Reviews

As a fan of Bo Burnham since he was posting rap songs on YouTube, I am proud to say he made a pretty solid directorial debut with Eighth Grade. Firstly, as anticipated, this movie is hilarious as hell, and the comedy written in is quite smart as well. And even though the comedy is sharp and witty and IMDb classifies this film as a comedy, I don't think Bo's intentions were to make the audience guffaw. To me, it felt more like a drama with comedic elements thrown in, and I really like that decision. It gave the appearance that he had a message to get across to any struggling eighth grader out there, or even any sort of adult because the theme is quite universal (and kind of trite in the way he portrayed it, but I'll discuss that later), that hope always lays on the horizon, and I'm glad that he was passionate enough about this message that he didn't want to smother it in comedy, even though he could have done so quite easily. While I'm praising the writing, I ought to applaud Bo on the fact that he has a really good eye for watching and scribing how people interact, and teens of this age are so complex to write, especially of this age, it's honestly a miracle he was able to portray them this accurately and consistently for the entire movie. Like I worked at a Boy Scout summer camp for the entirety of this summer and by being around kids this age for like two months, I can say he really hit the nail on the head with how they act - the memes, the social media, the cliques, all of it. I wouldn't be surprised if this movie is seen as a sort of time capsule of this era for future generations, similar to what Dazed and Confused is today. But regardless of all the trends that will inevitably pass, the relatability of blossoming human emotions at this age, and coping with who you want to be in life is explored beautifully and will definitely stand the test of time. I definitely felt for Elsie Fisher, who plays Kayla Day, the eponymous eighth grader of the film, and does an amazing job for such a young actress, as she stood in the bathroom working up the courage to enter a party of strangers who thought she was weird. Or as she called to have her dad pick her up early. Or as she explored crushes, and her boundaries in an incredibly frightening scene towards the end of the movie. (I'd like to address this scene as I felt it was incredibly well done and made me feel super anxious as I'm sure Kayla felt in the moment. But the downside is that its inclusion confused me a little bit? I'm sure it happens in life, but if you take the scene completely out of the movie, it doesn't affect anything, which it definitely would have in real life. This is the one major pit fall in the writing.) Generally just the sense of trying to fit in. And while the film was enjoyable while it explored this theme, it did it in a very lowest common denominator way which was quite disappointing. I found that even though this movie was only an hour and a half long, it started really dragging at some point because there were so many scenes I had seen a million times and the end was so predictable. And compounding on that, the shot composition of the film was quite bland too and that likely contributed as well because the visual department was lacking. Swiss Army Man from 2016 explored many of the same themes of self-discovery in a much more interesting way and it ended up becoming one of my favorites from that year. It's a fine line that needs walked when handling a message that's been used since Shakespeare ("Above all, to thine own self, be true."). And that's a little disappointing coming from Bo Burnham because I know what he's capable of and I feel like he could have done so much more with this movie. But maybe I'm expecting too much out of his debut because it really isn't that bad. I hope he learns a lot from this movie and perfects his craft in the time in between his next movie. Watching him evolve and accomplish so much at such a young age is incredibly inspiring and I can't wait to see what Bo does next!

I think devout Christians don't inherently hate atheists, or even if they were touched by the Lord's word, they would never hate a fellow brother, but content like this must at least make them shake their heads and search for points where that atheist "took the wrong path in life." This movie was an embarrassment. It's an ostentatious crazy man, dressed only in robes and sporting sporadic hair and long, chipped fingernails, yelling slurs at people on the street as they quickly shuffle by him with groceries clutched closely to their chests so that he may not grab an apple out of their bag, take a bite, and then proceed to harass them, spittle and apple juice flying onto their face as they weep for their dignity. That man is Seth Rogan, and the victim is me. In short, this movie made me feel sad, depressed, lonely. And very uncomfortable I might add. The animation felt off in a really gross way. In a way, the animation reminded me of those like animated pornography videos where it takes the Family Guy characters and they have sex. Like it was that cheap, creepy, and unnatural, and a few parts here and there made my skin crawl due to how uncanny they looked. But the worst part, regarding animation, was just the character designs; not only is the theme presented to you like you're a dumbass, the jokes are presented to you that way too. Wow, that bun was oddly anthropomorphic; was it supposed to make me horny? Its limbs really creeped me out, like they come out of nowhere and they sort of just like disappear into the bun's ass, but they don't really mold at all? I guess all of the limbs in this movie were kinda weird and gross. Weird and gross things also reminded me of all of the racist stereotyping in this movie? Like wow the Jewish bagel has a big nose and it doesn't get along with the Arab lavash. Idk it just felt really distasteful, especially in a day and age where everyone gets called out on their BS. Generally however, I think it's good to poke fun in this way because it reminds us that nothing really is sacrosanct and everything is on the playing field as far as comedy goes, but this edgy humor offended me more because it was bad more than any of the wide variety of controversial topics it brushed (religion, abstinence, race, Stephen Hawking? (RIP)). I will admit however, a few got through my cracks, for I am not impervious!, and they gave me a chuckle, and if it can at least intentionally entertain me a little bit, it's not a perfectly awful movie. Anyhow, the most offensive piece of this whole movie was the atheist "WAKE UP SHEEPLE" point of view. Hey Catholic over there! You're blinded by God's semen in your eyes! One, this sort of statement is incredibly preachy and just generally offensive, and it would just push the wool further over the eyes of that individual. (To be transparent, I think I would identify as an atheist, depends on what side of the bed I wake up on). And they address how atheists shouldn't be as preachy as religious people and then they aren't and it just solves the problem? Providing a rational dogmatic argument in a debate on religion, WHERE YOU CAN'T BE DOGMATIC, against a holistically brainwashed opposing community is not going to sway anyone whatsoever. No one will give a damn. But of course, this movie just has to follow a beat by beat generic movie structure where all the sad parts have to be resolved really quickly because this animation is super expensive and we can't afford to make an actual reasonable ending and the villain has to be defeated even though he wasn't really the main antagonist and was more of just a nuisance, but you know, whatever I guess. Another positive thing I have is that while it hits the sad part where the characters divide up (because they always have to!), it brought this about in a way that just makes sense. And even though it's a really clichéd move, it executes it very soundly. But back to the theme, I think the movie would have been much better if a character came onto screen and just read a very extensive (well, not too extensive because most of these ideas were pretty thin and were exhausted waaaaay before the 45 minute mark) monologue expressing the opinions of the writing crew rather than just writing a script where the characters are talking to each other, but they're always actually talking to you. Any line could have been taken out of context and just stated as a fourth-wall breaking statement to the audience and it would make sense/wouldn't feel out of place. Also, it felt they really wanted to get this message across so they dumbed it down like even below the common denominator. Below the common denominator in math doesn't even really make sense, but somehow this movie managed to do just so because it just that stupid. And I wanted to add that I really hated most of the transitions between the two main story arcs - a lot were really corny and they always came at awful times and interrupted whatever flow this movie had going for it. Idk I can't really sum this up other than just simply saying it's a mess, a stain on the movie industry, the eight deadly sin, and generally just an embarrassment to the entire human condition.

Yeah Idk, if this is one of the best of the past few years, the horror genre is most definitely in the toilet right now. Not that there's never any quality films being released, but the feces always seems to float to the top for some reason. Must be the average horror director's diet I guess; a combination of bad teenage actors, a poorly written script, a super weird concept, and just a sense of wasted time has never sat well in my stomach. Not that this film was garbage by any means, because it really isn't, but it just hit too many beats and missed too many marks for it to be a good movie. I'll start with the strongest characteristic of the film which was most definitely the camerawork. The way it spins around the environment at a fixed point is incredibly eerie and pretty smart too. Generally, there's at least a few extras in the setting who happen to be walking towards the camera (which is the main shtick here - Maika Monroe has been "infected" with this weird occurrence where an entity disguised as a random person follows her slowly until it finally catches up and kills her after she had sex with a man already "infected."), and I was always franticly searching for the one with blacked out eyes. The constant extended zooms and pans were very unnerving and gave an air of admonishment. This alone puts it above a bunch of horror movies in that it has a creative concept in how it's filmed, and it uses this concept professionally in order to obtain what it wants. I also want to praise the fact that this film did get my heart beating a few times without using a jumpscare (even though a few were used throughout, they really could have been removed). And lastly, while the concept was weird, it was pretty original and I think if it were executed better it would have been an intriguing movie. And that's about it for praise. So maybe the biggest downfall was that it was so boooooring. The blood-pumping scenes are so few and far between and the space in between is filled with blasé dialogue about "Hey whadda we do guys?" "Idk man! I'm scared!" "AAAAAAAAAAA." Or actually, scratch that, the biggest downfall was that this movie gave the sense that it thought it was way more important and way better than it actually was, similar to It Comes At Night from last year as well. This is just any other schlocky horror film except that it looks nice. Really! If you closed your eyes, would the dialogue and ambience be enough to carry it? I can at least appreciate a movie like Happy Death Day, also from last year, for having fun with the material even though the material is a cheap knock-off of Groundhog Day. At least it doesn't have a pretentious miasma masking it attempting to make me feel like I'm watching some horror masterpiece. If it's a masterpiece, it just will be - no need to try and convince me it is. A masterpiece certainly wouldn't have CGI that just looked this awful for some reason? A masterpiece wouldn't make the antagonist so GOOFy lookin the way it walks. A masterpiece would have a more climatic ending that didn't rehash an attempted solution that had already failed like three times already in the movie! Go watch The VVitch if you want a good modern horror film that takes itself seriously. Or rather, go watch Happy Death Day for a fun, shlock-embraced mess.

This is a great example of taking a simple concept and writing a fully fleshed out and just BANGIN story out of it. Everything just progresses so logically and tightly and cohesively it's just UGH. I just love how each piece was so thoughtfully crafted and selected and how events unfold and characters react. Zero loose strings whatsoever. Rich and powerful symbolism interspersed, but not too overpowering - the story always came first. The way it toys with expectations several times throughout the film on several different story elements. Really this movie should have won best original screenplay over The Shape of Water but oh well it's the Oscars what can you do? And not only all of that, it introduces some of the best and most loveable characters of 2017 - Mildred Hayes (Frances McDormand - who won best actress, which I thought should have been given to Sally Hawkins for The Shape of Water but whatever, at least both films won something in some sense), William Willoughby (Woody Harrelson), Jason Dixon (Sam Rockwell - who won best supporting actor), Red Welby (Caleb Landry Jones), and really the list goes on from here. And it walks perfectly the dark comedy line without ever straying down a road that's too sad or down a comedic part that doesn't forget the morbid overarching plot. The only other film that straddles this gap any better from this year is The Killing of a Sacred Deer - my favorite movie from 2017. The only real detractor from this movie I felt was the way that the characters interacted. It's funny how much inspiration this film takes from Flannery O'Connor - thematically and aesthetically. I love her short stories but I have always had a problem with the characters feeling that they were a little shallow or they knew what the next line someone would say before they said it, or perhaps the feeling they knew they were in a story. It's hard to explain, but her stories have a feel to them. I suppose I'm getting at the fact that this story is so deeply seated in reality, I think it's weird how characters talk like a Shakespearean play in that they aren't only talking to someone on stage, but projecting to the audience. This also contributes to the tone being a little wobbly throughout too. Either way, it's a minor nitpick and doesn't stop this movie from being one of my favorites of the year. Brilliant movie!

A worthy conclusion to the trilogy! In a sense this entry feels like the black sheep of the family. It takes places after the onset and the zenith of the adrenaline rush and throws us into the withdrawal of slithering paranoia. I found it fitting that the movie even started with a very frightening fever dream in which lead actress Lori Cardille envisions dozens of undead hands bust from a brick wall in her sanctuary and begin to grope at her. And the film doesn't slow down from there. The tension between the cast is almost palpable, and conflict almost immediately feels imminent at any point. And another recurring theme is how thoughtful the film is produced in comparison to its predecessors. As seen, for example, in Cambodian bombings during the Vietnam War that destroyed the established power structure, there's was scramble for power which allowed for the Khmer Rouge to take the top of the unstable dog pile. And as with almost all dictatorships, science and progression are halted in order to try and keep a death grip on the power. The script follows this process beat by beat with the military members of the crew, headed by the Pol Pot himself, Joseph Pilato. And there's this constant struggle between what should be done - take a civilized approach to dealing with the problem, or to deal with it through brute strength and domination. And while the other films have had their themes of racism and consumerism, this one takes a much more sober approach to the subject, with laughs becoming extremely scarce amidst all of the war room tension. And this change is the benefit and downfall to the film. On one hand, it's a refreshing take on the zombie apocalypse genre, which in the short time of the total four hours of footage previous in the series had already become a little stale. Not that they weren't entertaining (this film offers an amazing hand of brutal zombie and human deaths that cannot be denied - the special effects and make-up have only gotten better since the first one), but there's only so many ways a zombie can be violently gored. And I appreciate that the focus was placed more on the script and the way the characters interacted, and Romero most definitely realized this consequence and spent extra time manning it. But does it hold up? Kind of? It's not that it's poorly written - it really isn't at all, it's still extremely entertaining - it's more of the fact the fun and gore don't always mix with the sober commentary that the film wants to offer. I won't say it's water and oil, but it doesn't blend in a way Dawn did with its commentary. Regardless of that point, this film still had the most fulfilling conclusion of the trilogy and the ending the most final, which is hard to accomplish in this genre because there's never total resolution of the conflict (as noted in how the two predecessors never quite felt totally finished at the end). Hopefully my trilogy of reviews will feel as final.

Borne in the crack pipe dreams of transgender prostitutes is where this movie starts and finishes. And in between it bathes in its feces with the most superlative vanity. It etches obscene graffiti into donut shop tables and it shoots heroin in taxi cabs that reek of vomit. It masturbates in public. It flashes people in the park. It rivals even the reigning champ of filthiness, Pink Flamingos, but it takes the story telling element a step further in delivering an important message about the American Dream perceived by the lowest of the low - the outcasts of society. Even the people you're embarrassed to know want to climb that ladder, and I feel this movie voices those characters in an incredible way. Kitana Kiki Rodriguez as Sin-Dee wants a loyal husband and a normal life where she can support herself. Mya Taylor wants to become a recognized singer and performs a Christmas show every year. And Karren Karagulian moved to the US from Armenia to support his family and explore his sexuality. Each visionary gives an incredible performance, and each captures that feeling of that one crazy person you might see on the street somewhere. The chaotic energy of this movie is definitely heightened by the frantic camerawork, or rather phonework I guess because it's well known by now that this was filmed entirely on just three iPhone 5s's (which definitely add to the grimy and modern feel. It's probably the best choice Baker could have made to present this film. It feels like some random fight scene put up on Worldstar, filmed by an audience of phones with cracked screens; it's just how things are in this age and it was a brilliant move) which attempts to keep up with the drives of the characters, especially Rodriguez. I will say that a lot of the movie around and the jumping from polar opposites in tone and just scenarios gave me some mild nausea, and it gave an air of being unfocused. The powerhouse starts strong and also finishes strong, but it did lose some steam in the center making the film feel a little longer than it really was. Cutting out some fat and perhaps following some scenes out completely before switching to something new could make this movie I love. When Baker lets scenes like the showdown at Donut Time just breathe and play them to their extent, giving them the perfect Lubitsch Touch, it really is some kind of dark magic.

This is a movie that I wish I could live in. And Mr. Guadagnino does a fantastic job at vicariously placing you within the film already through how sensual and real life it feels. That's the most incredible piece of this movie - being able to feel the sun warm the backs of your arms, the sweat developing between your back and the weirdly uncomfortable lawn chair, the smell of an old paperback lying open on the arm, and the sweet nectar of an apricot squirting into and out of your mouth. It's an environment that feels almost palpable, and rarely do settings feel this much as if they are a character. And the organic nature happens to carry through in the camerawork, oftentimes being voyeuristic as you peer into these lives, and the character interactions and decisions. People feel real, although the dialogue may lack a little bit, and really, the impeccable acting by Timothée Chalamet and Armie Hammer and the rest of the cast more than outweigh that gripe. And the use of symbolism throughout this film felt wholly unique (at least to me - I haven't seen some used in this way ever). The aesthetic qualities of this movie are no doubt astounding and are what truly make this film special, but there were a few pieces to the story that held it back from being something that I completely loved. Probably most notably the fact that the story is a little generic. It won't really spoil the story, but you can already picture how the film will run if I say that it's a gay/lesbian film. Doubt, "clandestine" sexual meetings, spilling the beans, I mean it's all here. Beach Rats was another film from 2017 I saw and I loved how it took a refreshing take to a somewhat monotonous genre. Every sort of experience with coming out and becoming who you want to be is different, so I can't help but question why so many films end up having the same framework as Blue is the Warmest Color. Secondly, I felt the transition from the first half to the second was a little jarring and out of left field. They had hints at something bubbling, and maybe some were too subtle for me to catch, and I knew it was coming eventually, but it really took me by surprise because I wasn't expecting it at the time it came. And my last gripe is with the father's monologue at the end where he's telling Chalamet's character about acceptance and whatnot, but my oh my, it honestly would have felt more natural if the father broke the fourth wall and just started talking directly to the audience. It became waaaay too obvious very quickly that the message was meant for everyone in the audience to hear, not just his character. Disguising this better or thinking of a better way to implement the ideas, because they weren't necessarily things I disagreed with, could have given this film a very uplifting ending. So while the structure of this film is not perfect, I think it almost makes up for it enough in the environment department to make this a film I completely love. Regardless, it is still one of the best movies of the year.

Unfortunately, this film happened to be the biggest disappointment of 2017 for me so far. And I had super high hopes for it too. The trailer was incredibly intriguing and I had recently watched the other Daniel Day-Lewis and Paul Thomas Anderson collaboration, There Will Be Blood, in order to prepare for this film and I was astounded by it. The masterful craft made it feel as though it were a well-oiled machine with zero expendable pieces that paced slowly forward in a formidable fashion, destroying all life before it. But in the decade in between these two films, the machine has begun to rust, gears have started slipping, and its efficacy has greatly depreciated. I think where it faltered was that where Blood felt as if it were a slow motion journey towards the ever more looming Mt. Doom, Thread was a meandering tale towards nothing more interesting than having the final destination as the supermarket. It's not all bad, but I think most of the good comes with an equally negative trade-off. It feels like a skilled director is behind the camera and a lot of the shots are intricate although not that memorable. The characters feel real, but come across as incredibly annoying. Day-Lewis's character honestly gave me a headache, and perhaps an obnoxious character was intended, but it still gave me a headache and I began wondering why anyone involved themselves with him anyways, especially Vicky Krieps' character, Alma, his lover. He was not charming, he was not that enigmatic, he was rude, and most of all, he was just kind of a dick. So I couldn't understand the strife she put herself through, and the big "reveal" felt really quite pointless and confusing and muddled to me. Alma was the only character I really cared for, and I think if the entire cast fell into a volcano, it would dampen my heart a little, not too much, that I had to watch her flesh boil and mingle with the burnt flesh of the other cast members. I also found it irritating how hard they drilled the OCD-storyline portion into the story. Like I understand mental illness is something that affects all of your decisions, but this film drew on this concept so often that the well was dry before a third of the film was over (maybe it was a quarter, it's hard to tell, this movie really dragged hard). There are jokes - not all that funny, felt to me like small talk humor - made about it, the plot is about it, his dresses are affected by it, his relationships are affected by it, in a way the perfectly plotted shots reflect perhaps PTA's OCD. And for the OCD of a "genius," I didn't find his craftsmanship that compelling as a dressmaker. I really wanted to love this movie, but it's wont for litanous dialogue and uninteresting situations really put me out of it.

Clint... Clint, Clint, Clint, Clint... Mr. Eastwood, what was this? I understand the concept of this film was interesting, but did you read the script before stamping your name on the project? I mean that's honestly what it feels like. And I wasn't expecting these heroes to be good actors necessarily, but handing them this sack of garbage to commemorate the defining moment of their lives? Like you're kicking them while they're down man, it's really not cool. Spencer Stone, Alek Skarlatos, Anthony Sadler, I sincerely thank you for your actions on that fateful day. Potentially sacrificing your lives in order to save a trainful of people is incredibly heroic and seemingly movie-worthy. It reminds me of the old morality question as to whether you would push someone in front of a train in order to save ten people. Truly, each of you might have jumped in front of the train yourselves and saved those folks and the world could use more selfless people like that. Unfortunately it was not the script writer jumping or Clint jumping in front of that train to not save innocent civilians, but to save your legacies. Unfortunately it will be remembered as a lazy, God-fearing Christian, right wing propaganda film that meanders way too much and feels ultimately pointless. Honestly, all that the majority of this film was good for was a good laugh. Hilariously awkward nonsensical small talk scenes with strangers, random non-sequiturs, trite themes, and more combine into an incredibly sloppy movie that I feel most people involved wanted nothing to do with - and there are some well-known names that cameo here! And the fact that the pro-war Spencer has a Full Metal Jacket poster, one of the most strictly anti-war films ever made, just adds to the fact that no one cared. And the fact that this movie is partially labeled as a thriller is pretty funny too because a lot of the scenes as the trio "backpack" through Europe are pretty relaxing. And speaking of Europe, was any of that footage really necessary? It felt more like a dad with a camcorder filming his family on a vacation rather than an actual professionally made movie that would premier in theaters across the country. It felt as if Clint took them to Rome and told them to just wander around and improvise because the people in the background were most definitely not extras, they were quite obviously tourists the way they looked at the camera. And if you really think about it, why was any of the Europe trip added anyways because it did not affect the end result whatsoever. Meeting a girl from LA and having lunch where they get Italian pizza and then gelato was not a keystone to this story! I couldn't care less if they met someone if it doesn't affect the story at all! Oh wait, I know why, you just needed enough filler to slap together 90 minutes of film, pretty much the shortest time required for a theatrical release. The only interesting technique was at the very end where the spliced the actual awards ceremony with the film crew, all the outfits were matched to a T and that whole scene was on point. Idk, anyways, I feel a good movie could have come out of this concept, but all this concept delivered was the second-hand embarrassment of this shotty attempt at memorializing three incredible young men. A pratfall on everyone's part.

How would I start this review? Where does Jim Carrey start and where does Jim Carrey end? Before watching this film, I had known and was a mild fan of Andy Kaufman and I could really appreciate his proto-absurdist comedy style that would inspire countless comedians of today who would continue to push the boundaries, but Tim & Eric, John C. Reilly as Dr. Steve Brule, Alan Resnick, and just in general the Adult Swim oddballs who came on in the early hours of the morning appealed and captured my interest more. Also before watching this film, I was a huge fan of Jim Carrey for his comedic movies and his more introspective movies, but I had not seen, or had even heard of Man on the Moon. Afterwards, as a good documentary should do, it really changed my perspective on the pair and exposed connections between both of them that had so obviously been lying just beneath the subconscious. Firstly, Andy Kaufman is a much bigger nut job than I had realized, and a quick browse through YouTube comments proves that his performances were still very much ahead of their time decades after the fact as still many people are perplexed. Secondly, I feel a much greater sympathy for Kaufman, particularly in the fact of getting "caught up in his character" as Carrey describes in one of his astounding meditative ramblings. Postmodern philosophical thought of the time believed that no one was actually living their truest self and the roles we played were similar to roles that actors play as society pushes on us "correct" modes of living. I got to thinking that Kaufman portrayed this absurdist belief to an extreme in his character and through that mode, lived how he wanted to, and that strikes upon the big theme of the movie: being yourself. Clichéd, yes, but told in a unique and thought-provoking way. Thirdly, I think Jim Carrey perfectly encapsulated Kaufman's spirit in the shooting for this movie and I have grown to appreciate him even more because of it, and the family and people who knew Kaufman personally seemed to agree. It's a good thing Carrey is not an identity thief because I'd call him the Elmyr de Hory of acting. God, the shot by shot comparisons were uncanny in how similar they were. I loved the thoughts, ideas, and people behind this movie, but I feel the execution was very bland, and quite frankly boring at points, for one of the most eccentric men in the industry. The movie is essentially Carrey rambling on for an hour and a half, and while there are some incredibly touching or thoughtful moments, it feels perhaps a little too windy and by the books. I mentioned Elmyr de Hory earlier because this movie reminded me of F for Fake, Orson Welles' final film, a documentary on the life of the most famous art forager in history. Elmyr seems to me to almost be one in the same with Kaufman's enigmatic character and absurdist tendencies and Welles creates an experimental and enthralling documentary to reflect his life. It includes interviews and musings from Elmyr himself, but Welles takes the themes of the movie and the way he tells them, and the extra scenes and stories he adds in, not only parallel what Elmyr speaks about, but also characterizes his eccentric and wacky lifestyle with eccentric and wacky editing and unconventional storytelling. Chris Smith took this film a little too cut and dry and when recalling a classic like Kaufman, there's no reason to play it safe when you can take a unique approach to the storyboard as well. It's a great story of a legend, retold by a new legend, and the spirit of Kaufman was in Carrey, but it was not in the actual film.

There is a fine line between what makes a good movie and what makes a great movie. Was it the vocally mute 20-minute intro sequence (a la 2001: A Space Odyssey) which ended up being just as enthralling and encapsulating as the last climatic 20 minutes? Was it the stunning performances by Daniel Day-Lewis and Paul Dano? Was it the perfectionist-level detail that put the plaque on their teeth and the grime underneath their fingernails? Was it the soul-crushing script on the corruption of wealth, the fool's errand which is salvation, and the abuse of the poor? Who can tell but God (if he's not a superstition), but somewhere amidst the 2.5 hour runtime, There Will Be Blood succeeds at becoming a sure contender at several best-of lists. I suppose a good way to find a more definitive answer would be to imagine if this script were handed to any lesser director and cast and see how their product would compare to P.T. Anderson's masterpiece here. Oh, the religious symbolism is too strong, that child performance wasn't quite convincing enough, this is just old-time Breaking Bad. But in the correct hands, the oil wells stand tall, domineering, and admonishing like crosses, Dillon Freasier's performance was on par with the adults, and having seen this movie now, I think Breaking Bad is just a modern There Will Be Blood. All the gears were well oiled and cranking together and it just so happened to come together so perfectly. The cinematography lent itself to some beautiful shots, symbolic framing, and a personification of the environment almost as if it were a character too. The powerfully and torquey filmmaking kept this film chugging on tracks faster and faster and it stayed interesting over the ballsy length. It found refreshing ways for people to be despicable to one another, which is always nice, and the take on the classic King Midas touch folktale was interesting as well. And it seems to be as relevant today too more than a decade after its release with conglomerate corporations and megachurches running amok. I don't know how to leave it; I can't find any critiques, no matter how minor. This is certainly a film to go down in history and I think its flawless character certainly justifies that. What more is there to say?

This was the first movie I saw in theaters in the New Year, and if it's a sign to come for 2018, I am deeply afraid. It's a cash-grab disasterpiece, and I feel it's quite a fine example to show how lazy corporate executives will get with popular franchise movies that are bonafide money-makers. They know the waters well. The fish bite without even checking the bait now! Why even bother putting something on the hook anymore? (I'm looking at you too, Star Wars). The best way to describe this movie is that it is half-assed in some of the worst ways possible. Lazy attempts at jokes in between sleepy dialogue. Most of the jokes were funnier in the sense of how pathetic and cringe-worthy they were than the actual set-up and punch line. I found myself as a turtle during this movie, slowing shrinking my head into my jacket-shell with each "Fat Amy is fat. I like eat" joke. And for how surprisingly random the plot seemed, somehow it managed to keep itself incredibly predictable and incredibly trite. And along with the random plot came randomized tone as well, just like way out left hook type biffs of sentimentality in a movie full of corporate greed, spliced with comedic bits that fall right on their face, and a James Bond-type sequence at the end (what?), this movie demonstrated the emotional and tonal maturity of a bad sitcom episode. And it became quickly obvious to the actresses involved that this movie was nowhere near the quality of the original because almost every performance here is phoned in. They were only there for the check, and DJ Khaled seemed likewise, leaving his natural energy and persona at home during his set days. And some characters seemed like they wouldn't damage their reputation being in such a movie and their characters "got pregnant and couldn't tour" or "they broke up" and I hold some respect for them. And aside from the laziness of this film, the crowd-pleasing and innocuous tone was extremely annoying as well. Let's add the military because you need to support your country and everyone knows that it's illegal to hate a patriotic movie! And let's go to all these foreign countries and give them shout-outs so our overseas box office sales are healthier. And let's throw in some really lazy female empowerment agenda because that's important now. And even though it includes all these shout-outs, I still can't imagine the person who would go out and enjoy sitting through this movie. The only redeeming quality I will give it are the song and dance sequences. Luckily the choreography and compositions were not lacking and were easily the most entertaining parts of this entire film. Idk, I'm getting even angrier at this film just writing all this out, so I'll leave with just two questions: was this movie really needed? And why did I spend ten dollars to see it?

Eliza Hittman's second feature film gives us a beautiful and poetic slice of life in the mundanity of the outer edges of Brooklyn as well as Coney Island where we find the struggling closeted (maybe) 20-something year old Frankie (Harris Dickinson). While this minimal plot could have easily become boring, I found the way in which this plot was told was exciting and extremely profound. Similar to Lynne Ramsay's We Need to Talk about Kevin, this story is told in between the words. And perhaps Hittman wrote the dialogue in a bland manner, almost as if you were talking to a person for the first time except to everyone in your life (but make no mistake, sometimes it comes out quite intricately even in its bluntness) in order to draw our attention more towards the visuals which is where this movie most strongly focuses. She gives us a shot of an action and then a shot of the fallout and the reactions. There are several close-ups on Dickinson where he might be covering his face from embarrassment or listless or concerned, and it becomes quite obvious that any lesser actor could have easily floundered this role. Dickinson gave a master class performance here. Hittman makes it easy for us to smell the salty sea air, or taste a marijuana cigarette on our lips, or physically feel Frankie's sexual partner, and these sensory details are really what makes this movie a delight and why I would describe it as poetic. Just like Kevin, we get snippets and the audience must sew together the story themselves. To toss out a few more references, this movie explored similarly the gay identity and the conforming nature of society in the manner of Moonlight from last year. Frankie finds himself in a liminal period here he internally struggles whether he should live a normal heterosexual life with his "girlfriend," Simone (Madeline Weinstein), and his three other distanced jock friends who like to smoke weed, party, and play handball (these three characters were a little underwritten), or he should continue in his clandestine hook-ups with random older gay men on a chat website. He finds himself living a double life where he can either live how society and his peers want him to or he can follow his true feelings even though it might get him shunned, and I found this characterized in several reflecting mirror shots. This confusion gives his character a strong sense of ennui towards his entire existence and it seems like he's just trying to kill time until the next time he can get high and escape that mindset for a while. (The drug scenes here also reminded me strongly of the drug scenes in Spring Breakers (2012) and they seem to represent the same ephemerality of the high and then the bland comedown with similar color palettes as well). Overall, I could see how someone might find this film boring, or run of the mill, and I might slightly agree with the questionable actions of the characters at the end, but I truly think that an attentive viewer will find a uniquely and beautifully told story.

This was the first film by del Toro that I have seen, and I believe that he has made a very good impression on me. He has crafted here a tale of magical realism, with a wondrous amphibian-like creature (Doug Jones) who falls in love with a mute human girl, Elisa (Sally Hawkins). In many ways, it really feels kind of like a fairy tale, with a narrator (who is introduced at the beginning and disappears and comes back at the end - it felt kind of slapped on however), a mystical and godly creature and its lover, and the evil antagonist, Dick Strickland (Michael Shannon), rife with selfishness and hatred. Each of the characters are intricately written and detailed, and are each characterized in a unique and interesting way, very unlike most anything I have ever seen, but done so well and obviously it makes me wonder why it hasn't been done that way before. And to fill these characters are actors that give some of the best performances of the year, especially Hawkins and Shannon. Hawkins doesn't speak a single word throughout this film and conveys every bit of dialogue she needs through her face alone, aided by her signing which was so fluid it seemed like she learned American Sign Language in its entirety in order to play this part. Shannon does so well playing the villain that I would have been satisfied if it ended with him winning. These are some characters that you can really get behind and root for, no matter what side they're on. The creature was beautiful. I couldn't tell if it was done practically or with CGI and I think that attests to how well it was produced. And to sum it up, the dialogue and story were held with care and each felt finely crafted. Oh, and I want to praise the film for being ballsy as well, there was a full nudity masturbation scene in the first five minutes that totally caught me by surprise. But, I don't feel that everything about this story was so finely told - mainly the attempt to humanize the creature. He eats eggs like us, he listens to music like us, and he has sex like us? What? They don't exactly bridge this conclusion all that well and it's never really explained why Elisa is attracted to the creature in the first place, aside from the fact she might relate to it emotionally. This kind of makes the love aspect of the story feel a little shotty. I could understand wanting to protect and care for this beast, but Frenching it? Idk del Toro. It felt like some sort of furry/bestiality porn to me, and everything up to this point was some really elaborate foreplay. Maybe it wasn't that intense, but I still got that feeling at points. Also, the pacing felt kind of weird between the climax halfway through the film and the climax at the end. Everything slows down super quickly and it feels like it's The Shape of Molasses. But the ending I will admit does kind of make up for that. It's safe to say that this is one of the best of the year and I am sure that it'll be nominated for some Oscars in at least some regard.

This sequel in the Living Dead trio improved upon the original in almost every way. Romero directed this film a full decade after the first and the advancements in technology, technical effects, and a bigger budget take the zombie uprising premise and put a new and fascinating story to it, and explore new territory literally and figuratively. Dawn presents the idea better that this phenomenon was world-wide. While it is still mostly filmed in the shopping mall, similar to how the first's setting was solely filmed in an abandoned house, we get a picture of how serious the massacre is through aerial helicopter shots. We get continued racial undertones taken from Night, but these are extrapolated, and a new consumeristic theme is added into the mix. Romero makes the statement blunt, but he says it well: people buy, buy, buy mindlessly like zombies. He almost mocks the American public with how humorful he has all the zombies walking around and slipping on ice rinks and falling in ponds. This comedy was not present in the original, but it certainly was a welcome touch, and there was not a single time a joke or gag did not flop. This movie had me laughing out loud several times. Another improvement was in the special effects department. There is no shortage of gore and cheesy gross-out scenes (my favorite being a crowd of zombies pulling intestines out of a man). I can tell that they are fake, and perhaps if this movie took itself more seriously it would be a detriment, but I feel the over-the-top fake blood actually adds to the movie. The group of four - Stephen/Fly Boy (David Emge), Peter (Ken Foree), Roger (Scott H. Reiniger), and Francine (Gaylen Ross) - play their well-crafted characters fantastically, especially Ken Foree. There was a strong influence from Duane Jone's performance in the original coming through in his part. I thought the symbolism, which was lacking in the original, was a nice touch. And lastly, the steps the four took were smart and logical and had me guessing what would happen next. I really appreciate how Romero added a sort of meditative part halfway through. The characters have built a room and are experiencing restlessness and ennui as to what they could do next, wondering if they could be doing more to help others. Even though they were thrown into this situation, they are still products of their environment and resort to normal life no matter how drab it is, waiting for the excitement of a new purchase, a new hit. The only part that bugged me a little was that there were a few too many shots of zombies just walking around. They were funny, but they began feeling like a litany. But aside from that, it's a brilliant film, and I can't wait to get my hands on Day of the Dead.

It seems to be generally agreed that this is Wes Anderson's staple film, or perhaps his mission statement as far as movies he wanted to create: idiosyncratic, campy tales about complex relationships being told in often witty and blunt dialogue. And no one can forget the Wes Anderson tells - symmetry, pastel or earthy color schemes, and Bill Murray. Even though the way this story is told would never happen in real life (it felt fitting that the "actual story" being told was through a book), it still feels incredibly human and almost believable in an odd way. Royal Tenenbaum (Gene Hackman) almost feels like the hero of a classic Greek tragedy, except the movie focuses more on gathering yourself the day, or in this case, the two decades after. Royal's ex-wife (Anjelica Huston), his two sons (Ben Stiller and Luke Wilson), his adopted daughter (Gwyneth Paltrow), and his children's friend from across the street (Owen Wilson) have all fallen on hard times (meltdowns, depression, drug use) decades after the family drifted apart. Royal attempts to reconnect with his family initially to keep his distanced wife from remarrying a tax advisor (Donny Glover), but throughout the film, he finds the best days of his life with his long-lost family. The group catches up with varying success and share in each other's mutual sadness. There are many beautiful and crushing scenes, heightened by the Wes Anderson style, and the story explores several different feelings and tones. I think the only real problem is that even though every character is written well and intricate in their own special way, and I believe each has an arc as well, there are so many people and histories to keep track of, it becomes a little bit of a nuisance. And the film struggles to juggle all these characters and all of this information in a balanced way; they each kind of have their moment and disappear for a while and then resurface briefly. And this makes the telling of the story a little choppy and confusing at points because you're always wondering who someone is or why they are acting the way they are until you remember through context clues. But if it weren't chosen to have this movie told through a book, I think it might have been much more noticeable. Of Anderson's films that I have seen, even though it is not my favorite by him, I'd say it's the best introduction to one of the best filmmakers in the industry right now.

Compared to most horror films these days, Night of the Living Dead is quite primeval. But that's not to say that it is bad - Primitive Technology on YouTube has shown me time and time again that early man was brilliant. And in a way it was refreshing to take a break from overdone gore and overacting. Well, overacting is still here. The plot is pretty simple by today's standards too. A couple of people, led by a Mr. Ben (Duane Jones) attempt to survive against a wave of zombies while trying hard not to attack each other first. And more than 90% of the movie takes place inside the same house which they barricade and raid for supplies. As far as the simple plot goes, I feel they do it justice, and it is supplemented by the interesting to watch power struggle between Ben and Mr. Cooper (Karl Hardman) and the racial undertones that the movie infers. But aside from the inherent fun this movie offers, about halfway through, the movie becomes a little repetitive. Even though new characters are introduced, the tone feels quite samey for the entire middle leg. It's not until the run where Tom (Keith Wayne), Judy (Judith Ridley), and Ben run out where things get moving again. Perhaps I am just accustomed to today's thrillers which keep up at a breakneck pace for the entire runtime, but it felt not too much was happening during that period. Overall, I think it a successful and worthy grandfather of modern horror.

I think there's a SpongeBob episode that is inspired by this movie. And it happens to be very good source material for a kid's show. This campy, b-rated horror film about a group of Nowhereville residents, led by two country-boy handymen, Valentine McKee (Kevin Bacon) and Earl Basset (Fred Ward), fighting off four mutant underground worm-monsters is a blast and is sure to put a smile on your face. While the premise sounds like a cheese-fest (and the script is full of cheesy lines and jokes which don't always land), this is a genuinely clever movie. Our townspeople always appear to be backed into the tightest corner of the room, but the ingenuity of these people who lack school smarts was making me question if I had the brains or the balls to figure out or attempt what they did to save their butts. It's not the typical horror movie where you can tell the next couple steps 30 minutes before they happen; the smart writing has always got you guessing at the edge of your seat as to what is going to occur next. While most characters don't really have some sort of arc, care was put in to give each individual their own style and personality and that was used to help further the story in a smart way as well. And while the storyline shines brightly, I feel that some of the dialogue falls flat on its face. Some of the jokes don't quite make it (that may be a result of some bad acting?), and sometimes I question whether someone would say what some of the characters said in given scenarios. But these groaners would be even more detrimental if the film took itself too seriously. Thankfully it doesn't, as noted by a lot of the unrealistic, but very fun special effects. Tremors would be a good movie to watch in a group of friends because everyone is sure to have a good time.

I think that there is a very clear message that Disney wanted to put through with this film; they want money. And if that means sacrificing the quality of arguably the biggest franchise in the world in order to add Porgs or crystal foxes and unnecessary, poorly timed sitcom-esque jokes to satiate the taste buds of a younger audience craving for the next action sequence to happen, that's what they're going to do, and it's proven in the second film of the new Star Wars trilogy. But, seeing how Disney is now going through the process of purchasing Twentieth Century Fox, and becoming one step closer to monopolizing the entertainment business, they also know that they need to spend some money to make money. And I think the money shines the strongest in how this film looks. All of the sets are beautiful and crafted to the minutest detail. Every inch of the environment on the screen has something interesting to look at, helping to add to the fact that Star Wars takes place in its own universe and that other things happen outside of the plot given to us. Going off of how things look, the special effects were brilliant as well. Every explosion, laser beam, and alien in the film looks real. This made all three of the climaxes incredible. Aesthetically, barring the almost ubiquitous product-placement feel of Porgs, this film was almost flawless. And Rian Johnson really makes the mystical environments shine with thoughtful camerawork and interesting visuals. To top it off for positive comments, the returning characters, Rey (Daisy Ridley), Finn (John Boyega), Kylo Ren (Adam Driver), Poe (Oscar Isaac), Luke (Mark Hamill), and Leia (Carrie Fisher (RIP)) all gave good performances and I enjoyed the new characters as well, especially Rose (Kelly Marie Tran). I can also appreciate that Disney is bringing tasteful diversity to this movie in all of the new characters. Perhaps I'm being cynical because I think it might be in order to drive more cattle, I mean people, to see it because they feel it's a "progressive movie" they need to support, but I will try and push that out of my head.

But, all this money did not happen to buy a succinct, appropriate, and organized script, structure the film sensibly, and remove all the unnecessary scenes. This is just some speculation, but I am guessing that the production of this film was a little rushed in order to hit that Christmas 2017 deadline and get that wave of extended families who make going to the movies an entire event. I speculate this because of the money point, but more the fact that this movie was more than just a little messy. The tone, thematic elements, and just the generally cool things that happen is way unbalanced, and the whole 2.5 hour film feels very back heavy, probably from the fact this movie has three climaxes, of which the first was the best and the other two felt tacked on, making me check my watch multiple times waiting for the real end and question why they were even included. I think the way the film was structured helped contribute to this detriment the most. The way storylines were ordered felt like it was a 2.5 hour long sitcom episode where we have the main characters on the cruiser and everyone splits up and we follow each pair individually on their side quests. But, as time progresses in one storyline, it does not progress in another, so we essentially watch like three things that should be happening at the same time happen in chronological order so it gives the feel that time is passing at normal speed, but it really isn't. It surprises me that all of the events of this movie happen in only a day or two because the pacing makes it feel like a week has passed. This gives the illusion that the movie is actually a lot longer than it really is, and that's always a problem. I grabbed my coat at the end of the first climax and was ready to leave, but I was really confused when it kept going. Why not just throw all that other stuff into the next movie? It tied up really nicely at that point. Anyways, all the storylines converge in the end in a cool way, but the thematic message from each individual story does not come together in a cohesive light and it leaves a bad taste in the mouth as you exit the theater (not to mention that the themes are trite already). I feel that if Disney had given the writers and director another year or two to really iron out the problems in the script, this would have been a worthy step in the series. But even with the sloppy plot, it's only half a misstep because it looks so gosh darn cool.