Reviews

I really wanted to like this movie. I've been a fan of Angourie Rice since her standout performance in The Nice Guys, and coupled with Gaten Matarazzo from Stranger Things, this film had a lot going for it. I even really dug the general plot: a girl, ranked 4th in her high school graduating class, plots to take down her competition by any means necessary in order to get into Harvard.

Unfortunately, the film leaned way too heavily on 4th wall breaking in the guise of humor, so much so that by five minutes in, the bit was old. While the intent was seemingly to provide meta-humor, the devise was clearly just a crutch to deliver exposition about what Honor (Rice) was thinking since she was established to have no real friends in school, so the only way to know what she was planning was by having her say so directly to camera. In addition to the strained comedy, it reduced just about every character besides Honor to a caricature of a typical high school cliche since her point of view dominated the narrative. In the end, you're left with just one well-defined character, for whom most of their dialogue is blatant exposition "hidden" by lame jokes.

But worse than the meta-humor was just how cringe-inducing large parts of the script were. Perhaps it is theoretically possible for a man in his late fifties to deeply understand the culture of the youth, a young woman no less, but that was not the case with screenwriter David A. Goodman (nearly 60 years old when this film was released). Several scenes of this movie, which I'm sure were intended as satire, made me cringe out of my skin for how poorly observed the commentary was. It honestly felt like an aging father's attempt to embarrass his teen daughter. And despite the meta-commentary, the film never seemed to grasp how out of touch it was.

In spite of these pretty significant problems, I can't give the film a firmly negative review. This is largely due to Rice and Matarazzo who gave excellent performances even with such subpar writing, proving yet again that they are stars to watch. And even more puzzling, is the fact that the film has many touching scenes that absolutely work (in a vacuum). A scene in which a son comes out to his father, which was thankfully devoid of any 4th wall breaking, actually registered a legitimate emotional response from me, despite having maybe 5 or 10 minutes of set up. And overall, Honor's arc is a very satisfying one, even if you saw the twists and turns coming. Sadly, these definitive strengths aren't able to save the movie, only make the weaknesses that much more stark and glaring by comparison.

Given that the film is a breezy 100 minutes with some worthy moments and stellar performances, I wouldn't discourage anyone from watching. But I regretfully didn't enjoy it as much as I hoped. However, maybe it will succeed in one thing, proving that Angourie Rice is a terrific actress and absolutely ready to deliver on the right project.

On paper, I think this approach to a Batman movie is perfect: a Fincher-esque detective story, with a film-noir visual palette, insightful social commentary, and flashes of stunningly rendered action. But sadly, I don't think Matt Reeves quite connected all the dots to make his perfect approach into a perfect film. It's absolutely entertaining, and has plenty to like, but fails to live up to its potential.

First, the things that work: Robert Pattinson was perfect for the role, managing to play all elements of the Batman/Bruce Wayne character just as they should be. He really nailed the physicality of the role, which is a must considering he spends upwards of 80% of his screen time behind the cowl. But as Bruce Wayne he also brings a serious "offness" that you would expect from a traumatized recluse. The rest of the cast is really great too, Paul Dano being the notable stand out aside from Pattinson.

The visual aesthetic is excellently realized as well. Hardly five minutes goes by without a shot being so beautifully lit and blocked that you wish it lingered on screen a bit longer. Cinematographer Greig Fraser delights in the gloominess and brings the absolute most he can to shots of dark alleys, moonless nights, and hauntingly empty mansions.

This film also walks the line brilliantly between action and suspense. The action scenes never last longer than they should and always leave you wanting more, a rare treat in modern blockbusters which are usually stuffed to the gils with superfluous car chases, gun fights, and explosions. And in between the action, there is genuine storytelling, getting you invested in the characters and plot so that the next fight scene feels earned.

Speaking of the storytelling, Reeves and co-writer Peter Craig made the wise decision to center the film on a great mystery, who is The Riddler and what's he going to do next? This is where Batman's detective side gets to shine, and is especially great considering how downplayed "The World's Greatest Detective" is in most film adaptations of the character. The narration from Bruce's journal evokes classic film-noir and goes hand in hand with the aesthetic and tone.

But despite having all these elements in its favor, I couldn't help but feel slightly disappointed by the end result. It's not that it did anything wrong, per say, it's what it didn't do but teased in moments that left me feeling unfulfilled.

The biggest offender is that Bruce/Batman's character arc is thematically pretty muddled and feels like its missing some major pieces. Considering how well the individual scenes are written, I'm guessing this isn't necessarily a failure of screenwriting; the full character arc most likely existed on the page, and was maybe even shot, but due to time constraints had to be cut (the movie is already 3 hours long so any more would have made it unbearably bloated). But what we're left with on screen is frustrating, they set up some great thematic conflicts that have to be dealt with by both Batman and Bruce, but only see them resolved by his caped persona. In the end we get about one-half a character arc for our protagonist.

Going in tandem with Bruce's missing character arc, are the superficial bits of social commentary that don't really serve any thematic purpose. In a few spots the film has characters quip about the privilege and inherent problems of the uber wealthy in a decaying society, but they never explore the issue any deeper - the commentary is completely surface level. To me this would be the perfect way to tie up Bruce's story, make him confront the fact that he's sitting on a pile of money while Gotham eats itself, and realize he has to do more than just fight crime in a bat-suit. I wouldn't necessarily demand that this commentary be included in the film, I can divorce cinema from reality enough to be fine with a Batman movie not addressing real world problems like the wealth gap, but they're the ones who point to the issue without making a point about it, making the "messaging" seem hollow.

Speaking of runtime, another issue with this film is that it is absolutely too long, especially considering my previous complaint that it felt incomplete in parts. What we got was about 50% great build up and setting up interesting conflicts, 25% big third act action at the end, and 25% unnecessary subplots (primarily involving Selena Kyle) that add nothing but runtime. I'm fine with a movie being long and slow paced, but not if it feels like it needed to be longer still to tell an actual complete story. As much as it might upset fans if Selena Kyle didn't have a mission of her own, I think the film would be far better without it as it would allow more time to pin down Bruce's character. Save the Catwoman subplot for the sequel.

Lastly, I mentioned the film is Fincher-esque, and Reeves was not shy about his love of Se7en and Zodiac. You can probably do scene-to-scene comparisons between Batman and Gordon solving The Riddler's mystery and Detectives Mills and Somerset searching for John Doe. To me this is a problem. It's one thing to wink at the audience and slyly pay respect to what inspired you creatively, but for the references to be so blatant and seemingly exist solely for the sake of making a reference, that really waters down the story you're trying to tell by making the audience think of a better film.

In the end, The Batman is an ambitious, fresh take on the character, with plenty to love both on a visual and emotional level, that fails to add up to more than the sum of its parts. Is it a great Batman film? Possibly one of the best. Is it a great film? Sadly no. But Reeves still managed to do enough to get me invested in both Pattinson's Batman and the world to see what they can cook up in the next film, and hope that it delivers on the promise of this film.

It's quite rare that a remake of a classic film ever reaches the same heights as the original, and even rarer for the updated version to surpass its predecessor. The Invisible Man (2020) is that rare remake. Leigh Whannell's follow up to 2018's Upgrade (a fantastic grind house sci-fi thriller) was always going to be an uphill battle, especially since he chose to adapt a classic novel that was made into one of the most iconic horror films of the 20th century. I personally had high expectations for this movie after seeing what Whannell did on Upgrade, and can thankfully say that he did not disappoint. The Invisible Man is a great movie, not a perfect movie, but damn near close. When judging the film against its apparent goals, it's hard not to tick off all of the boxes: it is legitimately suspenseful and scary, it actually has something deep to say that is thematically woven throughout, and the technical aspects of the film are expertly crafted. I'll address each of these points individually, starting with the horror elements. Whannell is no amateur when it comes to horror, and that is quite apparent in this film. He seems to understand the basic, yet often forgotten concept that is essential to any horror film: the audience must care about the character who is in danger for it to be scary, and you have to slowly ratchet up the tension throughout the scenes so that when the jump scare comes, it feels earned. Whannell wrote Elizabeth Moss' character Cecilia to be incredibly sympathetic, a victim of an abusive relationship who only wants to get her life back, yet he never strayed too far to make her seem helpless. We understand right away that she is smart, determined, and capable, but still vulnerable. This balance is executed perfectly thanks to Whannell's tight writing and Moss' stellar performance. This serves the horror aspects of the film so well, not only because you care when Cecilia is danger, but because since she isn't completely helpless, the audience can intuit that her stalker ex-boyfriend is that much more threatening to make her so unnerved. This movie also suited my taste quite well, in that more time was spent building suspense than throwing jump scares at the audience. When the jump scares do come, it's after the tension has been heightened to a fever-pitch so the resulting scare is amplified and legitimately frightening. Moving onto the deeper theme that motivates the action and horror, again Whannell knocks it out of the park. Abuse, gaslighting, and PTSD are real world problems that the audience can relate to, and Whannell ties them in perfectly with the antagonist of the titular invisible man. The whole idea works as a metaphor just as well as it does as a horror movie: women get tormented physically and psychologically by men in ways that the rest of the world can't see, and often are labeled as crazy because of it. This thematic statement is evident through every twist and turn the plot takes, every scare sequence, and every choice a character makes, and as a result, elevates the movie from good to great. Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't gush about the technical mastery that Whannell displays here. After seeing Upgrade, I knew that he had inventive and thrilling ways to stage and shoot action, so I was excited to see what he did in a horror setting. Throughout the film, and particularly in suspenseful scenes, Whannell's takes are long and lingering, often meander away from the subject to show an empty chair, or open doorway, before panning back to Cecilia. This tactic is brilliant because as the camera wanders around a space, seemingly showing nothing at all, the audience is on the edge of their seats, wondering if that empty chair actually has an invisible man sitting in it. This is just one way that Whannell uses the concept to adapt his visual style in a unique and effective way, but there are countless more scattered throughout including the return of the fixed-tracking shot fight scenes that he used so well in Upgrade. The Invisible Man is a meticulously crafted film, with a powerful and relevant message, that never fails to put the audience on edge and then scare the hell out of them. I wouldn't be surprised if in 5 or 10 years, this movie is considered to be one of the modern classics among others such as 28 Days Later, Get Out, and Midsommar. Go see this movie in theaters, it is well worth it.

The Gentleman is definitely a welcome return to form for Ritchie, who has proven that the meh-ness of his most recent films is more a symptom of the Hollywood studio system rather than a lack of talent on his part. The Gentleman doesn't fit together quite as neatly as Lock, Stock but it has the same propulsive energy, crass yet laugh out loud humor, and stylized violence to satiate die-hard Richie fans. It's by no means a perfect film, but the stuff I liked, I REALLY liked, and the stuff that I didn't care for didn't come close to ruining it for me. That being said, The Gentleman isn't for everyone, particularly for people who aren't fans of Lock, Stock, Snatch, and the like. However, for everyone else looking for a rip-roaring good time at the movies, then grab a beer, put your feet up, and let Guy Ritchie do his thing.

On paper this movie should be hilarious... sadly the writer and director makes some absolutely bizarre choices that severely squandered a great premise. The most egregious choice is that nearly every single shot is a static wide shot that lasts at least 30 seconds if not more (some shots of literal blackness or white out). I think I counted only 4 shots where the camera moved at all with only a handful more shots of close ups on the actors. What this does is create an incredibly harsh, impersonal, lifeless atmosphere that is only worsened by a very understated script. Why the director chose to shoot the movie this way? Who knows, but to me it came across as lazy rather than artistic or stylized. What's worse, is these incredibly lingering, flat shots were of the most mundane activities. It felt a bit like they had an hour of actual story and had to fill the rest of the time with coverage of whatever their actors were doing between takes. At first I thought it was just a slow burn movie (which I'm a big fan of), that was building up the tension and anticipation for a big climactic ending, but no, it just sort of ends. The movie made me chuckle maybe 3 or 4 times but it was mostly because I was relieved that SOMETHING was happening, not because what happened was genuinely funny. This is my first Swedish language film so perhaps this is typical of their sense of humor and I just don't get it, but for my American sensibilities, I found it to be a MAJEURE let down.

There have been a sparse few films in recent years that have melded genres seamlessly, performed at the absolute top of their game in technical craft, offered a scathing sociopolitical commentary, all while telling an airtight and compelling story. Luckily for us, Parasite (Gisaengchung) checks all of these boxes, in a year where we couldn't have needed it more badly. Bong Joon-ho's latest absolutely blows all else out of the water (at least compared to the other 30+ movies I've seen in theaters this year), and in a highly organic and original way. The issue of class and the struggles of the poor climbing the ladder to become wealthy is one that Bong Joon-ho is well-known for using, for instance in 2013's Snowpiercer, yet Parasite never at any point feels like it borrows from any of its predecessors or overlaps with them in any way. This is the film's greatest strength, in my opinion, that it so flawlessly weaves together all of its components, including an interesting and nuanced take on class-structure, originally and in such a way that it feels perfectly natural for the story being told. The same can be said for how Bong traverses from one genre to another. From minute to minute, Parasite will have you laughing uproariously, and then suddenly, have you dead-silent and on the edge of your seat. The comedy is dark and laugh-out-loud, while the suspense will make you want to lean in, if only to try and pull the characters out of the scene, so as to relieve the tension. It should be no surprise, that everything else also falls into place wonderfully, from the poignant performances, to the razor sharp editing, to the stunning cinematography. In a year with both high-budget and indie takes on class-struggle such as Joker and Us, Parasite still manages to stand out, in a class of its own.

The only fair way to judge a movie is by how well it lives up to own its aspirations, and in the case of Jojo Rabbit, it is a stellar success. Writer/director Taika Waititi tells the coming of age story of 10-year-old German boy, Johannes (Jojo), who is being brought up in the Hitler Youth during the final months of the second world war. When Jojo learns that his mother is harboring a jewish girl in their attic, he must confront his ideals and face the truth that Nazis are nothing, if not absurd. The manner in which Waititi handles the absurdity of the Nazis, both with his writing and his portrayal of an imaginary Adolf Hitler, is pure comedic genius. His approach works because he creates humor in both surface-level and subtle layers. As a comedy, completely divorced from its subject matter, Jojo Rabbit would still be riotously funny thanks to the physical comedy and all-star line deliveries from every cast member. And with the subtext of taking away power from Nazi propaganda and ideals, reducing them to cartoonish manifestations of a boys imagination, this film succeeds to an even greater degree. Jojo Rabbit never aspires to tell the harrowing truth of the Holocaust or to completely dismantle the Nazi ideology because from the perspective of a young boy learning to love rather than hate, those beats would be out of place. The film accomplishes what it sets out to do, which is prove that we can all change into a better person, simply by doing what we can. Although the comedy and heart of this film are the main attraction, I would be remiss if I didn't mention that from a purely technical and narrative perspective, Jojo Rabbit is equally fantastic. The film is gorgeously shot and edited, with some of the best visual storytelling I've seen this year. Waititi has thoroughly cemented himself as a contemporary master, and I can't wait to see where he goes from here. Jojo Rabbit is hilarious, heart-warming, and easily one of the best cinematic experiences of the year.

Right off the bat, Joaquin Phoenix was quite good in this movie. Other aspects like the cinematography and production design were also very well done. Because of those aspects, I'm giving it 5 stars and not fewer. Sadly, the script just did not live up to the standards the rest of the movie set. My issues are that the screenplay lacks consistency in its depiction of reality, shoehorns in a Thomas Wayne subplot that's included just to make it clear this is a Batman (adjacent) movie, distracts from its own story with on-the-nose references to better films, and worst of all, fails to live up to its aspirations of having a point. The Gotham city that is depicted is wildly uneven throughout this movie, which is a shame because the recreation of grungy 80s New York was very impressive. At times we are meant to believe that this movie could take place in our world, with our grounded sense of reality. At other times it feels like it belongs to Zach Snyder's vision of the DC universe. This mostly comes across due to the characters (or caricatures) that Arthur interacts with. Essentially every single supporting player in this film is completely devoid of any humanity such as motivation or logic, and simply exists as a plot device to hammer home the point that people treat Arthur badly. From the hooligans that rob him (for a sign??) to the cartoonishly villainous Thomas Wayne, Arthur is constantly beaten down by characters who feel like they came straight off a comic book page, into a movie that aims to be as grounded and realistic as it can be. Speaking of Thomas Wayne, the subplot that involves him in Arthur's story is essentially only included to let audiences know that Batman exists in this universe. Yippie. Other than that, it does nothing to further develop Arthur's character (someone should really teach Todd Phillips what character study means). Then there's the Scorsese of it all. Major plot elements, characterizations, and visuals from this movie all significantly borrow from early films by Scorsese like Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy (two exceptionally better movies). It got to the point while watching this movie that these on-the-nose "homages" pulled me out of the viewing experience and made me think about how much more I'd rather be watching a Scorsese film than this one. Finally, and most egregious of all, this story completely fails to connect its characters and plot to a larger theme or message. It pays lip-service to several possible messages, all of them remain completely unconnected however, leaving an incoherent mess as the only take away. Although this isn't necessarily a criticism of the movie, it is quite aggravating that any reasonable gripe you may have can be defended by some dude-bro by the fact that this film has an unreliable narrator, thus rendering anything that seems broadly drawn or confusing a result of being told an exaggerated story. A better film would have used this to its advantage by immersing the audience more fully into Arthur's subjective mindset, however, the filmmaking keeps the audience squarely in the position of objectively viewing this reality. I'll admit I was never bored while watching the movie, so by that metric I think it's fair to say it's entertaining. However, the more I think about it, the less I like it, which is a massive failing for a movie that strives to be pondered and debated. My guess is that the people rating it 9s and 10s were probably going to give it that high of marks regardless of what happened on screen so take their word with a grain of salt.

First things first, this movie is slow, and probably not for everyone. Chalk it up to a misleading trailer cutting all of the action scenes together, but this movie is far from a high-octane space adventure. Rather it's a contemplative character study that happens to be set in space. If that alone doesn't sound appealing to you, then it is unlikely that the A+ visuals and top-notch acting will make a difference (even though this movie has both in spades). However, if you are willing to set aside expectations of mile-a-minute thrills to watch a true artist weave a touching and thematically deep story, then boy are you in for a treat. This was my first James Gray movie but it certainly won't be my last. The writing is very understated - it's often about what isn't said - but ultimately comes together to tell a beautiful story of family and letting go of the past. The directing is PHENOMENAL. Full stop. Many will complain that it's too slow, or that the physics were unrealistic (I never realized how many IMDb reviewers had degrees in astrophysics, golly!), and to them that may be a deal breaker, but for me it was well worth the price of a ticket. In times of unoriginality and creative bankruptcy in Hollywood, we look to Ad Astra for answers!

In Jordon Peele's Us, the writer/director gives one of the strongest follow-ups to a revered directorial debut in recent years. Although it will take at least one more viewing for me to fully solidify my thoughts on Us, it's safe to say that I enjoyed it immensely and look forward to getting to see it again. What stood out to me most after my first viewing is how talented a director Peele is; the man clearly knows how to make every frame pop and add layers to his intricately constructed world. Peele's use of reflections and color was the most impressive to me, although I'm sure more will become clear on subsequent viewings. In addition to Peele's talent behind the camera, the actors in front of it also bring their A-game. Not surprisingly Lupita N'yongo is doing tremendous work as both Adelaide and Red, but Winston Duke definitely stole the show as the quippy husband/father. In general, the entire cast is praiseworthy as they each are playing two characters, that move and talk completely differently from their counterpart. It speaks to how well-acted and cleverly-shot this movie is that at no point could I tell when it was the main actor on screen versus their body double. The only place where I can really take issue with this movie is with some elements of the screenplay. At points I felt like Peele was actually telling the audience too much, instead of letting them draw their own conclusions. Coming off of such a tightly-written screenplay with Get Out, the seams of the story in Us are a bit more noticeable, however, at the end of day, it's still a better written horror movie than most. Speaking of the moments of horror, from the beginning it's clear that Peele didn't want to make this movie be about the jump scares but rather about atmosphere and tension, and in my opinion I think he succeeded. Us isn't terrifying, but at no point did I feel like I was supposed to be feeling terror, just a building sense of unease and at times panic. In general, I strongly recommend seeing Us, especially in theaters, because this is a film meant to be seen with an audience. Jordan Peele has proved that Get Out was no fluke and he has met the incredibly high bar he set for himself.

As a big Black Mirror fan I was incredibly curious about the concept of creating an interactive movie with branching story lines. After viewing all of the endings, I have to say I'm a touch disappointed. I think the integration of giving the viewer control was done flawlessly, however, only one of the possible endings actually works in my opinion. The writing all leads to one ending that actually makes sense and provides an interesting commentary on the concept of interactive entertainment; the other four seem to only be there for the sake of having multiple endings. Although I give the creative team points for trying something this risky, I think the finished product comes off as lazy and rushed for the majority of the endings, and after viewing it once, yields diminishing returns for every subsequent viewing, even including the unseen endings. Overall, I think Bandersnatch is worth a watch at least once, but it's not necessary to go through to find every ending.

From Adam McKay, comes Vice (2018), an often funny and occasionally clever biopic of the former Vice President Dick Cheney. Although I left the movie theater with an overall feeling of enjoyment, Vice still didn't impress me nearly as much as The Big Short (2015) did, nor did it make me laugh as much as McKay's earlier works such as Anchorman (2004). I think Vice has a lot working in its favor, primarily an excellent screenplay and immensely talented actors, but it struggles to find its feet for the first third of the film. To me it seems that McKay might have gotten in his own way a bit in terms of the direction. He had all the pieces he needed to create a brilliant film, but not enough restraint to assemble them coherently. Somewhere amidst all of the cutting across time periods, excessive narration, and frenzied editing lies a great movie, which is why I was more satisfied than dissatisfied with the overall film. The first act of the movie, which chronicles Cheney's rise to power, from college dropout, to White House chief of staff, to the CEO of Halliburton, is where I took the greatest issue with Vice. This entire section of the film suffers from a variety of problems, most notably pacing and tone. The first 45 minutes came off as rushed, like McKay was trying to jam in as much backstory as he could before getting to Cheney's appointment as Vice President, which was clearly the story McKay wanted to tell. This exposition-heavy first act wouldn't seem quite as out of place had it matched in tone to the rest of the movie. The last two acts of the film deliver some stellar comedy in McKay's signature style, whereas the beginning of the film only has one or two moments of the absurd brilliance we love from the director. The beginning of the second act is where the movie truly began for me, as it was clear McKay had finally gotten to the part of Cheney's life that he found the most interesting and appalling. From there, it was mostly smooth sailing with lots of laughs and terrific performances along the way. After seeing the trailer a few months ago, Vice became my most anticipated movie of the holiday season, so perhaps my expectations going in played a hand in why I felt underwhelmed by the film. However, I still maintain that McKay's sophomore effort in his award-winning turn is not his best. It isn't the home-run I was hoping it would be, but it certainly wasn't a strike out either. If you can reign in your expectations and judge this movie separately from The Big Short, Vice is a perfectly enjoyable satire, and therefore worth seeing.

Alfonso Cuarón has officially earned the title auteur after delivering his latest film, Roma. Serving as director, writer, producer, editor, and cinematographer, Cuarón painstakingly crafted virtually every aspect of this film, himself, to match his vision. For that reason, Roma should be considered a triumph of a film. However, while watching it on Netflix, I found myself a bit detached from the story and the atmosphere that Cuarón had established. Interestingly, it is the authenticity and grounded nature of Roma that make it both so brilliantly crafted but also so hard to relate to. Although I was dazzled by what Cuarón did as a director, I felt Roma lacked in accessibility for a general audience. Roma is less of a film and more of a recreation of true life. We are never given character introductions, telling us who they are or what motivates them, just as you wouldn't if you were to meet someone for the first time in real life. Over the course of the film, the audience is given pieces here and there that give hints of backstory and motivation for the main characters, but nothing is ever brought into focus, allowing the viewer to fill in the gaps themselves. This bold technique of presenting human beings rather than movie characters is one of the ways that Cuarón constructs life as genuinely as can be done in film but also makes the movie a bit hard to relate to. Although for me, Roma didn't come together to become more than the sum of its parts, I think it is an absolute masterpiece in filmmaking that will cement Cuarón as one of the greatest living filmmakers.

As a big fan of Yorgos Lanthimos' previous two English-language films, The Lobster (2015) and The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017), I was quite ready to dive back into another one of his unsettling and darkly comedic movies, and I'm happy to say, The Favourite (2018) did not disappoint. Although I'm guessing it will take a second and third viewing to be able to fully appreciate The Favourite, I think it's safe to say, that it is Lanthimos' best made film to date. From a purely technical standpoint, The Favourite outdoes the previously mentioned films thanks to its painstakingly detailed set and costume designs, unnerving score, clever editing, and stunning cinematography. However, what makes it the best of Lanthimos' filmography is the writing (thanks to screenwriters Deborah Davis and Tony McNamara), acting (specifically, the main trio of actresses), and Lanthimos' own bizarre directing. Although Lanthimos' credit to this film can't be understated, the screenplay, penned by Deborah Davis and Tony McNamara, is what sets it apart from The Lobster and The Killing of a Sacred Deer. Unlike Lanthimos' other films, The Favourite isn't nearly as avant-garde nor detached in its story telling. The audience is able to connect to the characters, who are all allowed depth and complexity, and each are given understandable arcs. It helps that this time around, Lanthimos really let his actors act, whereas with his other works, the characters deliver each line completely deadpan, heightening the detachment from reality. Speaking of the acting, this might be the strongest part of the entire film. Olivia Colman offers the performance of her career, making the Queen Anne tragic, hilarious, and endearing. Meanwhile, Emma Stone and Rachel Weisz prove once more why they are both hard-hitting actresses, playing off of each other masterfully. As mentioned, it is Lanthimos unique directorial style, how he uses each element in combination, that makes The Favourite so special. In particular, Lanthimos' use of the camera and lighting is spectacular. The Favourite is a darkly comedic, at times unsettling, and smartly crafted film, worthy of being seen on the big screen. Lanthimos has raised the bar for his films, and I absolutely can't wait to see what he does next.

Wow. That's the only word that I was able to articulate after being blown away by Spider-Verse. Normally I write my reviews as soon after seeing the movie as possible, however this time, I needed to give myself a few days to make sure I wasn't just riding the high that the movie leaves you on, and that it actually was as well-made as I thought. A few days later and my thoughts haven't changed. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only the best animated movie of the year, it's also the best superhero movie of the year (and this is coming from someone who loved both Black Panther and Infinity War), and simply one of the best movies of the year period (not to mention the best Spider Man movie of all time). This film succeeds in every conceivable way: it's got well-written, compelling characters that are brought to life by superlative acting; the visuals are stunning and create the most immersive theater experience of the year; the action is thrilling and never gets repetitive; the story manages to be both completely groundbreaking while also paying homage to the Spider Man story we know and love; and best of all, the comedy is absolutely spot on, every single joke lands without feeling cheap or getting old. As good as this movie is across the board, I suspect it all stemmed from an impressively written screenplay. Not surprisingly, Phil Lord (and an uncredited Chris Miller), truly understands what people enjoy and relate to in the Spider Man story and brings that to the screen beautifully. What's accessible about the character of Spider Man is that he (or she) is just a normal kid who gets these extraordinary powers and learns to become a superhero. As great a character as Iron Man is, it's pretty hard for a child to relate to the hard-drinking billionaire who happens to fight crime. Spider Man is relatable because he is a superhero every person can see themselves becoming in those circumstances. And that is the thesis of this film. Anyone can be Spider Man. The introduction of the Spider-Verse actually serves this message and enhances the story, which is what made the movie so enjoyable. At no point did the multi-verse concept feel like a device for selling toys (ahem... Porgs), but instead was a natural way to set up Miles Morales. There are only two things I could think of that could get criticized in Spider-Verse, the first is its inaccessibility to people who don't like Spider Man or superheroes, and the second is its visual style might not work for everyone. To address the first issue, I suspect there will be people who think this movie is only entertaining for people who already enjoy Spider Man properties, but I strongly disagree. Taking the Spider Man aspect out of this film, there's still a lot of great storytelling at work. Within this movie is a coming of age story about a black-hispanic kid trying to fit into his almost all-white high school, a story about a father trying to relate to his son, a story about a man who has given up on life who needs someone younger and more hopeful to show him the way, and a damn good science fiction story about a multi-verse. All of these narratives work without the superhero aspect, and I think make this film completely accessible to someone who has never seen a Spider Man movie before. The second issue about the visual style I understand a bit more, as initially the visuals didn't work for me. The style is shaky and imperfect and I felt like I was watching a 3-D movie without glasses. However, I realized they meant for the look to be imperfect and rough around the edges, just like worn out comic book come to life. I think part of the problem is that in recent years, with Pixar and Illumination movies, animation has gotten so refined and smooth, that is was at first off putting to see something break out of that mold. But after about 30 minutes, my eyes adjusted and I was able to get absorbed into the world they created. In summary, Spider-Verse is a mesmerizing movie that is firing on all cylinders and absolutely succeeds. It's funny, smart, heartfelt, with a message that makes me feel as hopeful and optimistic as I did when I was a kid seeing Toby Maguire become Spider Man for the first time. If you love Spider Man, you will 100% eat this movie up, and if you don't already love the wall-crawling hero, you will by the end of Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse. Go see this movie!

Can You Ever Forgive Me? is a heartbreaking, bitingly funny, and all around terrific film. Although no aspect of this movie is subpar, the two elements that stood out to me upon leaving the theater were the screenplay and two lead performances. Screenwriters Nicole Holofcener andJeff Whitty blend the tones of melancholy and levity brilliantly, reminding me quite of bit of Woody Allen's work. The story they tell is subtle and gradual, letting us get acquainted with the characters before unfolding the plot. Can You Ever Forgive Me? is a true dramedy, where the witty dialogue will have you laughing out loud, but the tragedy of Lee Israel's daily life will cut you to your core. This film's strong writing is also elevated by two of the best performances of the year, from Melissa McCarthy leading and Richard E. Grant supporting. In the hands of McCarthy an Grant, the characters of Lee Israel and Jack are given both emotional depth and charm, with some absolutely delicious chemistry between the two. Additionally, director Marielle Heller deserves praise for the pacing and tone of the film, as both are spot on with the story she is trying to tell. It seems she was also keen enough to know that with two terrific actors, she could tend towards subtlety and let their performances guide the story. The only criticism I can make is that the third act is rather devoid of tension. As Israel's life upends you'd expect to be gripped with suspense and anticipation, but what we got was more of the same leisure and melancholy tone. Overall, Can You Ever Forgive Me? is one of my favorite films of the year so far, and definitely worth a watch.

"I can't stand the in-between parts" (paraphrased quote) is at one point said by Freddie Mercury during this film while talking about the parts of his life between performances, which on a meta-level, was also my biggest problem with the movie. Although Bohemian Rhapsody is a well-acted movie with some amazingly staged performance sequences, the story that fills the remainder of the movie could be told better. Ironically, despite having notable director issues (Bryan Singer leaving the project a few weeks before shooting ended), I thought the directing was far from the biggest issue, and rather that the script was what brought the movie down. Anthony McCarten's screenplay seems to have flipped the age old saying "show don't tell," with much of the character development and important moments being described to the audience rather than shown. Considering that the general story hits quite a few familiar beats to other band/musician biopics, this lack of visual storytelling is a major detriment to the overall film. My other big issue with the story is that this movie seems like an odd mash-up of two movies. One, a dramatic and personal story about Freddie Mercury. The other an entertaining popcorn movie about how Queen came together and became what they are remembered for. In my opinion they should have chosen one of these avenues and explored it fully rather than trying to do both, as neither story arc gets the development it needs, and the final product is oddly disjointed. Despite these script issues, Bohemian Rhapsody does have some spectacular elements. Obviously the big one is Rami Malek's career-changing performance as Freddie Mercury. He not only nails the mannerisms and personality of Mercury, but also does a wonderful job at conveying the tortured soul hidden underneath the legendary performer. All of the praise that Malek has received is absolutely earned, as is his tentative Oscar nomination. Besides Malek at the center, the supporting cast does a great job as well, delivering either a dramatic performance (Gwilym Lee and Lucy Boynton in particular), or providing some needed levity and comic-relief. However, Bohemian Rhapsody isn't just well acted, from a technical-standpoint it also very well made, especially the concert scenes. The sound-mixing and camera work during the Live Aid scene is truly next level, and sets a new bar for showcasing musical performances in film. To sum up, Bohemian Rhapsody has all of the elements to be a great movie but just isn't able to balance the style and substance well enough for my taste. That being said, I think many people will thoroughly enjoy it, and any fan of Queen should see it for Malek's performance alone.

First Man is an incredibly special film and an excellent viewing experience that I highly recommend, particularly if you can see it in IMAX. What's impressive about Damien Chazelle is that he has shown great aptitude at directing incredibly different types of movies. La La Land and First Man have markedly different tones and visuals, each to its own benefit, and it's a clear indication of Chazelle's capabilities. Unlike La La Land which was a portrayal of fulfilling dreams, First Man is a much more humble, grounded, and human story. It isn't about the triumph of successfully landing a man on the moon, it's a very personal story about the man who sacrificed a lot in his single-minded pursuit to make his daughter proud and serve his country. However, that isn't to say that they don't do justice for the story of the Apollo missions, they do, they just don't glamorize the missions and portray them as something they weren't. Chazelle shows us what the missions were surely like, overwhelming, heart-pounding, and harrowing. He uses sound design and gritty visuals in combination excellently to portray how easily the moon landing could have failed. The way he brings it to the screen is unbelievably visceral and completely thrilling, giving the audience a very unique experience compared to most other movies about space travel. In general, all of the technical aspects of this movie were terrific, especially the sound mixing/edit and cinematograpy. The moon landing sequence and following shots on the moon are absolutely gripping, and in IMAX, blew my mind. However First Man isn't just a well written, well directed, and technically stunning film, it's also expertly acted. Ryan Gosling and Claire Foy both give it their all and add immense depth to each of their characters. Given that it could be a tight year at the Academy Awards, I hope that there's room for both Gosling and Foy in the best actor and best support actress categories, because they are certainly worthy of nomination. Over all, I strongly recommend seeing First Man on the biggest screen you can, it's an experience you won't forget!

First off let me say, Bat Times at the El Royale is most certainly not for everyone. The way the story unfolds and how information is withheld/presented is quite complex. Although this may make it a bit too convoluted for some, it makes it an absolute treat for anyone willing to dig beneath the surface and get analytical. Not unlike Cabin in the Woods (Drew Goddard's directorial debut), Bad Times plays with your expectations. Goddard takes painstaking care to build tension throughout a scene, only to have it all upended by a sudden twist. For that reason, I anticipate the reaction to this film will be divided, as many moviegoers simply don't like surprises or being unsure of what will happen. However, if you are a fan of Goddard's previous work, it's a safe bet that you'll like this one. I also need to talk about the cast, as they deliver an absolute treasure of an ensemble performance. Each person plays their part incredibly well, but Cynthia Erivo and Chris Hemsworth are the definite stand outs. Hemsworth especially shines, showing us that he can do more than play a quippy Norse god. This movie has so much to unpack both visually and in terms of foreshadowing that I cannot wait to see it again. If you're looking for a smart, stylish, and generally thrilling way to spend a few hours, look no further than Bad Times at the El Royale.

After seeing A Star Is Born, one thing is for certain, the names "Lady Gaga" and "Bradley Cooper" will be mentioned a few times at the 2019 Academy Awards. Although it's still early in the awards season, it seems quite likely that Cooper will snag a nomination for best director and best actor, both of which are well deserved. Whereas Lady Gaga is almost guaranteed to win for best original song and is a front runner for best actress. Those three categories, acting, directing, and original song, are where this movie really shines. The chemistry between Gaga and Cooper is undeniable and they both clearly pulled out all the stops, as every word they say and emotion they convey seems genuine. The directing however is what truly stood out to me, and considering this is Cooper's directorial debut it's all the more impressive. In particular, the concert scenes blew me away with how authentic and visceral they felt. As for the songs of the film, I would be absolutely shocked if one of them doesn't win an Oscar. They are not only moving and beautiful to listen to, but actually add layers to the storytelling and enhance Gaga and Cooper's performances. From what I've read, Gaga wrote and produced most of the songs, in addition to performing many of them in the film. All of these elements blend together masterfully to create an experience that is somehow both heartbreaking and feel-good, making it a true crowd-pleaser. However, the one place that I felt this film lacked was in the writing. Since this is a retelling of a classic tale, I wasn't expecting anything surprising in terms of the story beats, but I was a bit disappointed in some of the dialogue and especially the pacing. The first half of the movie takes place over the span of a few days, which does wonders for the character work of Cooper and Gaga, but then forces the rest of the story to be crammed into its second half. Although this is by no means a deal breaker for the movie, its pacing is noticeably off. Additionally, some of the dialogue seemed a bit clunky to me. Whether it was forcing in exposition, or just resorting to somewhat sappy lines, a lot of what I heard just hit the ear wrong. Despite those few gripes, I quite enjoyed this movie and will most certainly be listening to the soundtrack over the next few months. If you can, absolutely go see A Star Is Born!

I saw a screening of this movie at the New Orleans Horror Film Festival. I bring this up because I think the audience response is very relevant to this review. The narrative of this film is so incomprehensible that it legitimately seems like four college students were forced to combine their individual screenplays into a single film. There is an unbeleivable amount of set up for subplots that have absolutely no pay off. The main conflict isn't ever really established until the "climax". And the characters undergo no growth whatsoever. Not only is the narrative incoherent, but the tone is incredibly incosistent. Many parts of this movie play as if they were in a comedic satire of the horror genre, and other scenes are played as if we are meant to be take them seriously. These changes in tone literally happen within scenes and indicate a lack of vision on behalf the director and editor. What utimately drags this film down is the fact that by the halfway point, you still can't tell if what is happening is meant as an intentional spoof of the genre of psychological horror, or as a legitimate entry into it. Around the half way point of this film, after some truly teeth-gritting readings of dialogue, I decided that this movie was not meant to be taken seriously. It was clear that if the director intended to make a serious film, they would have used different takes. But this revelation only lead me to ask what the point was? If they intended to make a satire of the psychological thriller/horror genre, why was that not made clear earlier on? Why was this satire randomly inserted into scenes and non-existant elsewhere? Based on the audience reaction after the conlusion of the film, I think it's safe to say I'm not alone in my criticism. As the theater emptied you could hear people asking each other what the hell they had just watched. Because of the inconsistencies prevalent in the tone, it seemed like no one was in support of it as horror film or as a horror satire. Although I am an arduant supporter of independent film, I cannot recommend you see this film should it become available to the public.

I just got out of seeing Searching, a "screen life" movie written and directed by Aneesh Chaganty, and I can't overstate how much I enjoyed it. Why I liked this movie can be summed up quite succinctly with four simple words: compelling story, engaging presentation. Allow me to elaborate.This movie has an incredibly well written story. It starts with a heartfelt sequence of home movies that endears you to all of our main characters in minutes, quite similar to the beginning of Up (2009). It then unfolds a mystery, layer by layer, until you are quite literally on the edge of your seat, in anticipation for the final reveal. At no point along the way does it ever really slow down or get dull. Everything that happens is meaningful and contributes to either the narrative or the tone. A big part of the story working so well has to do with the excellent performance from John Cho. The entire premise of the story hinges upon his performance as he is the emotional core of it all. Without him, this movie might not be nearly as good. In addition to having a tight, well-written screenplay, Searching also is presented in an incredibly fascinating way. Chaganty uses the restrictions of "screen life" to his favor by creating inventive and new ways to present information. In doing so, he truly draws the viewer into the perspective of John Cho's character as everything is essentially shown from his point of view. This heightens both the tension as we learn things at the same time he does, as well as makes his character that much more empathetic. 2018 has had a pretty stellar summer in terms of the quality of movies that we've seen, and Searching thankfully doesn't break the trend. It wouldn't surprise me if this becomes the sleeper hit of the summer. It's quite good. Do yourself a favor and go see it!