Rocketman (2019) directed by Dexter Fletcher

Thank the heavens for Dexter Fletcher, who is not afraid to unabashedly show what a legendary, gay rockstar's life was actually like without watering down his story for the sake of narrative. Rocketman is a fantastic musical biopic about the flamboyant and surprisingly troubled Elton John and how his lifestyle and personal life shaped his career for decades. Even though this film hits on every single beat that the tired genre of biopics usually does, the charm and flashy style paired with Taron Egerton's performance certainly cement this movie as something different and fresh. While the comparisons to last year's Bohemian Rhapsody are unavoidable (given that Fletcher had to step in to "save" that production after Bryan Singer's firing), this film seems to be an amazing step in the right direction in regards to telling these celebrities' authentic stories.

Reginald Dwight (Taron Egerton) was a young boy growing up in England who had *somewhat* of a knack for singing and playing the piano. After getting a scholarship to an exclusive music program, Dwight begins to fully embrace himself and his style as he grows up and transforms into the renowned rock musician Elton John; all the while battling with drugs, his parents, and his sexuality to become the icon that he is today. This film's colorful marketing campaign has pushed it as being "based on a true fantasy" and that description honestly sums up everything one needs to know about this film's style. Fletcher's direction and filmmaking style throughout this film were its absolutely greatest aspects. Despite coming off as a generic music biopic, this movie brought out a fantastical style that probably would not have worked if this film were about any other musician. Due to the dazzling fantasy sequences and entrancing choreography, this film actually felt more like a movie adaptation of the Elton John Broadway musical that has never existed. While this may be a bit offputting for some, I adored this style that Fletcher stuck with. Instead of simply telling the stories of how a multitude of songs was written, the music of Elton was cleverly incorporated into telling the story of his life and how he rose to fame. The entire casts' performances were incredible, with Egerton's being the expected standout. Unlike Rami Malek, Taron Egerton actually sang every song throughout the course of this movie without the aid of lip-syncing and his voice gave way to some new takes on Elton's music that thankfully did not ever harm the legacy of the sheer queerness of John's discography.

Egerton also brought a much more emotional performance to this role than Malek ever could with Freddie Mercury, as Egerton completely embodied the struggles and hardships of Elton's early life. This script, written by Lee Hall, was incredible and worked so fluidly with Fletcher's direction to tell this magnificent story. This movie definitely packed a great emotional impact when it told the story of John's childhood and coming out. With some great supporting performances from Bryce Dallas Howard and Steven Mackintosh, who played John's parents, they were definitely catalysts when it came to creating the man that Elton turned out to be. I loved seeing the story of how Elton came to discover his sexuality and how his parents were so bloody frustrating in how they treated their son. The most emotional piece of this film came from Elton's relationship with his parents and their refusal to accept him for who he was. Bernie Taupin (Jamie Bell), Elton's best friend and songwriting partner and John Reid (Richard Madden), Elton's first true love, were also so influential in creating Elton's life and I definitely couldn't help but feel the empowerment that gay people must feel and their struggles with getting people to accept them. This script was just written so authentically and I'm glad that Elton's story was told so unabashedly, also thanks to the fact that he was an executive producer on the film.

Elton's battle with his drug addiction was a major theme throughout this film that added to the fantastical qualities of its style. The many drug sequences, especially in the climax of the film before Elton realizes he desperately needs rehab, were shot very well and made me actually feel the doozy effects of how John must have also felt. However, the rehab aspect of this movie seemed very overused and generic for this genre of film. This film immediately starts off as Elton is walking down a hallway in a gaudy, orange costume and stumbles into rehab. This kicks off the framing narrative of the film, as he beings to recount his childhood and everything that happened to lead him to where he was that day. I just feel like this kind of framing is wildly overused and lazy. Much of this film's dialogue seemed very lazy as well, leading the way to some very cliché themes and messages. Audiences have heard "just be yourself" and "it doesn't matter what others think" countless times and as powerful as Elton's story may have been, it just felt dull in that specific area of its storytelling. I also had no clue as to when any of this film took place. Besides the general knowledge of the '70s and '80s, Fletcher seemed to not have any sense of time throughout this story and I often found myself lost in when and where Elton was at those points in his life.

Rocketman is an absolutely worthy musical biopic about the iconic Elton John; released just in time for his farewell tour as well. Taron Egerton shines incredibly bright in this film: not just because of his spunky costumes but because of his career-defining performance. Even though he is a relatively known face, I'm sure that his career will blast off thanks to this movie and its amazingly emotional story. Rocketman proves itself miles better than the lackluster Queen mess of last year and a joyful step in the right direction for genuine gay representation.

My Rating: ★★★★

Snowpiercer (2013) directed by Bong Joon-ho

I suppose it was definitely time for my first Bong Joon-ho film as well as (possibly) my first Chris Evans film that wasn't a part of the Marvel Universe. Joon-ho's Snowpiercer is an excellent science-fiction thriller that provides an unmistakably dystopian look at our future while suggesting that audiences look back at what they are also currently part of. This film has some great performances from the cast and a creative environment for these themes to play out in, but I feel like the time period that this film was released was so riddled with dystopian thrillers that it might have gotten lost in originality. Despite that, I still had a lot of fun with this murderous and rebellious reimagining of The Polar Express and there are many elements of it in which I can clearly see how cinephiles are so drawn to this filmmakers' body of work.

Snowpiercer is the story of the titular train that circles the globe carrying the only remaining people left on Earth after a failed global-warming experiment left our world frozen. The very tail end of the train houses the poorest and most unfortunate of these people, including Curtis (Chris Evans), Gilliam (John Hurt), Edgar (Jamie Bell), and Tanya (Octavia Spencer). After circling the planet for almost two decades, the people of the tail-end decide that it is time for their revolution by moving up the train through its different class systems and taking down its leader and operator Wilford (Ed Harris). The script of this film, written by Bong Joon-ho and Kelly Masterson, is what provides the most interesting yet dull aspects of this whole story. Setting these characters in a dystopian future that is only slightly far-fetched is not an original concept in terms of sci-fi storytelling. The different class systems that existed on the train is really just another theme that is typically seen in all dark and pessimistic films such as this one. What makes this particular film so interesting, however, is the fact that the entire film takes place in the often cramped quarters of a constantly-moving train. The way that the setting changes as the train moves between areas of dark and light or smooth and rough terrain provides for so much of this narrative's exciting features. The environment of this movie definitely made for the most creative aspect of this story, along with the fantastic action that followed. The choreography in this film, aided by Kyung-pyo Hong's cinematography, was absolutely incredible and was definitely characteristic of these Asian filmmakers' experiences. I adored the personal feel of the fight sequences and how Hong was able to manipulate the camera to make the small space of a train so wildly fresh and fun to watch.

While Joon-ho's direction was decently consistent the entire time, I felt it was very hard to get into this film. This movie's drudgingly painful first half made me lose hope for actually enjoying this story, as I feel it took far too much time establishing its world. The dark colors and dreary mood made me feel like this film would be just like any other edgy and dystopian film. Thankfully, once Curtis and the other tail-end passengers began their fight towards the front and started making actual progress is when the movie picks up. One fantastic element of Joon-ho's direction that I will say is that he is a master of sensory filmmaking. It might just be because this film takes place in the small confines of a train, but I could actually feel, smell, and taste the world that he built within the railroad. Seeing how the poor passengers were fed the protein blocks and resorted to a drug-fueled life of huffing a fictional and flammable drug called Kronole was painful to watch but provided for a very intense viewing experience. The performances in this movie also added to the authenticity of its story. It was honestly strange seeing Chris Evans play a character other than Steve Rogers, let alone a character like Curtis who was far more grungy and profane. Evans was still able to incredibly embody the grief and power of this character and in such a beautiful way. While all the other artists involved all gave so much life to their roles, Tilda Swinton's character Mason was the absolute standout. She gave such a lively and colorful performance that contrasted this world that had been built and she definitely stole every scene that she was in.

Snowpiercer may seem like your typical, dystopian, action film but it is much more than that. Joon-ho has given audiences such a strange yet relatable look at many of our society's customs in regards to how we are treating our future and the deadly effects our actions could have. I can not say that I was blown away by this film, but I can say that I am very excited for Chris Evans to start working on projects again outside of Captain America.

My Rating: ★★★½

Booksmart (2019) directed by Olivia Wilde

Booksmart. This is what filmmaking should be. This film is the kind of movie that deserves to make $1.2 billion on its opening weekend. Even though smaller indies like this one always get overlooked by summer blockbusters, this is the kind of film that brings a certain style of classic Hollywood into today's progressive day and age without being too divisive. Booksmart is an incredible coming-of-age movie that appeals to every possible emotion by bringing in elements of our society that are actually relevant in shaping today's teenagers. Since its premiere at SXSW, this movie has been on my radar the absolute most and I can guarantee that it does not disappoint. With unforgettable performances from Kaitlyn Dever and Beanie Feldstein and a ferociously energetic directorial debut from Olivia Wilde, this movie is bound to become an instant cult classic.

Booksmart is the absolutely charming story of Amy (Kaitlyn Dever) and Molly (Beanie Feldstein), two best friends who are navigating their final days before graduation. As the last night of their high school career approaches, they realize that they have spent their entire time studying and getting into good colleges but have missed out on being fun and rowdy teenagers. To try to prove themselves as lively, they attempt to cram four years of fun into one wild night that they will never forget. My only criticism from this film stems from its original premise. The story of two friends having the night of their lives before an important day is frankly not that creative, but rather it's a matter of what goes into these characters and stories that make them stand out. Audiences have seen this type of story many times before, but the fact that this movie is a female-led, female-directed film with an incredible cast showing praise of the kind of set that was created makes this movie as astounding as it is. I have followed the marketing of this film since the beginning which has only brought me more and more hype and seeing how close this entire cast and crew were made this experience so much better for me. The pure chemistry between everyone involved in this film is so evident and not only does this film tell a wholesome story, but it tells so many of our society's youth that movies can, in fact, be beautifully and truthfully made about them.

Dever and Feldstein are absolutely excellent in this film and make their characters so lovable and actually three-dimensional. One might not think that a pair of hyper-academic best friends could be given more character traits than just smart, nerdy, or socially-inept, but the fantastic writing team of this film did just that. Susanna Fogel, Emily Halpern, Sarah Haskins, and Katie Silberman all co-wrote this incredibly genuine movie and brought so much life to our two leads. In such films that this one might be inspired by, there are characters that the audience is supposed to care about but can't necessarily relate to, such as in Superbad, which hails the most obvious comparisons. What Booksmart does differently and much more cleverly is that they have their two leads become truthful people that, as cliché as it may sound, are incredibly relatable. The world that these characters live in is nearly a carbon-copy of our own, even down to the small details of unisex bathrooms or teachers doubling as Uber drivers. While these details might be foreign to people of possibly older generations, the truth behind this film is that we all hated high school. No matter who you were or how much anyone says high school is the best four years of your life, everyone was miserable. Most of this film's humor stems from this as well, as the relatability intertwines with the subtle and dry comedy that comes from everyday life for these two girls. Dever and Feldstein's performances are phenomenal, as their chemistry is the glue that bonds this masterpiece together, along with the standout direction from Olivia Wilde. Her directorial debut could not have gone any better, as her wildly quick and engaging direction makes this movie flow so well. The comedy flows into the drama impressively well as she tells this story flawlessly.

The most prominent aspect of this movie, however, is its unflinching dedication to its feminist themes and message. Female friendship is a cinematic theme that I feel has been unfortunately taken advantage of for years, but I am overjoyed that films like these are telling authentic stories that girls can relate to. Just by being written and directed by women honestly makes any film better as their perspectives and stories are rightfully rising to the forefront of modern cinema. Especially in the case of Amy, as she is a gay teenager. What I love most about her character is that she was written so honestly and was much more than just the gay friend. She was not a supporting character, she was not a foil for Molly, and she was definitely not defined by just one feature. She was Amy. Her story is just as important as anyone else's and she was given so much time to develop and grow, as any lead character should. Despite these characters' growths being played for laughs a few times, they are all so important in telling this empowering and downright hilarious story. Wilde's treatment of her characters is truly what blew me away the most and I am so glad that she was the one to helm this movie. And god bless Annapurna for distributing this incredible film, as audiences absolutely deserve more just like this.

I have already seen this movie twice since its release and I can not stop thinking about it. The atmosphere, the performances, the music: everything about this film is fantastic and there is not a single thing that I would remotely think about changing. Booksmart is not only the top contender for my favorite film of this year so far, but most likely will be for years to come. There is something about its undeniable charm and wit that struck me so well as this movie will go down in history as the epitome of raunchy, coming-of-age filmmaking.

My Rating: ★★★★★

Enemy (2013) directed by Denis Villeneuve

This is not a film to watch late at night by yourself, I can assure you that much. Denis Villeneuve's Enemy is an incredibly strange and thought-provoking film that is honestly more confusing than satisfying to me. Adapted from the novel by the same name by José Saramago, this movie advertises itself as a classic doppelganger drama but attempts to be so much more, unsuccessfully in my own opinion. While Jake Gyllenhaal gives (two) fantastic performances as expected, the script that guides this film is ultimately its weakest aspect. Despite me not particularly enjoying Villeneuve's style, there is no other director that I could see telling this story; a story that will truly leave you shaking your head and wondering what the fuck just happened.

Adam Bell (Jake Gyllenhaal) is a public university professor in Toronto whose teachings seem to be as mundane as his personal life. Living with his girlfriend Mary (Mélanie Laurent), Adam rents a local movie and discovers an actor named Anthony Claire (Jake Gyllenhaal) that looks exactly like him. After becoming obsessed with meeting and communicating with the actor, Anthony, who lives in a small apartment with his pregnant wife Helen (Sarah Gadon), becomes obsessed with Adam's affairs as the two men's lives begin spiraling into each other. This script, written by Javier Gullón, is the film's most confusing aspect. There are many movies who have tackled the art of obsession such as this one, but I feel like none of those other movies have been nearly as vague as this one. My main issue with this story is how little meat is on the film's bones. I have never been a fan of ambiguity in terms of storytelling, especially when it comes to such basic elements like the plot. Themes and morals will always be picked up differently by different audience members, but when it comes to the basic premise of telling a story, I have always believed that it needs to be somewhat straightforward. Call me a boring filmmaker because of that, but there is nothing in this world that baffles me more than lazy writing. Enemy has such a minor amount of dialogue and such a major reliance on Villeneuve's direction that I felt a disconnect between those two creative forces. Not to mention the thematic element of the ginormous spiders in this story that was not even present in the original novel. I understand making this thriller a bit more horror-esque by throwing in some creepy element to keep the audience guessing, but when something as stupefying as massive tarantulas is introduced, I feel like it should be given more focus than just two terrifying shots.

At the risk of being possibly ostracized by every person in the film community, I hate to announce that I am simply not a fan of Denis Villeneuve. From the few films of his that I have seen, I just can not stand by and pretend to enjoy his style for the sake of the acceptance of fanboys. His directorial style is peculiarly interesting for sure, but the stories that he chooses to tell just do not grab my attention. And when they do, the subject matter is something so offbeat and so theoretical that I find it incredibly hard to grasp or get behind. Leaving the audience dumbfounded in their seats and scattering to pick up the pieces of a story is never something that I enjoy in a film and that seems to be a trademark of this French-Canadian film director. There is no doubt that Villeneuve is a master of unspoken suspense and I could definitely feel that throughout this film. Along with the hauntingly great performances from Gyllenhaal, I was thoroughly spooked during its entirety. That doesn't change the fact, however, that this story's elements could not decide on a path. If this movie were to decide on being a doppelganger drama and how the two men came to be, that would be interesting. If this movie were to decide on being an Invasion of the Body Snatchers-type film about spiders that inhabit the bodies of humans, that would be interesting (maybe less so). This movie just could not decide what it wanted to be and because of that, it leaves it up to the audience to decipher what its meaning could possibly be. I did enjoy the themes of obsession and the dangers of your own subconscious, but the often nonsensical narrative did not seem to enforce them at all.

Enemy is an interesting film to say the least, but the most I can say is that I probably will not be spending time on another watch. Despite this film's efforts to get me to think profoundly about the personal choices I make and the dangerous disease that is obsession, the motifs chosen to represent these themes threw me for the worst kind of loop. Unless you are dead-set on seeing two different Jake Gyllenhaals interact (which any rational person would be), then I would frankly not recommend this film.

My Rating: ★★★

John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum (2019) directed by Chad Stahelski

I suppose after two films of beautifully-choreographed action and genuinely rich story, this series has to come to a peak eventually. John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum is a great action film and an expectedly ridiculous addition to this franchise. Even though the action is fantastic as usual, I could not get behind this story as much as I wanted to. I was led to believe the premise was solely about John's escape from New York, but the many peculiar plot choices throughout this movie definitely led me astray. Perhaps I get a bit too nitpicky when it comes to my elevated action films, but in the case of many franchises nowadays, I wish this film contained the same heart as the previous two.

Picking up directly after the events of the second installment, John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum follows the "retired" hitman as he is on the run from the entirety of New York City following an excommunicado order and a $14 million price on his head. As he and his trusty dog run to escape the Big Apple, he has one hour to find a way to stay alive. Thankfully, Wick runs into some familiar accomplices while simultaneously getting help from some new faces. Watching the initial two films in this series is practically a requirement for this film since the story takes place right off the bat from the end of the second. What makes these films (or at least the first two) so incredible is that they are able to combine ridiculously gorgeous and ruthless action with a ridiculously genuine story. At the heart of these films are all revenge stories, as John Wick attempts to get back what his enemies took from him when he was the most vulnerable. However, as this series goes on and on, he only seems to get in worse and worse situations. Unfortunately, this third installment seems to lose the heart of this character at times. I forgot multiple times throughout this movie what Wick's ultimate goal was in the first place and I feel like this story became so much more convoluted than it needed to be. The inclusion of the strange desert subplot and the losing of his finger just did not seem suitable with the world that had been built. Hitman's wife dies. Bad guys kill hitman's dog and take everything form him. Hitman gets revenge. The simple yet beautiful premise of these movies is as simple as that, but this film seemed to lose that along the way.

Despite the story not drawing me in nearly as much as the personal and heart-wrenching plot of the first two, Keanu Reeves is still as great as ever. There is no other actor that could have possibly been cast in this role or portrayed the grittiness and passion as much as Reeves. For a ruthless yet reticent hitman such as John Wick, Reeves absolutely embodies the nature of this character yet again. The aspect of this protagonist that I enjoyed most in this particular film was the fact that the writers included much more information about his backstory. This story examines the character for how he grew up and how he was raised to become such an amazing fighter. We even learn John Wick's real name; one that I'm sure even his beloved wife did not know about. Halle Berry is also a standout throughout this film as she plays Sofia, an old friend of Wick and the manager of another hotel run by the High Table. Sofia and her unsurprisingly loyal dogs steal every scene that they are in and bring another great level of world-building to this film in addition to their exciting action sequences. However, as creative and enthralling to watch as this brutally choreographed action is, this film seems to rely a bit too much on it. Sure, it is always entertaining to see John Wick break open a man's skull with a book or slap a horse's butt to crack a man's neck with its hooves, but it became very repetitive towards the end. Despite how well it was shot, the constant punching, kicking, blasting, and slicing seemed to use the same techniques that had been seen previously. Perhaps it is due to the late showing I went to and my near inability to keep my eyes open, but that responsibility falls more on the film itself to keep me engaged.

While I definitely thought this third film would be the conclusion to this trilogy, the ending once again paved the way for more stories of this modern icon and his ridiculously fun violence. I am genuinely interested in seeing where this series goes from here now that it seems to be running out of plot ideas. But nonetheless, John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum still proves itself as an incredibly fun time at the theaters and cements this character as a definite legend.

My Rating: ★★★

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966) directed by Mike Nichols

AFI Top 100: #67

Yet another stage play that has been brilliantly translated for the silver screen, Mike Nichols' adaptation of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? is an incredible, dark comedy that kept me engrossed the entire time. I knew nothing of this film going into it and I feel that was frankly for the best. This movie is a nightmarish exploration into the different stages of relationships, marriage, and the hardships that come with it all, while still maintaining an entertaining premise to keep its audience engaged. I was blown away by how intriguing this film turned out to be, given that there are only four main performers and the story almost entirely relies on dialogue. Despite a few minor issues with the script, this is another addition to the list of films that should be studied for the art of its screenwriting.

Martha (Elizabeth Taylor) and George (Richard Burton) are an aging married couple whose relationship is as testy as it is fueled by alcohol. After a long night at a party hosted by George's boss, the two invite a younger couple named Nick (George Segal) and Honey (Sandy Dennis) over for drinks to get to know them. As the night goes on, however, these two couples learn more and more about themselves as their respective relationships begin downward spirals into hatred and spite. Similar to other films of this era and style, the aspect that I enjoyed the absolute most about this movie was its script by Ernest Lehman, adapted from the play by Edward Albee. This movie is solely an exploration of how couples deal with the hardships of their relationships and being with someone who might not share the same values as you. What was most interesting is that these themes unfolded within a quick 2-hour window and in such a deteriorative way that is not necessarily too far off from many relationship problems of even today. The writing from Lehman is very quick and witty, providing for a lot of the comedic parts of this film, especially towards the beginning. However, once the tone of the movie turns from playful into nearly deadly, this comedy serves a much darker purpose. I loved how Nichols' direction in this film was so sharp in keeping the audience engaged despite the changes in the tone.

This captivating story would not have been so interesting, however, if not for the characters. George and Martha are two of the most volatile partners in a film I have ever seen and it is a wonder that they had been together for so long. Which brings into question the reason for their relationship and why they have decided to put up with each other. This film does an excellent job of exploring their toxic relationship and all of the metaphorical things that they constantly say they will do to each other. Since Martha's father is the head of the university that George works at, there is a consistent theme of picking sides. Once Martha reveals that she only married George to please her father, it leads the audience to wonder what her true motivations and aspirations are. And while George makes a joke about only marrying Martha to "get her off his lawn", it's very difficult to think that these characterizations are actually genuine. All of these character traits are undoubtedly elevated by the performances from these two, as the energy and passion that emanated from them were quite evident. Another of this film's dynamics that I loved was the difference between the generations of the two couples. Despite only being 20 or so years apart, the way that they treated each other was so much different. The hope that was still instilled in Nick and Honey was a refreshing break from the anger that was shared between Martha and George, but this movie has such a strong effect that may make you never want to get married.

While this story and the script were the greatest aspects, my minor issues stem from them as well. This film, as it focuses on two different straight couples, did not give nearly as much time for the female characters to develop as it did the male ones. While the women were offscreen around the house or inside making coffee, the majority of the runtime was dedicated to the development of the men. While their stories and sides were still integral to telling this story, I wish the film would have focused more on the female side as well. For revolving around relationships and the commitment that goes into them from both parties, this movie absolutely had the power to give more materiality to its women but apparently decided not to. I also got lost in much of the dialogue between George and Martha as their arguments escalated into screaming matches and an epic battle of wits. Much of their raucous back-and-forth was full of metaphorical phrases and seemingly loaded insults, but there came a point where the film did not even leave me room to breathe. Their arguments became almost nonsensical and with no context behind what they were discussing, its value became lost on me.

Thankfully I enjoyed Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? much more than The Graduate, or I might have a bad taste left in my mouth due to Nichols' direction. This film is a fantastic look into the harsh realities of relationships and even more than 50 years later, still maintains its pertinence as painfully relatable insight into modern marriage and family life.

My Rating: ★★★★½

Pokémon Detective Pikachu (2019) directed by Rob Letterman

The biggest crime that this film commits, other than its over-reliance on the adorable factor, is the fact that they did my boy Cubone so dirty by turning him into a full-circle gag. Pokémon Detective Pikachu is a cute and nostalgic film that really is a perfect movie for the entire family. Past that, however, it does not offer much in terms of anything new or creative. While I did enjoy seeing so many of these creatures that defined a huge part of my adolescence, the plot was incredibly predictable and the characters were honestly borderline unlikable. Thankfully, the best character in this film was Pikachu himself as Ryan Reynolds definitely delivered in embodying the absolutely charming little electric mouse.

Tim Goodman (Justice Smith) is a young insurance salesman who refuses to have a Pokémon of his own because of his estranged father, despite everyone in his life being bonded to one. When he finds out that his father has gone missing, Tim partners up with a Pikachu (Ryan Reynolds), who happens to be a world-class detective, in order to solve the mystery of what happened to his father while navigating the peculiar and colorful world of Ryme City. The writing in this film was unfortunately its weakest aspect and definitely brought the experience down for me. I definitely expected a much better-written story, especially from a Warner Bros. partnered film. The plot of this movie follows Tim and Pikachu as they attempt to solve the mystery of where Tim's father went and this became very dull very quickly. The writing was awfully predictable and the twist at the end of the movie was built up to in the simplest of ways. Even though this plot was not as interesting as I had hoped, there is no denying that it still works. The simple premise of this movie lends itself to creating this world that will undoubtedly have spinoffs in the near future: because who doesn't love Pokémon? And the very basic plot helps to make this movie perfect for families and perfect as a summer blockbuster, which is all that modern audiences could really ask for anyways. I may not have enjoyed the ridiculously easy story, but I understood its intention, as it was frankly just there to pave the way for waves and waves of cartoon nostalgia. The production design of this film was great too, as the Pokémon actually looked like they would if they were set in reality. Even though there were many moments of some wonky animation and gross edits, at least I enjoyed the color scheme and design of all the creatures.

Along with the story, the biggest part of this film that I could not get behind were the performances. Justice Smith's Tim and Kathryn Newton, who played an amateur reporter named Lucy Stevens, acted in excruciatingly obvious ways. In most big-budget Hollywood films in which a human actor is on screen alongside a CGI creature of some sort (think Rocket Raccoon), the characters are decently placed and seem realistic in the way they interact. This entire film relies on the world full of these pocket monsters and because of that, the actors need to be able to act as if they actually live in that world. I could not feel that at all from these two human leads, and in so many shots, it was painfully obvious of how their bodies did not match up with whatever they were communicating with. The attempted emotional aspects of this story were also very cringe-worthy and even though Smith and Newton are two relatively rising stars, I feel like they relied too heavily on the charisma of Reynolds. It also doesn't help that Lucy was written to have the most aggravatingly annoying presence in a world full of socially normal people. Her character was so exaggerated that it became frustrating whenever she was on screen. Thankfully, Reynolds delivered the best character in this entire film and even though it was initially hard for me to imagine him voicing a CGI Pikachu, he brought so much life to this character. A lot of his humor and style were incorporated into Pikachu's personality, which was the funniest aspect.

Pokémon Detective Pikachu is a fun movie that honestly does no harm in today's world of massive and divisive blockbusters. Even though this movie is a painfully generic detective story with a twist that anyone could see coming from miles away, it's undeniably great to see these adorable, live-action creatures living in harmony with humans.

My Rating: ★★★

Long Shot (2019) directed by Jonathan Levine

Since its premiere at SXSW, I have been nothing but excited for this film and its sleeper hit potential. Long Shot is an incredible romantic comedy that, while it may rely on a few tropes of the genre now and again, provides a modern and progressive story that any audience can find themselves loving. This film is the perfect culmination of the styles of all the cast and crew involved and the chemistry between the two leads is genuinely believable, despite their wildly contrasting cinematic presences. The best part about this film, however, are the elements of the story that bring something fresh to this genre. Not only does this film not rely on traditional and safe storytelling, but it also contains an actually lovable message, which is a rare thing amongst the slate of generic romance movies.

Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) is the Secretary of State for a rather incompetent, former-actor President Chambers (Bob Odenkirk) who decides not to seek re-election. When Charlotte decides to run to be the first female president in 2020, she hires a journalist named Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogen) to touch up her speeches and get her to appear more personable for the American people. Since Fred and Charlotte have known each other since they were kids, their relationship goes through its ups and downs as they try to balance their political careers with their growing romantic relationship. The premise of this film is what I found the most interesting throughout its entirety. While the plot goes through typically every plot point that most romantic comedies do, it was the environment and creative story elements that got me so invested in this film. There are not that many political romantic comedies and even though this film did not necessarily dig too deep into political themes, there was a definite overtone that paved the way for guiding the story along. These elements, especially with Fred having to see things from others' perspectives and Charlotte balancing her work and romantic life, are what definitely sets this film apart from the slew of other films in this genre. When approaching a film like this one with an almost archetypal plot of the goofy guy getting together with the gorgeous girl, writers need to introduce some type of element to set themselves apart and this script written by Dan Sterling and Liz Hannah accomplished that in the best way possible.

Theron and Rogen's performances and chemistry are also a big part of the glue that held this film together. While each of them have such different histories with the types of films that they make, one might not think that they would make a believable pair. The writing in this movie proves that otherwise, as their characters are made out to be so incredibly authentic through actually relatable issues. What I personally think worked so well for these characters were the fact that even though Theron might typically take more dramatic roles and Rogen might not be the first choice in a romantic setting, their individual styles blended very well together. Fred Flarsky had a lot of the quirks and expected personality traits that Rogen can portray so well, which brought a good majority of the humor in this film and made Theron's humorous scenes that much better. This combined with Charlotte Field's dramatic aspects that Theron can express in such a elegant way made for the absolute perfect match. Not to mention that this film did not rely too much on gross humor or mushy romantic dialogue to carry the story at all. Charlotte and Fred learned so much from each other throughout the course of this film and these developments definitely helped to make their relationship so natural.

Rogen and Theron need to start making more films together because they surprisingly made this one work so well. Long Shot is an authentic romantic comedy that combines both political themes with comedic elements in such an amazing way. Even though many of this film's plot points are fairly predictable, its story has enough creativity in and of itself to make this movie such a cute and memorable story.

My Rating: ★★★★

Room (2015) directed by Lenny Abrahamson

There's really nothing I can say about this film that hasn't been said already, but that does not change the pure impact that this movie left in me. Lenny Abrahamson's Room is an adaptation of the novel by the same name which follows the lives of a young mother and son as they are held captive for years and finally escape. While I have not personally read the book to testify its faithfulness, this film is a testament on its own of incredibly personal and tender filmmaking. Since only hearing incredible things about the power of love throughout this film, I decided to give it a watch and, frankly, watching this movie by myself was a mistake due to the sheer amount of emotion. This movie left a hole in my heart and filled it right back up in the most moving ways possible, thanks to the writing from Emma Donoghue and two fantastic performances from these leads.

Joy (Brie Larson), known to her son Jack (Jacob Tremblay) as Ma, was kidnapped at the age of 17, raped, and held captive for seven years by a man known only as Old Nick (Sean Bridgers); raising her son all on her own in a minuscule, confined room that they both grew to call home. When Jack turned 5, Joy decided it was time to tell him the truth about the world that they lived in and together, they hatched a plan to escape. After hearing so many avidly incredible things about this film and only knowing its basic premise, I was completely surprised when only halfway through this film the two leads escaped. I kept wondering where the film could possibly go from here given its tone that was established in its first hour. Thankfully the wonderful script from Emma Donoghue, who is also the author of the novel, left a bit of room for surprises as this film turned into one of the most interestingly-developed stories. This movie transformed from a tightly-shot escape drama to an examination of extroverted life for these two victims. This movie surprised me with its beautiful writing that dealt with so many different aspects of victim culture and the hardships that they have to endure even after the crime has been committed.

As well-developed and amazing as the writing was in the second half of Room does not discredit anything prior. The first half of this movie set in the small, enclosed space does not miss a single beat. For an entire hour of being in the same room, there was not a single scene that disinterested me. Every single detail and every single element of the relationship between these two leads and their contrasting abilities to handle what was possibly on the outside made for some of the most compelling dynamics. This was also aided by the score from Stephen Rennicks and the cinematography from Danny Cohen. Rennicks' musical abilities are unmatched throughout this movie. While his score is subtle, it comes in at just the right moments to really tear apart the audience. The gentle piano and more intense scenes really pave the way for the emotion that is emerging from the script. Cohen's cinematography also captures the perfect tone for the different pieces of this film. Even though this movie takes place in one room for its majority, the way that Cohen handles the camera makes it seem like the biggest place on Earth. I loved how characteristic this was of Jack's view of the small area, as the little details like these make for precisely tender filmmaking.

The greatest parts of this film, however, are definitely the performances from Brie Larson and Jacob Tremblay and their chemistry together. Both the 26-year old Larson and 9-year old Tremblay give the performances of their lifetimes as their roles of mother and son. Each of these artists is able to tap into such primal wants and desires in their roles that work so well given the circumstances of their situation. Joy just wants her son to be safe while Jack just wants his mom to be happy. What I loved most about these characters and the actors portraying them was that they were each able to bring such divisive energy and nuanced expression to the different scenes and scenarios that they shared together. While Joy saw the world for how brooding and dark it could be, thanks to the horrendous actions by Old Nick, Jack simply saw the room for how it was, as it was everything he had ever known. Once these two escaped is when the more contrasting developments for these characters came out. Upon entering the real world outside of the room, Jack's sense of environment had been shattered as his levels of childlike wonder reached new heights; but for Joy, she had never known what it was like to raise a kid that wasn't by her side every waking moment. These character developments led to some of the most emotionally-affecting writing that any mother can only hope will never happen to her child. This film also heavily touches on the powerful effect of media and how devastating it can be all for the sake of a story. That was one of my favorite subplots in this film's second half, as it was really the driving factor that pushed the limits of these tragically-healing characters.

Room is one of the most simultaneously heartbreaking and heartwarming cinematic experiences you could ever have. This film will undoubtedly leave you laughing, crying, and everything in between as the story takes hold of you from the very beginning and doesn't let go. Larson and Tremblay absolutely shine in this film together and their chemistry is as unmatched as the amount of care that was put into making this phenomenal work of art.

My Rating: ★★★★★

Annie Hall (1977) directed by Woody Allen

AFI Top 100: #35

Annie Hall was honestly a tough one to get myself to watch. Momentarily putting aside the decades-old, sexual assault allegations against Woody Allen and the fact that he *ahem* married his daughter, I try to immerse myself in the work of classic directors in order to get a wider perspective and opinion on film, as any cinephile should. While I had not seen any of Allen's works before, I did not know what type of film I was in for. Thankfully, I did enjoy this movie more than I actually thought I would and I do frankly enjoy Allen's style of filmmaking. My main issue with this film, however, is the main meat of it: the script and the characters. With some decent performances from Allen and a young Diane Keaton, this really proves itself an interesting movie to pick apart.

Alvy Singer (Woody Allen) is a neurotic writer and comedian living in New York City. He falls in love with an aspiring singer named Annie Hall (Diane Keaton) and over the course of their relationship, Singer examines everything that went right and wrong in order to better understand himself. This is a very simple premise for a film and there are certain times that it worked and certain times that it did not. What did work about this film was Allen's direction, but what I've come to realize after watching his directing style unfold is that I enjoy his storytelling, but not his stories; his direction, but not his content. The way that Allen tells this movie throughout multiple different narrative forms and breaking of the fourth wall was incredible to see. For the time period that this had come out in, I found this direction to be revolutionarily mesmerizing to watch. It's so peculiar to me that audiences in the 1970s would be on board with a film like this, but his direction is honestly the best part of this whole film. Singer stepping outside of his own relationship and analyzing the different parts of his past that made him who he was is such an amazing concept for a romantic comedy that led to many comedic and dramatic moments. This was the part of the film that drew me in the most and genuinely kept me engaged. I also loved Allen's incredibly witty style, as every character in this film radiated a distinct type of energy that all blended so well together. I personally could not see any aspect of this film that could have constituted it being named one of the top 100 films of all time, but I did enjoy the spunk that Allen displays in this film. Throw in cameos from a terribly young Christopher Walken and Jeff Goldblum and you've at least got my attention.

I understand that separating the art from the artist can often be important, but I can frankly only do so to a certain extent. And this film honestly tells its audience right off the bat the kind of person that Allen is, given that it almost seems autobiographical. The script of this film, written by Allen himself and Marshall Brickman, makes the character of Singer seem like a complete and utter asshole. My main problem with this movie is that it did not make me care about these leads in the slightest. The only thing I felt for the character of Annie was just bad. I felt bad that she had to put up with such a manipulative and cleverly sadistic boyfriend such as Alvy. I have never not cared about a male character as much as I have Allen's and while I'd like to think he wrote him for the audience to cringe at together, I do not think that is the case. I feel like the main issue with Alvy is that he is written to be such a narcissistic and quick-witted pessimist, which was a strangely progressive thing to be in the 1970s. But looking back at his character now, it did not age well and simply makes him come off as a prick. Either that or Allen really does think of himself as the funniest and most charming person on the planet, but his character definitely does not make him seem so. My other main issue with this film was its lack of cohesive story. There really was not an exact plot throughout this film, as the events that unfolded just simply happened. Alvy and Annie break up, get back together, break up again, Alvy nonchalantly sleeps with any woman he can find, and they're back together again. The strange timeline of this movie does not make sense and while I understand that was not necessarily the point, it would have been nice to have any semblance of continuity.

Annie Hall may have paved the way for many of the quirks and eccentricities that come with the romantic comedy genre, but I just simply could not get myself invested in these characters. Thankfully, this movie has an engaging narrative structure and direction or else I would find myself completely hating every minute of it.

My Rating: ★★½

The Highwaymen (2019) directed by John Lee Hancock

Although this film may not have nearly as much of an impact as the Hollywood Renaissance classic Bonnie and Clyde, I still relatively enjoyed it for what it attempted to do. The Highwaymen is a Netflix original film telling the story of the infamous criminals from the perspective of the two Texas rangers who finally brought them down. Costner and Harrelson are great in these roles but are unfortunately brought down by a shallow script and weak direction. Thankfully, I can tell a lot of fantastic crew went into the making of this film and I can not devalue their work because the production quality of this film is excellent. I just simply wish that the script would have relied more on some originality rather than the novelty of recreation.

Frank Hamer (Kevin Costner) and Maney Gault (Woody Harrelson) are two Texas rangers that are living their quite different lives after retiring from the force. When the infamous criminals Bonnie and Clyde start wreaking havoc in their state, the police force calls them back out of retirement to help hunt them down. The most interesting piece of this film is the different perspective surrounding this story and how the movie was shot differently compared to the classic, ultra-violent film. This aspect is honestly where I found the most enjoyment because it was fantastic to be able to match up the stories and see what was going on where. Even though the ending was predictable because of the fact that this is a widely-known true story, I enjoyed the tale of these two old friends re-bonding over one last case. My issue with these two men's stories is that they were written so horribly and did not make me care about them at all. In Bonnie and Clyde, the goal of the film is to make the audience care about the two characters and shock them by their sudden death by being gunned down. In The Highwaymen, however, I feel like the writer John Fusco was attempting to do the same thing for these rangers but failed to do so because of their lack of personality or decent characterization. Harrelson was the slight comedic relief while Costner was the "old gun coming out of retirement to prove his dignity one last time" archetype. This bothered me the most about these characters because there seemed to be no motivation for them to want to take this case. As they were content with where they currently were, the depth of these characters was never fully explored. I frankly couldn't tell you their names until the credits.

My other problem throughout this movie is that it did not contain nearly the same amount of emotion or shock value that Bonnie and Clyde did for audiences back in '67. Throughout the entirety of that movie, Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow are written to be crime-crossed lovers that we are supposed to care for. While the majority of the crime and actions are romanticized, the audience is snapped back to reality as they meet their demises. This proved to be such an amazing cinematic impact that I feel this film could not live up to. Telling the stories of the lawmen who hunted down these criminals is indeed an interesting premise, but better storytelling and direction might have actually made me feel for the characters' sense of ego and justice. I did love Costner and Harrelson's performances, however, as the two definitely carried this otherwise boring story. Their chemistry together and interactions with the other arms of the law made for some of the most entertaining scenes ever. They were both definitely able to embody the sense of fear that comes with hunting down these murderers while keeping a straight face of professionalism. This film was also heightened by incredible cinematography and beautiful costume design. John Schwartzman's camera abilities made for the most aesthetically-pleasing element of this movie's design while Daniel Orlandi's costuming seemed to be right out of the era. It was most interesting seeing how this crew shot this film, especially the death scene on the side of the road. I also liked how we never got to clearly see Bonnie or Clyde's face until the very end as they were killed; this aesthetic choice from Hancock was one that I actually appreciated.

The Highwaymen is a decent film that takes the story of Bonnie and Clyde and tries to make the audience feel for the people who took them down rather than the criminals themselves. While I do not think that this movie entirely accomplished that as well as the 1967 film, it was at least a creative take on the different people surrounding this case.

My Rating: ★★★½

The Sixth Sense (1999) directed by M. Night Shyamalan

AFI Top 100: #89

In the hilarious words of Nate Bergatze, "I have to spoil it, but it's... I mean, it's 20 years old. So if... if you don't know by now, I don't know what to tell you." The Sixth Sense is an absolutely riveting film which proves that Shyamalan was once able to make near cinematic masterpieces. Every performance in this film lends itself to making the story so unbelievably engrossing, despite the muted and tense tone throughout its entirety. And as for that infamous twist, knowing it before watching this for the first time thankfully did not detract from the overall effect that it had on me. This movie truly is the epitome of a well-made twist ending that works so effectively.

Dr. Malcolm Crowe (Bruce Willis) is an award-winning child psychologist who is renowned for his devotion to his practice and helping families. After being shot by a former patient (Donnie Wahlberg), Crowe becomes disheartened while attempting to help a new client, the young Cole Sear (Haley Joel Osment). As his case unravels in Crowe's mind, more and more secrets begin spilling out that make this film a perfect drama. Shyamalan's writing and directing were truly at their peak with this film, as this is arguably his greatest piece ever made. The script is so elegant and builds these characters without any excessive use of violence or special effects. Each different character in this film is written with so much passion, as they are all developed immensely well. All of their interactions and relationships that were built actually made sense and not a single character choice felt out of the ordinary. And the way that Shyamalan ties all of these elements together to create such a powerful ending has blown me away. Especially the relationship between Malcolm and Cole, as these two leads paved the way for such great detail in the script. As I knew the twist before watching this for the first time, I tried to hyper-focus on the details in their dialogue and interactions and I have nothing but praise for the writing. From the creepy "I see dead people" monologue to the expectation-shattering twist at the end, these two could have not have been written better.

After a few disappointing features from Shyamalan in the past few years and an underwhelming opinion of Unbreakable, I was not quite sure what to expect from this film. While it obviously has stayed in the hearts of audiences for twenty years now, I was not sure what to think about this film. I now know, thankfully, that this movie has set the bar for dramatic filmmaking in an unbelievable way, especially for Shyamalan's creative mind. His writing mind at this time is one of the greatest, as his detail-oriented script made for such an engaging watch. The performances and music (or lack thereof) in this film are what really bring the story together. It's almost as strange seeing Willis with a head of hair as it is seeing him in this type of non-action role, but he has become legendary for it. His portrayal of this psychologist was so raw and down-to-earth yet dramatic in all the right spots. Willis' relationship with Shyamalan has only grown over the years and this movie is a testament to their best outing together. The real star of this film, however, has to be the 11-year old Haley Joel Osment as his performance as the troubled child is astounding. He stole every scene that he was in and was truly the glue that held both the story and the entire film together. Along with amazing supporting performances from Olivia Williams and Toni Colette and James Newton Howard's wildly tense score, every aspect of this movie blends together so beautifully to the point of being a near perfect piece of filmmaking.

The Sixth Sense is a wildly dramatic film that I will never forget. While I knew of the infamous twist at the conclusion of this film, I had no idea that the build-up to it would be written and directed so exquisitely. I could not perceive any plot holes at all in this film and it even introduced a few elements that I was not actually expecting. I would absolutely recommend this classic film, as it truly is an unforgettable experience.

My Rating: ★★★★

Colossal (2016) directed by Nacho Vigalondo

I suppose there's a reason why Netflix has the best film selection while Hulu specializes in television. I just recently got Hulu and saw that Colossal was available for streaming. After hearing about this movie from the festival circuit a few years back, I finally got around to checking it out. And now I see the reason why I haven't really heard much about it since its release. Even though this movie contains some decent performances from huge stars Anne Hathaway and Jason Sudeikis, I simply fail to see what it is about this film that fans of independent cinema seem to enjoy. A half-assed concept of a story and incredibly confusing themes to the point of almost being nonexistent, I now completely understand why this movie fell off my radar, despite the talent that I thought would be utilized much better.

This movie revolves around Gloria (Anne Hathaway), a drunken New York party girl who moves back to her hometown after getting broken up with by her boyfriend Tim (Dan Stevens). As she reconnects with an old friend named Oscar (Jason Sudeikis), a massive tree monster is reported attacking Seoul, South Korea. The attacks start to become personal for Gloria and the more often they happen, the more she realizes that these events may not be so coincidental after all. This sounds like an original premise for a film that could be flushed out with so many great themes, but that is not unfortunately what we got. Written and directed by Nacho Vigalondo, this movie plays out like a weird daydream. The idea that a girl blacking out from getting drunk and simultaneously causing a monster to attack Asia seems like something that an imaginative and bored child might think up. Which adds more fuel to the fire when it's realized that it only happens as Gloria blacks out in the small park near her childhood home. This film could have touched on so many more themes like discovering value in your past or clearing up old grudges, but the story danced around what it was trying to say for its entire runtime. Vigalondo also was not able to pick a tone and stick with it at all. Shifting from comedy to dark monster drama made the film feel uneasy. One good thing about the script that I can say is that it was wildly unpredictable. It did not follow a typical plotline and introduced some strange design elements throughout the film that made it decently watchable.

For a film with a $15 million budget, I was surprised at how good the huge monsters looked. While they were quite obviously CGI and not up to par with the massive blockbusters of recent years, I enjoyed the limited look at the Groot ripoff and later in the film, the evil robot that Oscar ended up controlling. I honestly feel like if Vigalondo were to put his entire effort into making a monster film with these two leads then it would have been much better, but the offbeat addition of the humor and romance of the film kept throwing me off. Especially with Gloria and Tim's plotline, as she gets broken up with and eventually goes back to him simply to avoid Oscar's weirdly unnecessary grudges. The film did not treat its main character as a strong woman, as I was frankly expecting, especially with a performance from an actress like Hathaway. Her and Sudeikis' performances were actually some of the best parts of the movie. While she brought her signature snark and spunk, I was surprised at Sudeikis' antagonistic performance. Known for his dry, comedic roles, I nearly believed him in the role of a bad guy. However, the performances and good use of design were not enough to keep this movie out of the unrefined area of cinema, bordering on the line of indie and just plain lazy.

This quirky film is a massive, ginormous, dare I say colossal, hit or miss and it definitely flew past me. Colossal is one of those strange indie films that you desperately want to like due to its original premise but fail to be entertained by due to its lack of focus. I would not recommend this, as you will feel as indifferent about it once it's over as you did in the start.

My Rating: ★★½

Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil, and Vile (2019) directed by Joe Berlinger

After a bit of backlash following the release of this film's first trailer back in January, I am happy to announce that this film is much better than that trailer. So much so that even the director hated it! Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil, and Vile is a decently well-made film following the trials and punishment of Ted Bundy back in the 1970s and 1980s from the perspective of Bundy's longtime girlfriend Elizabeth Kloepfer. With some great performances from Zac Efron and Lily Collins and an interesting take on this story, this movie is sure to please any fan of the ever-popular true crime genre. Even though this movie's main issue is balancing its tone with the narrative, I still very much enjoyed learning about this story, especially due to my insightful discussion with director Joe Berlinger earlier this month.

This film follows the life of Elizabeth Kloepfer (Lily Collins), a single mom in 1970s Seattle who falls in love with the murderous Ted Bundy (Zac Efron). As Bundy gets caught and arrested for the kidnapping and murder of several young women, Liz turns her head to the fact that he is guilty. Throughout all of the trials and years of court cases, Liz stands by his side, refusing to believe the things he has done due to her blinding love for him. This true story and the horrible events that led up to it are what make this movie so wildly engaging. All of the court and legal scenes were incredibly well-written and provided so much of this movie's drama that audiences definitely need to stay interested, particularly because of Bundy's knowledge and studying to be a lawyer. The element that tied this interest together so well was the performances from Efron and Collins. These two had excellent chemistry together and were both so fantastically convincing in their roles. Collins was able to bring such a naive and tender side to the persona of Liz while Efron's teenage heartthrob status gave him immense power to flip that on its head. Efron was such a good choice for this film, not only because he looks very similar to Bundy, but because it was fantastic to see him in a different type of role. He was savagely convincing throughout this entire film and his obvious charm helped him for this role immensely.

Berlinger's intent with this film was not at all to romanticize Bundy or to get audiences to feel for his "struggles," but rather to show the mentality of the victims and how easy it is to be manipulated. Since this movie is based on memoirs of their time together written by Kloepfer herself, the majority of the movie is through her perspective. As previously mentioned, Efron was a fantastic choice because to Liz, Ted was an incredible boyfriend and loving man. The most interesting part of this film comes from the fact that it's through her perspective, but it is almost inevitable to get at least a little bit of romanticization due to that. However, for a film that is supposed to be through her perspective to make the audience feel for her as a victim, it did not seem that way the entire time. This movie would go on for 25 to 30 minutes at a time without showing or referencing Liz in any way. This directorial pacing was awkward the entire time; the film could not entirely decide on a tone and it took a while to find its flow after jumping around for far too long. The biggest issue is that there were a few different ways of telling this story that were used which would have been interesting on their own, but they frankly did not blend that well together.

The perspective of this film is what drew me in most, but I feel like it could have benefitted from a clearer tone and style. If this movie would have switched between her naive perspective and his murderous and horrible actions, it would have provided such a nice contrast and could have developed their personas a bit better. Even though as a filmmaker you don't want to be disrespectful to the families of Bundy's victims, I feel like sensible violence could have been added in to bring more depth to his horrible actions. But even without this aspect included, I could still really feel the effects of what Bundy had done, especially in the final conversational scene of the film (which is when I was completely sold on Collins and Efron). Another reason why this movie just felt off was because of Berlinger's experience as a documentary filmmaker. This was his first scripted film and even though he is obviously passionate about the subjects that he brings into the light, it was clear that he has not had much experience with narrative storytelling. It was quite difficult for this film to escape the typical feeling of recreation and novelty rather than telling this story with genuine compassion and heart towards the victims.

Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil, and Vile may have a title as long as the time it took for Bundy's girlfriend to realize who he was, but this film does not fail to entertain. Thankfully, the authenticity of the events and the way they are told are accurate or else the tone might make this story feel too much like something that it's not.

My interview with director Joe Berlinger for Silver Screen Beat:

How do you feel about Netflix pulling the first trailer for the film due to criticism from people who said it was glamorizing Ted Bundy and violence against women in general?

I wasn't a fan of the first trailer, to be honest with you. The people who were responsible for marketing the film prior to its acquisition going into Sundance did a trailer that they thought did the job. I wasn't happy with it, but I'm very happy that I got the opportunity to work with Netflix pretty closely on the most recent trailer, which is great.

I've done several things with Netflix now, including Tony Robbins: I Am Not Your Guru and Conversations with a Killer, the Ted Bundy doc series, and they are amazing about working closely with the filmmaker to make sure the tone and the intention of the movie are nicely captured.

As somebody who has spent 25 years doing a lot of real-life, true crime-related, the last thing this movie is doing, in my opinion, is glamorizing a serial killer, and so some of that criticism was very personally painful to me because I've spent a lot of time doing very meaningful things with my films; wrongful conviction, shining a light on criminal justice reform, advocating for victims. That's a big part of what my film and television work is about.

When people say you're a true crime pioneer, as I've been told because of the Paradise Lost series, I cringe as much as I embrace that description. The pioneer part I like. That's cool. But I have a funny relationship with the true-crime phrase because I think it kind of conjures up that image of wallowing in the misery of others for entertainment purposes.

If you look at my filmography, that's the last thing I'm trying to do.

Was one of your biggest intentions when making this film to make the audience feel sympathy for Liz (Bundy's girlfriend)?

Absolutely. You have to understand the experience of the victim and how you become seduced by this kind of psychopath. People are like "Oh, Bundy had a live-in girlfriend? She must've been an idiot." But no. This is the opposite. This is a person who not only psychologically seduced Elizabeth Kloepfer but also the American media and the legal system.

Could you imagine if at the end of a murder trial, if this was a person of color, that a judge would say to him: "Hey, I'm sentencing you to death because what you did was extremely wicked, shockingly evil, and vile. I wish you would've practiced law in front of me because you would've been a terrific lawyer?" Are you kidding me?

That to me is so demonstrative because he was a white male in the '70s who was given all sorts of breaks because of his demeanor, because of how he looks, because he was a law student, because he was white. He was given all sorts of freedoms.

To me, seeing things through Liz's eyes at all times is an understanding of how a victim becomes seduced by a psychopath. She's lucky. I think he actually liked her and kept her alive. But it's that same power that he had over everybody that I think is a lesson that I want my own daughters to know.

Did you feel any pressure to add anything that wasn't factual to the film for the sake of entertainment purposes?

I wouldn't say pressure. The nature of narrative filmmaking is that you have to compress time; that the unfolding of time is not the same as in real life and you do have to take certain liberties. I'm very proud that this film actually hues very closely to real life, but you do have to think in a three-act structure. You have to make it entertaining for an audience.

Truthfully, the biggest issue I probably struggled with is in Liz's memoir where she talks about having found things that made her think twice, like finding a knife in the glovebox of Ted's car, keeping separate apartments even though they lived together and in his apartment finding the bowl of various keys.

There are isolated events that take place over a seven or eight-month period and it's like if you're living with a cheating, alcoholic, or drug-addicted spouse and they claim to be on the wagon or not be cheating. You have an ability to push that aside over time and it's only when it reaches a critical mass in real life that when you have an experience like this that all the clues come together and you're like, "Oh right. I should've realized this all along."

But in an hour and 45-minute movie, the compression of time is so great that if I, in the first act, had Lily find a knife or a bowl of keys, she would've, I think, looked like an idiot to the audience for not catching on. There were just certain things in the memoir that I just had to leave out because time is different in a narrative film than it is in real life and even as it is in the documentary.

What is it about true crime stories, particularly Bundy's, that you think audiences find so intriguing?

People seem to have an insatiable appetite for crime. One of the reasons why I'm so fascinated with Bundy is that I think Bundy, to me, represents the big bang of our current insatiable appetite for crime. Bundy's Florida murder trial was the first time cameras were allowed in the courtroom and there was this new technology called electronic newsgathering. Just a few months before Bundy's trial, most news stations were still shooting their evening newscasts on 16mm film.

So coinciding with the growing fascination of Bundy was this new satellite technology, new electronic newsgathering, which just kind of pushed its way into the courtroom. I think that had a much greater impact than people realized because, for the first time in our history, serial rape and murder became live entertainment for American television viewers.

I think that was a precipitating event to where we are today because you can draw a line from the coverage of Bundy's trial to his execution to just a few years later with the O.J. Simpson trial, which now you have the 24-hour news cycle and this need to feed that monster with stories every day and that trial became this huge turning point to where we are today where we seem to have this insatiable appetite for crime.

On the positive side, though, I think there's been a lot of amazing work. We've seen non-fiction storytelling have an immediate and dramatic effect on these cases, and I think part of the appetite too - people want to know who the next miscarriage of justice is going to be.

Zac Efron's performance as Bundy seemed even more attractive and charismatic than Ted Bundy seemed to be in real life.

 I disagree. What we're talking about is the hold that Bundy had over people was very clear. Women were going down to the Florida trial convinced that he was innocent. Or, if he's not innocent, he's still sexy and there's something about him that makes them want to be in the same room as him. He had that power over people.

Do you worry that your film's portrayal of Bundy, and the fact that there is a celebrity playing his role, could inspire anybody to violence because they're looking for fame and looking to be remembered in connection with somebody famous?

It's hard to know where people derive and therefore you can't censor yourself. Where do people derive their inspiration from? John Hinckely Jr. attempted to kill the president because he was trying to impress Jodie Foster. Should Jodie Foster remove herself from public life? Should any actress remove themselves from public life?

All of these debates, whether it's glamorization or inspiration, are very healthy and good to debate. If this movie was like a gorefest, an irresponsible gorefest, then yeah, maybe. But my movie is an intelligent movie that has some real thought behind it.

If somebody is inspired to be Ted Bundy off of this movie, then I would argue that a different person would be inspired to do something evil off of any kind of movie, so where do you draw the line? I'm not worried. This movie was very responsibly made.

My Rating: ★★★½

Avengers: Endgame (2019) directed by Anthony Russo, Joe Russo

It's finally here. The end of the Infinity Saga and the end (for now, at least) of the 22 movie-long, blockbuster era that Marvel has cemented in film history. Avengers: Endgame is an absolutely stellar piece of blockbuster cinema that has as much superhero action as it does genuine, human story. This film is an absolute triumph in filmmaking and whether or not you are a fan of this cultural phenomenon, it has undoubtedly become engrained in our society forever. Including quite literally every character ever assembled in this entire, expanded universe and a shockingly riveting plot, this will be studied for years to come as the best success in getting people to actually get out of their homes and go to the theaters. Avengers assemble, indeed.

Picking up right after the events of Avengers: Infinity War, this famous group of superheroes find themselves loathing in utter defeat. Not only has Thanos (Josh Brolin) managed to wipe out half of the entire universe, but it seems like he has decimated this comic book team's sense of hope for good. I find it incredibly difficult to discuss what I loved about this film without spoilers, so this is your warning. The arrival of Ant-Man (Paul Rudd) at the Avengers compound 5 years after the fatal snap and after being stuck in the quantum realm is the one thing bringing this team back together. As they all learn about what can be done to reverse the mad titan's actions and bring back half of the universe, the Avengers' sense of hope and justice gets restored. Once again, the Russo Brothers have delivered on an incredibly engrossing storyline that only gets more enthralling as it goes along. Just like this franchise's previous entry, the story is paced immensely well, as my eyes were not distracted from the screen for a split second. The fact that these filmmakers were able to tell the multitude of various stories efficiently without losing their audience will never fail to impress me. What I loved most about this film, however, is its ability to balance the stories of each character and bring such satisfying conclusions to their individual arcs. All 6 of the original Avengers' storylines are concluded in such amazing ways and pave the way for the future of Marvel to start focusing on their younger characters.

Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely's script is the strongest aspect of this film that really brings everything together in such a fulfilling way. The entire first act of this film, after the surprisingly sudden "defeat" of Thanos, contains such a genuine, human story. I absolutely adored the writing in this part of the movie, as it focuses on themes of acceptance, loss, and even touches on depression and coping with inevitable grief. I loved seeing the emotion pour out of these characters and how they accepted the fact that they lost to the evil antagonist 5 years prior. Some of the most realistic and actually believable performances came from this act and I have honestly not seen that much focus and talent come from a superhero film in a long time. Towards the end of this film is when it truly hits audiences and becomes the emotional rollercoaster that fans deserved. And despite the fact that this movie is 3 hours long, it did not nearly feel like it due to the genuinely engrossing story.

As for the fate of our beloved heroes, the way that they were set up and concluded after 5 years of grief was incredible to see. Captain America (Chris Evans) goes back in time to live out his life with Peggy (Haley Atwell) as they finally get their long-awaited dance together. Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), unfortunately, sacrifices herself to get the soul stone for the ultimate defeat of Thanos. Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) is stuck in some strange hybrid state that has yet to be fully flushed out. Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) seems to be training his daughter to take over the mantle in the near future. Thor (Chris Hemsworth) has seemingly joined the Guardians of the Galaxy and given up his throne to Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson) as she becomes the new Queen of Asgard. And as for the man who started this entire franchise, Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.) himself sacrifices himself through the Infinity Stones one last time to save all of the people that he loves most. I loved all of the callbacks and tying-up of loose ends that occurred throughout this film, especially in Tony Stark's funeral scene. The long, extended shot of everyone attending his funeral is really just a celebration of the entire 11 years of happiness and joy that these characters and stories have given audiences and it was fantastic to see (also where I teared up the most). This film is a flawless conclusion to these iconic heroes' stories and proves itself as a quintessential, nostalgic blockbuster. As previously mentioned, no matter your opinion on the quality or repetitiveness of these superhero stories, the impactful and emotional place that they hold in our culture will never be forgotten.

Perhaps I'm swept up in the nostalgia of the past 11 nerdy years of my life, but Avengers: Endgame is a prime example of how to do a blockbuster right. Not only have the Russo Brothers managed to culminate 11 years of fantastical stories into one tight script, but they have managed to get me to sob at a science-fiction film. I'm still finding it hard to entirely process everything that happened in this movie, but just know that fans and dedicated moviegoers could not have asked for a more perfect ending. And make sure to bring some tissues too.

My Rating: ★★★★★