperately want a better comedy that's also about a couple having problems and rediscovering love after a night of coincidental crime, cults, and hostage scenes involving Third Eye Blind's "Semi-Charmed Life", may I suggest Game Night.

Leilani (Issa Rae) and Jibran (Kumail Nanjiani) have been together for four years and one night, while their relationship is on a downward spiral, they accidentally hit a man riding a bicycle and get caught up in a deeper scheme than they could have imagined. In order to clear their names, they decide to attempt to solve the murder before the cops can catch up to them. This type of story has some very predictable plot beats that could really have been written by anyone: the script from Brendan Gall and Aaron Abrams is quite humorous but never tries to reach any new heights but that is not necessarily a bad thing. I do not feel like anything groundbreaking was trying to be achieved because the story is still nonetheless watchable and definitely a good fit for a couple looking to share a fun night in. A good bit of the humor was very well-done too and I definitely laughed more than I was expecting. The line deliveries in particular from Rae and Nanjiani were fantastic and they prove to have some excellent chemistry together. I do wish that they had a more fitting script to work with but they embodied these characters like no one else. Rae and Nanjiani are able to play off each other, overlapping dialogue and constantly bickering, in a way that never felt forced and I loved how believable they were as a couple. Seeing how their relationship developed all the way through to the end was great and while typical, the conclusion was satisfying. The connections between their relationship and many of the crime plot points were also written very well and although I was never totally on board with how ridiculous some of the twists and turns were, the story remained coherent. And of course, any film that features a character overly worried about rendering animations for a documentary he is making will never fail to make me chuckle.

Showalter's direction is where I found the majority of the problems with The Lovebirds. There is nothing particularly wrong with this story or its comedy, but the execution is especially important. I do not feel like Showalter ever focused on the impact of the comedy because his direction faltered far too much and jokes were left hanging for far too long. I felt as if there was a plethora of comedy written for this film that Showalter and his writers desperately wanted to include but they did not fit in with the overarching tone of the story. The grand scheme of the plot never made sense with many of the jokes and I feel like much more focused writing could have brought these loose ends together. I also kept forgetting what the A-plot of this movie even was and where Leilani and Jibran were even headed. The comedy kept rearing its head in unnecessary directions and a lot of it felt quite forced. There is a lot of comedy to be found in genuine reactions and the only issue I had with Rae and Nanjiani's performances is that they tended to cheese it up too much at times, particularly when their characters should have been terrified for their lives. The editing by Vince Filippone and Robert Nassau was also way too loose and even though this film is only 86 minutes long, an easy 20 could have been cut to make the humor much more effective. Gall and Abrams try to blend the overwhelming comedy with the crime aspect of this story but that part became too convoluted and ludicrous at times. What works so well about 2018's Game Night is that the shockingly violent scenes are contrasted incredibly well with the naturalistic reactions and humor. That film succeeds so much because of its authenticity but in The Lovebirds, the varying parts of the story seem never seem to mesh well together.

The Lovebirds, while at the most entertaining, is really nothing special to make a huge deal out of. It does have that cinematic touch to it that most Netflix original films fail to achieve, but I was never really engaged with its story. The direction from Showalter is quite painful and lots of the running gags felt out of place, but there is nothing outwardly wrong with the approach that he took to tell this comedic story. As long as one goes in with an empty head and no expectations, there is a mildly fun time to be had.

My Rating: ★★½

Sunrise (1927) directed by F.W. Murnau

AFI Top 100: #82

Disclaimer: for the first ten minutes of this film, I couldn't stop thinking about the John Mulaney bit where he talks about old-timey people filming themselves waving at boats because that is EXACTLY how this starts. Regardless, F.W. Murnau's Sunrise is an absolutely phenomenal, romantic film that touched on my every tender emotion better than I ever could have expected something from this era to do. Not that I don't ever feel anything about characters from this period, but the sheer brilliance in this filmmaking greatly exceeded what I thought was going to be a much flatter experience. From the incredible performances to the resplendent production design, every element of this movie is crafted to pure perfection and there exists so many obvious influences to the genre of romance today. I adored how complex these characters were and while many of this story's plot points seem typical today, the way they were utilized must have left the audiences of 1927 in tears.

After a local farmer (George O'Brien) begins an affair with a slick, city woman (Margaret Livingston), she convinces him to run off with her and drown his current wife (Janet Gaynor). The journey within the man's mind changes, however, as he realizes how in love with his wife he actually is and they take the night to rediscover their passion for one another. While this film does not have a traditional script but is instead based on a scenario by Carl Mayer, the translational direction from Murnau is impeccable. This film never tries to be anything too pretentious or anything that it's not. Many films of this era, especially silent ones, rely on haughty writing to carry their religious themes through to their "dignified" viewers but Murnau never treats his audience like they are below him. Everyone adores a good, romantic story and that simple idea is all that Murnau focuses on. From today's standards, this film is really nothing special, as it contains your typical three-act structure and climax to really draw the audience in. However, that was not very prevalent in stories of this time and Murnau utilizes this to his advantage to make such an engaging and genuinely thrilling story. The heightened focus on physical storytelling and the visual language of this world is also what makes this film really stand out. Title cards only appear very rarely and never even during dialogue from our two leads. The use of silence in this film and focus on what the characters are actually doing weres some of the smartest choices Murnau could have made. It is so easy for the audience to get mad at the farmer in the beginning before he begins to redeem himself and the way that he develops purely through loving actions and epiphanies is spectacular. Just like many silent comedies of this time, the meaning behind the film is derived from what happens on screen and it is as easy to fall in love with this romantic story as it is to laugh along with the likes of Buster Keaton or Charlie Chaplin.

The performances from the two leads are also what makes this film really pop. George O'Brien is fantastic as the farmer and the way he carries the duality of his relationships with him is portrayed excellently. It is very easy to dislike his character in the beginning, for very good reason, but the way that O'Brien's acting changes with the likability of his character is fascinating. The greater standout, however, is Janet Gaynor as the farmer's wife. She embodies this role incredibly well and so much of the pain she is going through needs nothing more than a simple look from her. Many actresses and actors of this time do not focus on the emotions or their body language but rather their actions and Sunrise might be the earliest example I have seen of properly using both. Gaynor is especially great at this and while some scenes could be rightfully considered over-acting, she definitely gives this film her all. Along with the great casting choices, the cinematography from Charles Rosher and Karl Struss is just gorgeous. The iconic shot of the farmer and his wife crossing the street while cars swerve around them was breathtaking and it was really interesting to see how well these new techniques were used. The early kind of green-screen to the overlaying of other images to exaggerate the farmer's internal struggles was incredibly clever. There are also a lot of vast shots showing off this film's production design, which continuously floored me. From the homely farm to the big city to the raucous fairgrounds, this movie really builds its environment in the grandest of ways. I really did feel like I was there with these characters and it felt lovely. All of these technical elements come together in the most satisfying ways to literally put me on the edge of my seat, particularly during the exciting twist towards the end. Never would I have predicted that I could relate to the hopeful longing for love as much as characters from a 1927 film but here we are.

Released the same year as the more famously-known The Jazz Singer, Sunrise honestly succeeds more silently than it would have with the innovation of sound. The sheer excellence shown in Murnau's craft of early filmmaking here is something to absolutely gawk over and from the cinematography to the physical storytelling, I was glued to the screen every step of the way. For as simple as this story is, it might be one of my favorite romantic movies of all time, as it has set the bar for films in the genre for many years to come.

My Rating: ★★★★★

Sullivan's Travels (1941) directed by Preston Sturges

AFI Top 100: #61

Dark comedy and romantic comedy, while sharing the glaring element of humor, never seem to cross my mind when it comes to sharing space within a film. Especially in a film as old as this, the genres would have to work brilliantly together in order to get a certain message across and this is exactly what Preston Sturges succeeds at. Sullivan's Travels is an excellent, satirical film that combines an adorable, romantic story with a hard-hitting social relevance that 1941 needed. Although there are some issues with the tone of this story, Sturges was in a fantastic place with his great cast to carry this very entertaining comedy. And to top it all off, like many other films of this time, this movie is a great look into the politics and social classes of Hollywood, as well as how difficult it was to get started in that business back when it was booming. There is so much about this film to love and I absolutely adored how well it works as a social satire as well as being a (then) modern riff on Jonathan Swift's classic novel Gulliver's Travels.

Upon realizing that he has no prior knowledge with being low-class, filmmaker John L. Sullivan (Joel McCrea) decides to don homeless garb and go out on the road to experience being poor in order to know for certain when making his newest film. Along the way, he encounters a young girl (Veronica Lake) who joins him on his misadventures as they travel across the country and end up getting deeper than they bargained for. This film, written and directed by Preston Sturges, has an absolutely stellar script examining the life of lower-class people in America after the Great Depression. Checking your privilege might be a clichéd retort for many groups nowadays to use, but Sullivan's Travels perfectly embodies that. This film's dialogue is very quick a bit too on-the-nose for its own good, but I never felt like it was moving too fast: it actually helped characterize these people by using the flashy style and pace of the old Hollywood times. What this film does best, however, is utilize comedy to tell this story. The humor throughout this film is not only incredibly witty and quick but serves a purpose as well. Sturges could have easily made this a darker and more introspective look at the class system of the 1940s but instead uses lighthearted comedy for the audience to feel for the characters. I genuinely adored Sullivan and the girl by the end of this film and the path that Sturges takes us on is a highly emotional one. I was actually surprised at the level of humor Sturges and the cast were able to achieve and although McCrea and Lake apparently despised each other during filming, their chemistry was extraordinary. Sturges proves to be a master of making even some of the most pretentious people in Hollywood of the time likable and it also helped in making the audience root for him during his journey.

While Sturges's script remained consistently fantastic, I had just a little bit of issue with how his direction falters. The tone established right off the bat in this film is comedic and while I was not expecting that, it continued to improve. However, Sturges takes this movie in an almost completely different direction for its third act, drastically switching to dark drama. This tone could have worked for the whole movie but it just felt so out-of-place when it was thrown into the audience's faces. The film never really recovers after this tonal shift and even though it provided one of the best movie endings I have ever seen, Sturges' direction could have been a bit more concise. I did absolutely love the ending scene, however, and it is such a well-deserved finale for these characters after the lessons they have learned. This film really emphasizes the theme of redistribution of wealth in both emotional and physical ways and I was surprised at how socialist a lot of Sturges' values turned out to be. Sullivan's Travels not only excellently touches on the class system, but it gives us some hope that there are people out there who are able and willing to change for the better. The dialogue even mentions some of the film's themes in what may be considered too blatant, but I appreciated the intent. McCrea's performance as Sullivan throughout this movie was very stoic and solid, but the standout for me was Lake as the young girl. An actress new to Hollywood and discouraged by its reputation, Lake's portrayal of the girl was absolutely phenomenal. Her quick, comedic timing and agency made her such an interesting character and I could watch endless films of her as an actress playing an actress. I do wish that Sturges would have not written her off so much, as she doesn't even have a name, but she holds her own like no one else in the film.

Sullivan's Travels showcases its amazing writing through the performances from the entire cast, the music, and the comedy that pulses throughout its satirical body. Along with being a very romantic story of the time, there are so many elements in this film designed to please anyone and they are all directed together with ease by Sturges. I fell surprisingly in love with this movie and although some of its most dramatic points are too heavily accentuated, Sturges still does a great job getting his point across through a memorable and charming comedy.

My Rating: ★★★★½

Capone (2020) directed by Josh Trank

One might think by now that I would have the common sense to actually listen to people's reviews when going into a film but I suppose there are no limits to what I would do for Tom Hardy. Until now, of course, as this movie was just as atrocious as I have been hearing. Josh Trank's Capone is an absolutely vile and horribly directed biopic about one of America's most infamous gangsters and one that fails to teach its audience anything. Paired with a disgustingly bad performance from its lead and editing that will make your head spin, there is next to nothing even redeemable about this film. I knew what to expect and I knew of the reputation of this filmmaker but I chose to ignore that with high hopes and that turned out to be my gravest mistake. This movie is the biggest waste of $9 that I have spent recently but knowing what I was getting myself into, who's really to blame?

After serving ten years in federal prison for tax evasion, Al Capone (Tom Hardy) returns home to Florida to live out his remaining years while on parole. Chronicling the last year of his life, Capone battles dementia and his past demons while struggling to differentiate between his dark past and current reality. Biopics following the last moments of a person's life always seem to be hit or miss and while this trope in writing is vastly overdone, I appreciate the slightly altered path that writer and director Josh Trank took. To shake things up for his story, there is a sense of horror that flows throughout this film, plaguing its audience like dementia was plaguing Capone. The main problem is that since this terrifying element of the story is the most prominent, it left absolutely no room for the rest of the script. If there was any type of film that deserves a horror infusion into its true elements, it would be the haunting final moments of Capone's life. However, Trank fails to balance this, and I was left wondering what the hell was even happening from the first scene until the last. I had no idea who any of the supporting characters were or why they even mattered and no context was given at all to help tell Capone's story. Instead, the audience is left deciphering through the script that gave them nothing to learn from. Trank could have easily gone the more standard, biopic route, accompanied by flashbacks and callbacks, but this movie was not even informative, which is the basic requirement of this genre of film.

Due to Trank's lackluster writing, I was never able to tell what was real and what was simply in Capone's mind; while that might have been the point due to his battle with dementia, it hurt the story immensely and the aimless direction from Trank also did not help. On top of Capone never really justifying its reason for existence, Trank has to force-feed background knowledge in order to get his point across. He is incredibly blunt with this film's visual language and I just despised how he treats the people who want to learn something about the crime lord. One of the film's recurring motifs is the radio show that Capone listens to in order to stay sane and the show he tunes into is about himself during the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre of 1929, for God's sake. I was consistently repulsed at Trank's depictions of Capone and the violence that he uses throughout this movie was vile. It did not seem like any of it was done for a clear reason other than its graphic factor; it takes a lot for me to physically look away from a film but this one definitely did it for me. The biggest example being the Scarface homage as Capone drifts through his waking nightmare during the final shootout. It was done in a nonchalant way accompanied by poor visual effects that really just grossed me out more than anything.

One of the parts of this film that I was genuinely excited for since the trailer was Hardy's performance: he remains one of my favorite actors but this might be his worst performance every. He struggles to make it through one scene without grunting, whining, or quite literally shitting himself and the pain that Capone felt was never embodied by Hardy whatsoever. The supporting performances from Linda Cardellini, Matt Dillon, and Kyle MacLachlan were *fine* and may have been some of the only watchable parts of this story. They really gave their all to try to make this bland and meaningless script come to life and I have to at least give them credit for that. I have yet to figure out what Josh Trank thinks of his own filmmaking because it frankly is heinous. This strange complex can be seen in the editing as well, which Trank also did. There is a reason that post-production departments exist and why, in the twenty-first century, directors typically do not edit their own films. His choice of pacing throughout this movie was complete garbage and the rapid-fire cuts in the calmest of scenes threw me for a loop. I was never able to delineate the timelines of this movie or what was supposed to be real and the editing never tries to solve that problem either. Not a single element about this film works well with each other as Trank reaches new levels of unintelligible filmmaking.

Tom Hardy deserves much better than this and while the approach to Capone is interesting, it never attempts to even reach its full potential. I was thoroughly disappointed in this film and I would honestly never recommend it to anyone regardless of how interested they may be in the history and legacy of one of the most infamous gangsters of all time. From the insufferable technicals to the nonsensical script, this film is just plain insulting and I couldn't help but feel massively irritated. What an absolute waste of talent and I mean that in every sense of the word.

My Rating: ★

How to Build a Girl (2020) directed by Coky Giedroyc

Beanie Feldstein once again proves that she can do no wrong and honestly, she needs to be a much bigger name to the average audience than she is. Coky Giedroyc's How to Build a Girl is a sweet and well-meaning coming-of-age film that takes a very unique approach to develop this protagonist. Approaching this story from a writer and critic's point of view, I never would have expected to be so called-out when it comes to the films that I watch. Very rarely do movies get the art and process of criticism right and the way that this film portrays journalism is also superb. I really enjoyed so much about this movie, especially Feldstein's performance, but I could not help but feel that the story could have been told much stronger by a different director. I had a lot of issues with the pacing and feel of this entire movie and thankfully, that did not detract from my enjoyment, but it was still a bit of a problem for me. Regardless of how much one gets from this story, it is still a very entertaining ride with plenty of energy and humor to carry it through.

Johanna Morrigan (Beanie Feldstein) is a young and naive London native who aspires to be a journalist when she grows up. As she unwittingly gets into the local rock and punk scene, she becomes entranced by it and decides to reinvent herself as a rock music critic. Her rise in the media leads her to become one of the most respected yet feared voices in rock in the early 1990s but she soon finds out that the current version of herself might not be the one she had wanted after all. This script, written by Caitlin Moran and based on the true story of Morrigan's life, is incredibly interesting. I had absolutely no idea the kind of impact that Morrigan had during this time period and to think that she almost controlled what lived and died in terms of music was fascinating. I really enjoyed how Moran combines this true story with a coming-of-age feel in an effortless way to make the audience care about Morrigan and her slight path of corruption. She did such a great job of characterizing Morrigan's story with her rebellious nature full of sex and rock 'n' roll but did so in a way that still felt fresh and interesting for this genre of film. Another huge aspect of this film that I really enjoyed was how it touches on the art of criticism and art critique culture. This movie might be the most honest portrayal of journalism that I have seen and I mean that in both the good and bad aspects. Most specifically, I loved how this film shows Johanna's transformation into her persona Dolly Wilde and how she starts to become pretentious about the music she gives good reviews to. The more she saw bands and became critical, the more she became intolerable as a person, and honestly, that is something we could all take notes on. Whether it be art, music, film, or whatever else, the highest and often most influential of critics tend to hurt others' enjoyment of them simply because of their "professionalism" and that idea is such a dangerous one. The character of Johanna embodies this incredibly well and I loved how that was incorporated into her arc.

The character of Johanna would not have been nearly as watchable, however, if not for the performance from Feldstein. She is such a phenomenal actress and I really do not think that I would have liked this movie as much without her charisma and willingness to do very different things with her characters. Feldstein has been taking some of the most memorable roles in the past few years and she is absolutely killing it. All of the supporting performances are solid too, especially from Alfie Allen as Morrigan's rockstar crush John Kite and Paddy Considine, who plays Johanna's father and brings melancholy yet emotional energy to the family of the Morrigans. The big issue with this film, however, is the direction from Giedroyc. Throughout its entire runtime, I felt as if this film could never pick a tone. It definitely hit all of the beats that a coming-of-age film does, but it struggled a bit to incorporate the other elements of the story. The musical and concert scenes were great and it was solid to see how Morrigan got into the music scene, but the rest of the film was structured so strangely that I could never really get on board with how Johanna was feeling or what she was going through. I think the reason it felt so strange is that typically in this genre, the audience learns about the protagonist and begins to care about them but in this film, Johanna starts as an awkward and likable girl but continues on a downhill spiral until the film's climax. As Morrigan struggled to figure out how she wanted to portray herself, I just could not get myself to care that much because of the horrible ways she was treating the people around her. How to Build a Girl felt like it was directed to be a Disney Channel original movie but with much more adult content in it and this creative fusion did not mix very well. The transitions and editing between scenes were incredibly choppy and the happy-go-lucky energy that this story possesses really contrasted what Moran was trying to say. Although the direction felt like it was all over the place, this film does follow many of the genre's rules in terms of payoff for its protagonist. Johanna figures out how she was truly supposed to be built and starts to become comfortable in her actual skin as opposed to pretending to be someone she is not, which is always a sweet ending an audience can root for.

How to Build a Girl is a film that I have been looking forward to for a while, ever since Feldstein blew me away in last year's Booksmart. While I did not enjoy this coming-of-age story quite as much, there is still a lot about Johanna Morrigan's journey to appreciate. I adore how Feldstein embodies this woman and all of her sexual, groundbreaking, and infamous tendencies and she proves to be the greatest part of this film. I would definitely recommend this movie for fans of the genre but in terms of the film's structure, this girl could have been built much differently.

My Rating: ★★★½

Clementine (2020) directed by Lara Jean Gallagher

One of the most glaring themes of coming-of-age films is that there never seems to be a clear or distinguishable plot to keep track of. This genre of film typically falls more into being more slice-of-life than not and while this lack of clear progression used to get on my nerves, I have grown to love it. However, that can only be done to some extent without becoming meaningless. Lara Jean Gallagher's Clementine, unfortunately, falls into this trap and this film reveals itself to be an odd, sexually-driven movie that clearly struggles to find its footing. Gallagher seems to be a decent writer but I failed to see what any of these characters' actions meant to do with each other. There is a lot to love about this movie, from the excellent performances to the recognizably indie score, and there is no denying that Gallagher is a technically-driven director with lots of promise. I could not expect a masterpiece from her at this point, but this film shows the promise and talent she has as a writer and director and it will be interesting to see what story she takes on next.

When Karen (Otmara Marrero) finds out that her ex-girlfriend D (Sonya Walger) had been cheating on her, she moves out and goes to her lakehouse to escape. There, she has an encounter with Lana (Sydney Sweeney), a young and adventurous girl who attracts and tempts Karen, challenging her morals more than anyone has done before. The main element of this movie that I genuinely loved was the direction from Lara Jean Gallagher. She proves that she absolutely knows how to direct a film, as this movie hits all of the story beats and touches on all of its characters decently well. The pacing was excellent and so much of this story is derived from visual storytelling, which I will always adore. While Gallagher is definitely a strong director, her script is where I failed to really get into this story as much as I would have liked. It almost seems like too much of this film was left to her direction instead of written dialogue or screenwriting and because of that, it was very difficult to follow what was going on in the minds of Karen and Lana. But even when there was dialogue, it came off as incredibly generic, almost to the point of being inauthentic. There are many tropes and clichés that writers follow when it comes to writing dialogue and I just really do not think that any of the characters involved in this film were interesting enough to warrant 95 minutes about their struggles, given that they did not seem to have much to work off. The main issue is that no context at all is given to these characters' actions, why they ended up at this lakehouse, and why they do the things that they do. That is not always a problem, but once the characters of Karen and Lana are fleshed out more, there is no payoff whatsoever. Karen remains a frustrated woman at the center of not one, but two complex relationships, and nothing is really resolved for her while Lana just turns out to be what the audience expected the entire time. This movie does not quite do what most coming-of-age movies do and although films don't have to follow rules to be successful, this one definitely needed a more concise path to follow.

As for the rest of Clementine, it was fine! There are lots of things about this movie that I genuinely enjoyed, including the performances and music that was used throughout. Katy Jarzebowski's score was incredible and accompanied the tone of the film very well. It did border a bit too much on thriller than was necessary, but it added an extra level of discomfort to display Karen's story very well. Marrero and Sweeney's performances are also clear highlights, as they reach fantastic levels that I have not seen from them before. As Marrero is a somewhat newcomer to acting in features, Sweeney has a bit more experience and she, in particular, is incredible as Lana. I mostly know her as a supporting actress up until this point but she takes over this film with a naive sense of seduction that is incredibly fitting for her character. Although the actual words from their mouths never seemed to be the most believable, Sweeney and Marrero work with what they have to the best degree possible. Their chemistry together was a bit stoic and awkward but for the sake of this film, that is exactly what it called for. As their characters grew on each other, they became a lot better together on screen and this progression was fantastic to see. I also really appreciated how this movie does not only focus on Karen's past relationship and her newfound entanglement with Lana. Her character arc is thankfully not completely characterized by being gay but Gallagher's script makes her a multi-dimensional and actually interesting person. This film touches on the power of music in a relationship, how harmful putting labels on people can be, and shining light on the horrible, underage exploitation that happens to young girls every day. These themes are not entirely what the film revolves around, but I at least liked how they were introduced to build this world a bit more. If only Gallagher's direction had delved deeper into the backstory and personal life of Karen I would have been a bit more sold, but I am happy with the representation and clear sense of writing that we were given.

Clementine is definitely worth a watch for the superb and vulnerable performances by the two leads and some creative technical choices, but I just did not get much from this overall story. Despite the script lacking in much-needed detail, this film has everything else that a little indie movie needs to succeed. It might not be the most memorable of films or the most groundbreaking, but the storytelling abilities showcased throughout this movie display just how passionate Gallagher is about her work.

My Rating: ★★★

High Noon (1952) directed by Fred Zinnemann

AFI Top 100: #27

Nothing better than dudes being dudes... duking it out and wanting to kill each other in a classic, western setting. Frank Zinnemann's High Noon is the epitome of this classic storytelling trope, yet one that executes it so very well. I surprisingly really enjoyed this film, for as basic of a story and as simple of direction that it was. There is a lot to take about the western genre from this film and while I do not think there was much of anything groundbreaking in this movie, I believe that it set the standard for many western films to come. Clocking in at a tight 85 minutes, this movie has no time to waste when it comes to getting down to the action, except when it holds back incredibly well to focus on the characters and really make the audience feel for the protagonist. This also might be one of the first westerns of this era I have seen that does not rely on using racist stereotypes for the sake of its plot or try to make its audience see past a character's flaws, but instead, Zinnemann actually takes the time to excellently build this world.

Town marshall Will Kane (Gary Cooper) is getting ready to retire as a lawman and start his new life with his wife Amy (Grace Kelly). On the day of his wedding, he finds out that a criminal he put away years ago named Frank Miller (Ian McDonald) is out on parole and coming to get his revenge. Kane tries to gather up his town's men to help him fight back but soon realizes that he must face this challenge himself. My favorite aspect of this script, written by Carl Foreman and adapted from the magazine story "The Tin Star" by John W. Cunningham, is how it does not go straight to the action but instead takes its time to build its world. This movie could have easily been intercut with action scenes of Kane fighting off Miller's goons, but Zinnemann cleverly saves this until the end. Practically the entire runtime is devoted to showing how Kane is really by himself in this fight. Starting off the film with his wedding surrounded by all of his friends and colleagues contrasted with how they immediately abandon him to let him fight his own fights is incredibly interesting. I loved this contrast in the storytelling and it really showed how diligent Kane was to end this battle. Cooper gives the performance to match this story's energy as well and he embodies this old western marshall like none other. He may have everything that typical actors of this time do, from his looks to mannerisms, but again, I believe this plays into how well he influences other, more standard westerns that came after this one. This entire story is really quite simple but since it is done right, it is no less enjoyable. My only gripe is that I wish the final scene between Kane and Miller was given a bit more tension and not breezed past so much, but it remains very effective regardless. The action sequences are done very well and even involving Kelly's character Amy was fantastic.

Kelly's performance as Amy was equally as intriguing. Her standup attitude and agency as her own character made her so awesome to watch. The writing fueling her actions was great, as she was able to clearly hold her own subplot that carried a lot of weight. This created a lot of great tension throughout the film, as it makes the audience really wonder if she would leave on the train or not if Kane were to be killed. Her ultimatum makes her such a critical part of this movie and I loved every second that she was on screen. Although this movie is solid in its writing and direction, it is also incredibly well-made. The cinematography from Floyd Crosby is astounding and he makes every shot feel incredibly pivotal. Despite the entire film taking place in a few buildings in one town, the variety of techniques that Crosby utilized was fascinating. High Noon is one of the earliest examples I can think of that uses quick zooms and pans to reveal things out of frame. This was fantastic to see and I loved how the movement of the camera really adjusts to suit the action of the scene. The camerawork paired with the original music from Dimitri Tiomkin was brilliant and especially the recurring motif of the empty chair was great to see. While it may be taken a bit humorous at first due to the almost campy nature of this film's atmosphere, the overly-exaggerated zooming became very entertaining. Even just from the title itself, this movie gives its audience exactly what they came for: an exciting, character-driven western with a good ol' fashioned shootout. I can absolutely see why this movie has become so influential and while endless people have toyed with and parodied the genre, there is no denying the watchability of this type of film.

High Noon is a great, little western that sets the standard for how many of these stories were told for years to come. Cooper and Kelly give some of the greatest performances I have ever seen in this genre and while their characters were written well together, they have the chemistry to match as well. I would definitely recommend this film and I will most likely be revisiting as well, given how easily entertaining this story was.

My Rating: ★★★½