6u532b

I enjoy these retrospective music documentaries, as they are like bread and butter to me, but quite frankly for someone as fascinating and fabulous as Elton John, 1 hour and 42 minutes just does not cut it. Much like The Beach Boys documentary on Disney+, this really should have been a docies than feature length. I was still entertained by this movie, but I also can't act like this isn't just formulated as hell and very by-the-numbers, and there isn't much new information available in this documentary that you couldn't have gotten somewhere else, and possibly from somewhere more substantial. Hearing Elton talk about his career and personal life is always a delight, and seeing Elton behind-the-scenes leading up to his performance at Dodgers Stadium is neat to see him so relaxed, even if those parts are very clearly filler. I guess this isn't too bad for those getting into Elton John, but honestly I just wish there was something more substantially better. Also, very weird for this Disney+ exclusive film not mention the Lion King at all. I don't think it detracts from this but very weird for Disney to have restraint on their own schilling! Also also I quite like the collab album he did with Brandi Carlile, but the title song that was nominated for the Oscars this past awards season is one of the biggest piles of meh I have ever heard from him. Man what a weak Best Original Song lineup we had last season.

Watched on Tuesday June 10, 2025.

It's a very fascinating story about the history of Professor William Moulton Marston and the inspiration behind creating the legendary comic book character Wonder Woman, especially with how it is ties in his real life and the relationship between him, his wife, and their mistress (which may or may not have been exaggerated for the film), and I do think there are things going for the film, such as the comion and fascination with their relationship and the sensitivity of such a polyamorous relationship during a time where it was considered an extreme taboo. Not to mention how willing the movie is depicting such an erotic relationship. Plus the central performances from Luke Evans, Bella Heathcote, and especially Rebecca Hall do hold the movie together. Yet the thing that holds it back for me is how trapped it is in the period biopic genre, as this movie takes an interesting story but flattens it in the type of melodramatic, stale, and tepid formula for period biopics. From the visuals that while they do look nice, do feel very uninspired, to the classical piano score that feels dime a dozen, and the script, which is the movie's biggest issue, that feels like it is checking off boxes of these kind of stories, from the uninspired narrative tying into the main character being interviewed while the film flashes back to the past, really obvious moments of significance and parallels for what is to come that feels eye rolling, and especially the dialogue that feels on-the-nose, cliched, and obvious. I guess throwing in a threesome and BDSM does shake up the usual stale biopics that the Oscars love, but not enough to make it anything more than just middle of the road. I am glad lesbians are getting their boring prestige pictures!

I wasn't familiar with who Arthur Russell was. He only recently caught my eye when one of his live albums was reissued which got a glowing review from Pitchfork, and doing some research and seeing how many artists that I like were influenced by his music, such as LCD Soundsystem, Blood Orange, James Blake, and the Lemon Twigs, which then got me curious to check this documentary out. I will say, I did like what I heard from Russell as a musician, as his unique approach to music in an eclectic range of genres, from folk to ambient to minimalist classical to disco. Watching this documentary made me eager to check out more of his work! As for the documentary itself, it is rather standard documentary filmmaking, telling a linear story of Russell's brief life, and the many rather fascinating connections he had in the arts world, from the Talking Heads to Philip Glass to Allen Ginsburgh. Yet at the same time I felt strangely distant from the subject matter, and never felt like I had that personal connection in spite of how the film tries to be an intimate portrait of the subject. Maybe if I was more familiar with Russell as an artist than I would have been more enchanted by the film, but as a whole it felt more like a surface level summary rather than a portrait of an innovative and wildly under appreciated artist. I can't help but feel like the movie's short runtime might have hurt it, because at 71 minutes it feels too brief of a documentary for a subject matter that, quite frankly, deserves a longer runtime. So yeah, a bit lukewarm on the film as a whole, but it did inspire me to check out more of this artist's work, so there's that.

I've read Kuroac's On the Road, I've read Ginsburg's Howl, but I have yet to read anything by the other totem of the Beat Generation, William S. Burroughs. Namely I have no idea where to start given his reputation as a writer. I think after watching Queer, based on Burroughs's novella of the same name, I might start there as my dive into Burroughs. Besides that, as someone who has really enjoyed everything I have seen from Luca Guadagnino, I was really excited to check out Queer and his take on Burroughs. I feel that the end result is a movie that is a bit confounding, but also pretty enjoyable in spite of how messy it is. Like Guadagnino's other works, Queer is another delight of deep emotions and sensuality, with Queer being something of a middle ground between the tenderness and intimacy of Call Me By Your Name with the trippy horror of his Suspiria remake, with Guadagnino telling a surprisingly tender story about love, romantic longing, and unrequited yearning, with the heroin-fueled vision of Burroughs. Like Guadagnino's other films, the movie is a visually rich film, with this film really capturing the heat, sun warmth, and exotic heat of its Central American location. Yet another winner from Guadagnino and his regular cinematographer Sayombhu Mudeeprom! It also continues how adaptable Guadagnino is to filmmaking styles and aesthetics, going back to the sensualism found in Guadagnino's loose Desire trilogy of I Am Love, A Bigger Splash, and Call Me By Your Name, while also still feeling distinctly its own thing. I'm not quite sure if this is a successful translation of Burroughs's writing on screen, but for a Guadagnino film it is certainly a memorably weird one!

I think where the movie does stumble is in its hodgepodge of disparaging tones, as the movie doesn't really sit all that comfortably with the more personal themes of yearning, love, and self-loathing with the surrealist and heroin fueled psychedelia all that much, especially with the last chapter of the film feeling like it is a separate movie all its own. Which while the third act is good, it can make the whole piece feeling disted. The narrative itself is more episodic, which while it can work for a story more languid like Call Me By Your Name, I think Queer does suffer from trying to balance out the sensual and casual scenes from the more character driven focus of Burroughs's stand-in, William Lee. The movie is 138 minutes long, and honestly I think that is too long for what kind of movie this is. After a while I just kind of wanted the movie to hurry along to the next scene. Again, I'm not sure if this is a successful translation of Burroughs's writing to the screen or not, because I feel like this might be an issue with adapting his writing to film.

I would call this movie one of Guadagnino's least accessible films, as I can't imagine a lot of people get into this film, even those that are fans of Guadagnino as a director. As a fan of Gudagnino, I do like how bold and out there his directing choices are, from the use of surrealist imagery, personal storytelling, and the use of anachronistic pop and rock songs throughout the film that I honestly think works very well for how offbeat the film is. It is also surprising how good the licensed music is used here when compared to the film score by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, which, with a few exceptions, does sound like their most standard composition work and it doesn't really stick out too much compared to some of their best compositions. Also Daniel Craig is really good here as William Lee, offering a different side to the actor that is honestly refreshing to see, along with the commitment to a rather challenging and unflattering role that is very commendable. I do enjoy Queer, but I do get why a lot of people would be put off by this movie, and I do think this is one of Guadagnino's messier films. Still, I would say give this a shot for just how memorable the movie is.

I feel that the reputation about this film over time is that it is more of typical Oscarbait that the Academy loves to shower with nominations. And honestly I don't think that's entirely fair. It's not the film's fault the Oscars just love awarding movies that are period biopics. And as a biopic it is really good! The film has a rich detail to history, telling the story of Harvey Milk as a political leader during the 70s and showing the rise of gay activism and gay rights with the inspiring story of Harvey Milk getting into political office. Most biopics do struggle with giving a reason for the audience to give a damn about its subject, yet the film's clear love for the subject matter, what he did, and what he stood for, is so clear throughout the film that it does truly become an inspiring story about one man making a difference in the world and the aftermath his political activism did to the community. On top of that it really does capture the 70s San Francisco setting very well with an eye for detail and place, through the costumes, sets, and Gus Van Sant's assured directing. It is one of Van Sant's more straightforward directing work, akin to his other crowdpleaser and Oscar winner, Good Will Hunting, yet like Good Will Hunting the details and choices that Van Sant employs in the film, from the use of archival and documentary footage, the narration that Milk provides with the recording he did before his death, and a rather eclectic mix of camerawork and shooting styles, it makes for really impressive directing work from him and also does show why I love Van Sant as a director with how purposeful his directing choices are throughout his body of work. He not only makes the period so absorbing, but also brings to life Dustin Lance Black's loving screenplay as imioned and stirring as it is on the page. Black's script definitely deserves his Oscar win, and it is a shame the screenplays he did afterwards have not lived up to how monumental this script is. Sean Penn's second Oscar-win as Milk has been debated as to whether or not he should have won over Mickey Rourke's tremendous performance in the Wrestler, and I do get why people feel that way. In fact I'm not sure Penn should have won for this. Yet I also do like how understated Penn plays Harvey Milk, letting the character's charm, charisma, and ion speaks for himself without going into those bigger moments Penn is known for as an actor. It is in stark contrast to his performance in Mystic River, his first Oscar win, and honestly out of the two I think I prefer Penn's performance here. I also do like the ing cast, including Josh Brolin as Milk's assassin Dan White and how his performance more suggests his motive than whatever it could have been, James Franco, Emile Hirsch, and Victor Garber, and I do get a kick out of seeing Lucas Grabeel being in this as one of Milk's allies, if only to make High School Musical jokes throughout the film. I do think the movie does have problems. Danny Elfman's score sounds pretty stock for inspirational compositions and the movie does use it too much in my opinion, and like most biopics it does struggle to weave other details about the subject's life in a natural way within the main narrative, namely Diego Luna's character, who while he is good, always felt awkwardly written into the narrative in spite of the historical significance in Milk's life. But as a whole, I think Milk has aged very well and is certainly worth your time! Along with the documentary, the Times of Harvey Milk, by Rob Epstein, that was given a "special thanks" credit at the end, as it is also a very informative look into Harvey Milk's time as a political activist.

As a devout Wes Anderson faithful, the Phoenician Scheme is another hit from one of modern cinema's most unique, playful, and consistent directors. But I will also concede I do see where his detractors will come from with his style starting to get old. I still dug the hell out of this one, but I would also say this is one of his weaker entries as well. As usual, this has all the things I like about a Wes Anderson film, from the unique and sublime stylized visuals, this time shot by Bruno Delbonnel instead of his usual DP Robert Yeoman, and I feel like Delbonnel perfectly matches Anderson's style with distinct use of colors and lighting that feels visually rich. There's also the Alexandre Desplat score, which sounds absolutely thrilling and such a unique tone compared to Anderson's past films, and that trademark deadpan humor with the film feeling consistently funny (Maybe to a fault? But we'll get to that in a bit.), and a solid ensemble cast that completely gets Anderson's distinct directing style. The three standouts are the three newcomers to the world of Wes Anderson, those being Benico del Toro*, Mia Threapleton, and Michael Cera. Del Toro plays the lead character as a heartless bastard of a man consumed by his wealth and greed, and del Toro fits the role rather perfectly and manages to get plenty of great lines and inspired comedic timing throughout the film. Therapleton plays his estranged daughter who is also the nun and the heart of the film, and she is also very good with a no-nonsense attitude and dry remarks, and also matches Anderson's directing perfectly as well. And Cera finally works with Anderson playing a Norwegian tutor who is hilarious at every scene he is in and really does steal the show. Why did it take the two of them so long to work together is beyond me! And the plot is rather interesting that is held together by snappy pacing that makes everything go by without feeling like we are rushing to get to the end, and there are some rather interesting spiritual themes when it comes to God, sin, and spiritual redemption that I think is rather interesting to see coming from Anderson. Yet throughout I also felt rather detached from what was happening in a way I couldn't really say has happened before in a Wes Anderson film for me. I think it might be the humor, as it might have been too funny and too deadpan that I had a hard time getting invested in the story on a personal level the way I would with his prior films. I think more than anything the movie just feels a bit played out for him. A friend of mine said that this was the most standard Wes Anderson film, and honestly I think I agree with that sentiment, as it does feel like the kind of movie people would think of when it comes to what a Wes Anderson film is, and as such it does feel like he is resting on his laurels more than anything. Which for me it is fine, as I do find him very consistent as a filmmaker. Yet I also do get why others would be frustrated by this. It doesn't hit the same emotionally the way some of Anderson's best films would, and when compared to his past two films, the French Dispatch and Asteroid City, it lacks the same experimentation that made those two films stand out, like the anthology storyline of the French Dispatch, or the deconstructionist meta narrative of Asteroid City. There's some other things that doesn't really jive with me either, such as what I feel like a social criticism about del Toro's character being upper class, wealth hoarding, and exploiting others within the capitalist system for his own gain, does feel pretty thin to me while watching. But as a whole I did have fun with the movie, yet I could also see myself lowering my rating on a rewatch. Still, if you are a big Wes Anderson fan, then I would recommend go checking it out at the theater.

* (6/8/25) DUMB ASS DAVID FORGOT HE WAS IN THE FRENCH DISPATCH

As a fan of 70s punk, Derek Jarman’s Jubilee has long been on my radar. And after finally getting around to it, I was kind of let down. But I do have respect for what Jarman is doing with the film and for punk in general. While Jarman was critical of the punk scene, he did manage to take the aesthetics of punk, from the anarchism and societal rebellion to the nihilistic outlook of the times, especially in Britain during the late 70s and the economic despair going on at the time, while imbuing it with Jarman’s artistry and baroque imagery for a pretty unique take on the punk movement. It’s less in tribute or a documentation of the scene, but rather Jarman pushing punk into his own image on what it should be. There’s plenty of strong art direction that captures the look of 70s punk very well, while also giving room for Jarman to experiment with his own style, creating some pretty strong scene and moments while also getting across strong social commentary on wealth and class disparity and Jarman’s own philosophical musings. The highlight for me is the Britannia musical number that feels so bold in its presentation that I’m sure it must have turned heads back then. The real downside is the plot, which is more episodic than telling a linear narrative, but it can also feel tedious after a while with how aimless the narrative can feel that I was getting tired of it after a while. I think this is a decent movie, but I can’t imaging people who aren’t into the history of punk or the U.K. during the late 70s would get much out of this. I also think that while I do respect the filmmaking of Derek Jarman and his bold artistry, sadly I don’t quite think he will be a filmmaker I’ll be a big fan of.

A criminally underseen documentary, Southern Comfort focuses on a transgender man, Robert Eads, and his last days as he was dying of ovarian cancer. But mostly it is about what it means to be trans and a look at the transgender community and the found family that surrounds Eads during his final days, including the trans woman to takes care of him, Lola Cola, who becomes his partner, and the buildup to the Southern Comfort Conference, the largest trans conference in the U.S. about trans people and trans issues. More than anything it is a film about empathy, and showcasing a humanist touch and joy in dark times but also being a detailed look at who trans people really are, just humans. I find that empathy and kindness are things we often take for granted when it comes with finding and enacting on positive change in the world, and films like this does show that kind of positivity in displaying how ordinary a group of people othered in society really are, and in that way it makes it easier for those outside the trans community to know and learn about those that they were told to fear. I've seen criticisms that the movie should have went harder on the doctors and healthcare for essentially killing Eads for not treating him of his cancer sooner, and I do understand that criticism, but in my eyes I think this movie is more of an empathetic eulogy to a life and a declaration of self, and as such it works very well. Definitely check this one out!

I don't really have anything to add because there honestly isn't anything new to add. The plot is bad, they made this a Hulk movie without the Hulk and it feels like Sam is awkwardly shoved into the film, it doesn't even feel like his own movie, the visuals are honestly pretty damn ugly, the pacing is terrible and it doesn't even feel like it has any proper structuring you would expect in a normal movie, and you can really tell it has been reshot and retooled to shit. I think what caught me the most by surprise is just how bad the action scenes are. Like say what you will about most of the MCU action, but quite frankly this might be the worst action scenes I had ever seen in this series! Everything feels so poorly structured, from the directing, editing, camerawork, and choreography! It is shockingly bad! And it is the kind of bad I would honestly not expect from the MCU, because this honestly feels below their own standards! Also, I don't go to the MCU for political commentary on our current events, so honestly I didn't really give a shit about that aspect of the film and how it ultimately says absolutely nothing in the end, but the fucking balls of Disney and Marvel continuing Sam's story as the next Captain America after the events of his MCU show that was about what it means to be a Black superhero, especially as Captain America, and go out of its way to be as apolitical as possible, it's both impressive and quite frankly repulsive! I think the only thing that is somewhat saving this movie from a lower score that it quite frankly deserves is that the performances were honestly pretty solid. I like Anthony Mackie in the role, and Harrison Ford is too qualified for what kind of movie he was in I was honestly expecting him to sleepwalk this, but no he was pretty good here. Quite frankly both deserve a much better movie than this! Also Giancarlo Esposito knows exactly what role he's supposed to play and is just making the most for his role, and god bless him bringing some life in an otherwise thankless and tacked on role! But yeah, it's bad! Even as someone that is more forgiving on the MCU, there really is no defending this one, and honestly I think my rating might be too charitable. I expect Thunderbolts to be actually good you nerds!

I'm not much of a poetry nerd, but I have read Howl and I found it to be one of the best piece of literature I had ever read! Such an explosive and ionate writing that was absolutely unlike anything I had ever read before, and quite frankly I haven't come close to anything that came close to it. The film has been on my radar since its release in 2010, and with my love of the documentaries filmmaking duo Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman made, I figured it was high time to check this out. Sadly I was let down by a pretty middling film. I do understand their approach, as rather than tell the story about Allen Ginsburg, it focuses primarily on the poem itself, both with the inspiration that Ginsburg led to writing it, and the reading of it through voice over and animation, along with the landmark obscenity trial trying to ban the poem. The narrative feels like an abstraction that weaves throughout with the trial, Ginsburg reading the poem, the animation, Ginsburg being interviewed, and the flashbacks to Ginsburg past, and I think this was for the closest one can get with capturing the spirit of Ginsburg's writing, at least to the extent of making the film easily accessible. The problem is that the film as a whole is kind of a bore, as in spite of the interesting subject matter, the movie never does feel like it has an interesting way of presenting it. Which given the experimental approach to narrative it shouldn't be the case, but honestly the movie doesn't have a lot of momentum and it feels like a drag after a while. The actual trial is so tedious to watch and really does drag the whole thing down with how matter-of-fact Epstein and Friedman approaches the trial. The whole thing just doesn't feel like it explodes like it really should. There are things that I like, such as the animation used for visualizing the poem that is visually interesting, and honestly I do like James Franco's performances as Ginsburg, being more understated but grounded that I think works. Although his painted on beard was goofy to look at during the interview part of the film, along with the weird accent he does when reading Howl. Although I'm not sure if Ginsburg actually did that or not. But yeah, pretty underwhelmed by this one and I don't really recommend it unless you are a fan of Ginsburg.

For years I've heard that Charlize Theron gives an incredible performance that ranks among the best Oscar-winning performances of all time. After finally watching it... honestly I'm not sure she would rank in my top ten. Maybe top twenty? I don't know. Maybe if I was around for the award season that year and knew about Theron's career prior to Monster coming out, I'd be more blown away. I mean I was technically around, but I was like 8. I would have never seen this movie back then! I do get the sense that her campaign was similar to when Natalie Portman or Brie Larson won their respective Oscars, where it felt like a new revelation to them as actors that no one really anticipated, and in a way that was also kind of how Demi Moore's campaign went this past awards season (alongside the career comeback narrative), so I do kind of get it. Regardless, yeah I would say Theron's win was justified, and looking at who was nominated I would also say the best pick too. While the transformation is impressive, I think what is the most crucial to Theron's win is just how layered her performance was. It would be very easy to have Aileen Wuornos being portrayed as purely cold and evil, but that's not how the movie takes it. Instead the film gives her a shocking amount of grace to let the audience understand why she killed all those men as a survival tactic for both being a rape victim and also stuck in a system of poverty, and making the audience understand that this was her rationale for those killings. I feel like people arguing the movie made her too sympathetic isn't the point of the film, but that the movie makes us understand Wournos and understand her actions. Not as a justification, but as detailing why she did it through her instincts for survival and giving her the power she was denied all her life. If there is any sympathy, it is from the audience confused why she is considered a monster. And through this Theron gives a very rich performance that is filled with heart, anger, sorrow, and dimensions to make her feel entirely realistic. Not to mention the fearless commitment she does for the role, and you forget that this is the real person and not a famous actress de-glaming. I also did like Christina Ricci in this as Wournos's girlfriend, and I did like how the movie portrayed her as someone looking for the comion she desires and also how she rationalizes her comion for her in spite of all the red flags around her. It honestly reminded me of all the signs victims do when they are trapped in abusive relationships, which I'm not saying Wournos was ever abusive to her partner in the film, but that the way Ricci's character was portrayed did remind me of that.

While I do think Patty Jenkins did a really good job of telling the story she wanted to tell about Aileen Wournos and her handling of such a tricky subject matter, I do feel like the script is uneven. After the halfway point it does start to feel a bit one-note, I do find the dialogue to be on-the-nose that it took me out of the realism the movie is grounded in, I don't know why Bruce Dern's character was so important at the third act, and the use of voiceover narration to be rather clumsy and honestly pretty unnecessary. And while I do think there is a lot here that is impressive about Jenkin's directing, from the grit and handling of the material, especially for a directorial debut to be so nuanced as it was, I do feel like there are parts that do make it feel like a bit amateurish, such as the shot compositions feeling rather flat, and the use of music to be rather jarring at points. Although it does get points for having a shockingly good use of Don't Stop Believing! I wouldn't say I loved everything about this movie, but the stuff that did work did work very well for me that I will give this movie a recommendation, if only for how good Charlize Theron's performance is! I also do wish Patty Jenkins did continue down this path and developed this style further than jumping onto the superhero train with both Wonder Woman movies. I mean to be fair the first one was decent, but WW84... woof!

Every time I watch this movie, the quiet monologue Mike has with Scott by the campfire still hits like a ton of bricks

I meant to write a review for this last night before going to bed, but I was too tired and wanted to sleep that I completely forgot to do a write up for this. Whoops!

But anyways, as a certified Gus Van Stan, I was always eager to check out his debut film, the micro-budget experimental drama Mala Noche, and see where it all began. As far as debut films and low-budget indies go, it is fairly typical. it is amateurish and you can tell that there was hardly a budget for it, with stiff performances and pretty clumsy filmmaking. But as Gus Van Sant's debut film, it is pretty interesting seeing where his style would go. There are plenty of his hallmarks, themes of isolation and loneliness, focus on troubled young men who are not very heroic, and its unapologetic queerness. It also does contain a lot of that experimental, avant-garde edge found in his early films, from the striking cinematography and using the black-and-white photography quite evocatively, and its unique, picturesque shots that focuses on objects. It does showcase a lot of thought, and even with the film being amateurish, it does feel like Van Sant has fully realized what story he wants to tell. Still, I can see why people would be put off by this movie, as it is not easily accessible, the main character kind of sucks and is pretty racist, and the plot is rather aimless and messy. I did find enjoyment out of this film, but I can't really see a lot of people get into this unless they are already familiar with Van Sant's work like I am. So I guess a tentative recommendation for Van Sant fans, but even then I wouldn't say expect something on the level of Drugstore Cowboy or My Own Private Idaho.

A film adaptation of the Stephen Sondheim musical of the same name, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum is a decent enough period farce but I keep on getting the feeling that this would have been a lot better on stage than on screen. There is a fun cast here, led by Zero Mostel who does anchor the movie with his comedic chops, and director Richard Lester does bring his trademark artistry and cutting-edge editing style does add a nice flavor to the musical genre, the plot is just too dense and not all that interesting to follow, and it does feel like the movie goes on for a lot longer than it was. Weirdly in spite of this being a musical, there are barely any musical numbers in this. It turns out the movie cuts out several songs for the musical. Which for Sondheim it is pretty blasphemous! It is worth a watch for fans of Lester’s directing work, Sondheim musicals, and Zero Mostel movies, but overall it could have been a lot better.

As someone who has seen this movie ripped to shreds on Whose Line countless times... they did not go hard enough

Lately I've been listening to the indie music I used to listen to in high school, so it only seems fitting to finally watch the movie where the soundtrack was a cornerstone to my high school years. Garden State has always had this weird reputation where it is a indie dramady classic that everyone suddenly hates after it came out, but everyone can agree that the soundtrack is a classic. I found the CD at a Barnes and Noble for like $7, so I figured might as well get it. Needless to say it left a pretty big impression on me, and also led me to discovering all kinds of artists like the Shins and Nick Drake. Yet the movie just ed me by up until now. Guess it is just how divisive the film's reputation is. Now that I have finally watched it, honestly it was alright. I can't say I really loved it, but I also can say the backlash towards this movie is overblown. I do get the criticisms, however, such as the film feeling more quirky for the sake of being quirky, and how a lot of the imagery and stylistic choices that Zach Braff uses in the film feels more like he wanted to show off for the viewer that doesn't really add to much substance. It definitely feels emblematic of a lot of directorial debuts, and especially films made by established actors. I do like the color choices for the cinematography in how it dictates Andrew's mood, and I like the film's exploration into depression and family trauma that does feel like it comes from a genuine place by Braff. And there are times where the movie did make me laugh. Although the plot point about Andrew stop taking his medication doesn't really sit right with me, although quite frankly it feels so minor in the film it can easily be glossed over. The soundtrack rules, of course, and I think Braff made some interesting choices and you can tell he put in a lot of thought into what music should be used. Mostly what kind of keep me from really loving it was that I never found the plot to be all that interesting in spite of its thematic exploration, and it does feel like it goes much of anywhere either within the plot. It is fair to say that this movie is more of a hang-out kind of film, but I've never felt a lot of affection for these characters either. Mostly the whole movie just felt rather thin by the end, and while I wouldn't call this movie bad, I also just felt like I could have been watching another indie film from the time period.

Another reason why this movie didn't really work for me is Natalie Portman's character, Sam. A lot of the backlash and hatred of this movie has to do with this character and the movie basically inventing the Manic Pixie Dream Girl trope. I do have skepticism that a lot of the people who hate this movie only say they hate it because of her character and the whole trope, but honestly yeah I'd say the criticism is justified. Sam is pretty annoying, one-note, and doesn't serve much purpose other than being in love with Andrew. Yet the thing that really bugged me about her was honestly Natalie Portman herself. Quite frankly I think she overdid it, coming off as too forceful and twee that I never bought for a second she was this character. Even with the weak writing not really giving her room for as much depth, I also do feel like Portman was miscast and this kind of quirky energy doesn't really suit her. I know Zooey Deschanel is the go-to for the M.P.D.G. character, but honestly I think if she was casted instead, then the movie would have probably played better for me, even though it wouldn't change the issues I have with the film as a whole.

I completely lost my shit when Jim Parsons showed up for one scene that can be summed up as a covert audition tape to play Sheldon Cooper!

I think the movie does run too long, but as a whole I was really impressed by I'm Still Here. A powerful story about family in the face of societal upheaval where its power doesn't come from the big, obvious moments, but from smaller, quiet moments. I'm not sure subtle is the right word, or even intimate, but the film draws its emotional strength from showing the scenes alone and the dilemma of losing someone in the family while being the strength to keep everyone together and living under a dictatorship. It is a lot, and the movie feels like a grounded depiction of that point in Brazil's history without feeling the need to overwhelm the viewer with emotionally overblown sentiments. Just the image of someone realizing what she is missing in a restaurant while trying not to cry is enough to convey what the director is saying. The movie also has a rich sense of place and time with the details and period accuracy of the sets and wardrobe, and a powerhouse performance from Fernanda Torres who absolutely knocks it out of the park with such a wide range of emotional depth. Quite frankly she should have swept the awards this year! I feel that this is one of those movies I'll really love more on a rewatch, but for now I think this movie is fantastic and certainly worthy of the awards attention it got. Definitely recommend checking this one out if you haven't gotten the chance yet!

I watching this when it came out on DVD and my family rented it from Blockbuster, and while I liking it, I was also pretty disappointed by it and found it to be weird and a little off-putting. That seems to be the general reaction at the time, but after giving it a rewatch, honestly I like how weird and off-putting it is now as an adult! I like that this movie isn't afraid to get dark and a little weird for a kids movie! I like that the movie isn't afraid to get creepy and scary! I like that the monsters in this act like children but talk like manic depressive and neurotic adults that depend on a kid they crowned as their kid to make them happy! I like that Spike Jonze made this like an arthouse indie movie! I like that this movie is not conventional to what a kids movie should be and isn't afraid to be alienating!

Jonze has said that he wanted to make a movie about childhood rather than make a traditional children's movie, and I think that decision works very well for this movie. It isn't a movie about the plot like Jonze's other films, but rather one about the emotions. But more specifically about the complicated, messy emotions of being a child. And I mean what really is childhood? It's full of wonder and joy, but it is also complicated, messy, and frightening. We start off not knowing a thing about the world, forced to coexist in an adult world that is also pretty messy, and have to grow up with the world around us that doesn't really understand who we are. The opening really does set the perfect tone with not only how intimately Jonze shoots the film, but also with how chaotic and messy the film is. At one moment it is recapturing the joys and wonder of childhood, especially when Max is allowed to let his imagination and fun run wild, only to turn on a dime to being heartbreakingly real when Max gets hurt, either physically or emotionally. It honestly took me back to moments in my own childhood with similar experiences and how quickly things change. It's that good of a recapturing of childhood feelings!

While many were put off by how uncommercial it was as an adaptation of a picture book, I honestly like how uncommercial it is. The original author, Maurice Sendak, even said so, appreciating how Jonze took the book and made it his own. It really does feel like this is Jonze's vision while still keeping in the spirit of the book, with the wonder of the magical realism setting, the effective mix of VFX work for the monsters, and the rich, autumnal cinematography by Lance Acord, making for a perfect depiction of what it means to be a child. It's wondrous, adventurous, scary, lonely, painful, angry, sad, happy, heartbreaking, unique, and idiosyncratic. And I like how different the movie is! The expected thing would be to make it something so corporate and lame like the Dr. Seuss adaptations or a faux-Pixar like kids movie, and I do not think that would have been a good choice. Instead, Jonze essentially made his own 400 Blows by taking a the book, infusing it with his own childhood experiences and memories, while mixing it with his inventive and unique filmmaking, and indie aesthetics and sensibilities with how loose the storytelling is, twee and quirky the tone and feel is, and the really effective, playful, and fun score done by Karen O of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs. It's just a unique, singular experience that I really enjoyed!

I do get why this didn't grab me initially, and many others, as it isn't conventional for a kids film, and I can see adults scoff at how juvenile and simplistic the film is. Yet I do feel like if this movie did came out today, then the reputation would have been a lot better, as this does feel more in line with an A24 or NEON release with how artistically bold, original, offbeat, and strange it is. It really is an under appreciated gem of a film that isn't afraid to be niche and not meant for everyone. If you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend it! And if you have and were initially put off by it, I would recommend giving it a second shot. Because it is honestly worth it! Also worth it is for Spike Jonze to make another movie again damn it!!!

They say the word “sardines” more times than the Wolf of Wall Street says the word “fuck”

Watched on Thursday May 29, 2025.

The Dardenne Brothers have spent their career illustrating the hardship of those the greater society looks down upon and providing those voices with the grace and dignity they deserve, and with Tori and Lokita, they take a firm look at immigrants and refugees. The Dardennes have tackled this topic before, such as in their breakthrough La Promesse, but this time their empathetic eye is focused squarely on two young migrants trying to survive in a society that looks down upon them and a system that wants to exploit them. Having viewed more of the brothers work and gaining an appreciation for their artists, I can say that the film is a typical Dardenne Brothers film with their documentary-like aesthetic and social realist storytelling, and as such it isn't particularly mind-blowing by them. Yet much of what makes them good storytellers are here, from the clear empathy the duo have for the titular characters and their struggles, to the realism they depict in telling this story and showcasing the exploitation and systemic abuse they suffer from. Their friendship is rather touching given how bleak their world is, and I do like that the film doesn't shy away from the darker aspects of their lives and making the viewer uncomfortable. I also did feel like that most of the first half was rather predictable with the story and characters and I felt like I knew where the story was going, only to be thrown for a loop by the second half where I was honestly surprised to see the direction the story was going. And I think that's pretty neat to see! Overall I would consider this movie to be pretty good overall, but I do also get why this isn't exactly seen as a big standout in the Dardenne Brother's work. And personally I do prefer their films when they go for moralist dilemmas in their social realism stories than straightforward plots like this and Rosetta. I would still recommend checking this one out, but I wouldn't say go with this film as your first for the Dardenne Brothers. Very excited for Young Mothers by the way!

I finally listened to the new Arcade Fire album and wanted to seek this short film out after being severely disappointed by it. The band were one of my absolute favorites during my adolescence, and the Suburbs holds a very special place in my heart as a coming-of-age soundtrack and my own realization that the world around me was not like I and how suffocating suburban life really is. The film itself does capture that sense of disillusionment in adolescence really perfectly, in particular the fracturing friendship between Kyle and Winter, and the overall malaise of the suburban setting. The film does trip over itself with the inclusion of a post-apocalypse setting and all the violent and war imagery that I guess would be social commentary for the time but ultimately complicates things that I feel takes away from the short than it does add to it. I guess Spike Jonze, Win Bulter, and Will Butler took the idea of the war and dystopia imagery of the lyrics too literally for the script. Still, it is hard for me to separate the band from my heart in spite of my growing disappointment with the band's music, and Win's actions, and the film I feel does a solid job at recapturing such a great album, even if the actual film falls short of the mark.

"Sometimes I can't believe it, I'm moving past the feeling" is such a moving line for a teen to hear, and quite frankly very fitting loosing love for a band you held so dear.

Watched on Monday May 26, 2025.

I've been meaning to check out more of Paul Schrader's work after loving both First Reformed and Mishima, but given how sprawling and vast his filmography is, it was to find exactly where to start next. I picked Light Sleeper because I got the title confused with another Schrader film, Light of Day. Regardless, I am glad I gave Light Sleeper a shot because I really enjoyed this one! Schrader himself said that Light Sleeper was apart of a trilogy of films he considers about "man and his room," with the other two films being Taxi Driver and American Gigolo. I've only seen Taxi Driver out of the two, but the similarities between the two films are very apparent that it does make sense that Schrader would consider this to be a sort of spiritual successor to Taxi Driver. Both films deal with a man suffering from insomnia trapped in NYC where it is filthy and dirty, and both are essentially about the protagonist protecting a woman. Yet Light Sleeper's angst is more internal than external like in Taxi Driver, as there is more nuances and subtleties in Light Sleeper's main protagonist, Jake LeTour, as he starts to question his life choices and trying to find a way out after making some improvements to his life himself, only to realize that there is no easy way out, and he might be trapped, along with the complicated feelings he starts to have when an ex enters his life again. It is a fascinating character piece, and one that is rich with a somber tone that makes the exploration really fascinating, and an interesting counterpoint to Taxi Driver, if only because of how different both films feel given Schrader's perspective in life. With Taxi Driver, he was a younger and more angrier man. With Light Sleeper, he is older and more seasoned, yet still anxious about his future.

Willem Dafoe plays Jake, and Dafoe is excellent in the lead role. He perfectly fits the alienation and detachment of the role perfectly for a man grappling with internal angst, and fitting the tone and mood of the film pretty well for our noir protagonist. There's also plenty of great ing performances from Susan Sarandon, Dana Delany, and Victor Garber, along with some small appearances from actors in early roles that honestly had me do a double take, such as Sam Rockwell and David Spade. Schrader himself also captures an excellent mood and tone with his camera, capturing the streets of New York with a rich, foggy, almost dreamlike cinematography that feels so distinct I can hardly think of any other film that looks like this, and plenty of excellent shot compositions and framing from Schrader that looks so lyrically rich. There's also the moody and synth-heavy score that also adds to the film's richness in tone. My only real complaint is that most of the side characters are not all that interesting to follow most of the time, but as a whole I was very impressed by Light Sleeper and found it to be a real gem of a film. Certainly one to check out if you want to explore more of Paul Schrader's work!

Nickelodeon was my favorite channel as a kid, so it is weird that I never watched this as a kid until now. Yet I so much of the trailers and marketing that it feels like the film is seared into my mind. Watching this unlocked some long, buried memories of Jack Black crushing chips and blowing them in his lady's face trying to woo her, the two feral dwarves fighting Jack Black and his wrestling partner, and the line about men sometimes wearing stretchy pants. It was honestly a surreal experience!

But anyways, I had fun with this one! I would say it is on par with Jared Hess's breakthrough film Napoleon Dynamite, but I might prefer Napoleon Dynamite to Nacho Libre. While I do think having a plot does benefit this movie from not feeling as one-note as Napoleon Dynamite did, I also found Napoleon Dynamite to be funnier and more endearing of a film compared to Nacho Libre, which is enduring, but also the larger emphasis on juvenile humor compared to Napoleon Dynamite does make this not as funny. Even though there are plenty of funny moments like the various fight scenes and plenty of great lines ("GET THAT CORN OUTTA MY FACE!"). I think also hurting Nacho Libre is that while there is a plot here, the plotting does feel rather thin and it feels like the movie is making up the story as it goes along, with plenty of subplots feeling like they were an afterthought, such as Nacho's quest to win over Sister Enacrnacion that feels like it comes and goes within the plot, and the big fight at the end with Ramses feels emotionally underdeveloped. After a while I just kind of wanted the movie to end, and it started to feel much longer than the 90 minute runtime.

What does work about this movie is that it does feel like Jared Hess is pushing what worked about Napoleon Dynamite further here, with its quirky and idiosyncratic humor and shooting style feeling more refined here. Possibly with the movie having an actual budget, but still the visuals do feel like it pops out more with its saturated colors and rich details of its Mexico setting. Even though the movie does feel more aimed at kids, the absurdist and offbeat humor does feel perfect for a kids film and I think does manage to strike some gold for the adults watching. I can see some say this movie is offensive to Mexican culture, but honestly with how absurdist the movie plays out, I've never felt like the movie is making fun of the culture, but rather using it to mine humor out of it. Although I am not Mexican so I can't say if it is offensive or not, but personally I never took it as offensive. And of course there is Jack Black committing to the bit and being really fun to watch! There's so much energy, enthusiasm, and personality that it is really fun to watch and makes so many of the lines and gags work brilliantly. Shame he can commit to the bit but not his bro Kyle 😔

I wasn't planning on watching anything fitting for Memorial Day initially, but I also decided it was high time to finally check out Oliver Stone's Oscar-winning spiritual sequel to Platoon, so I figured why the heck not! I've said before that Stone's Platoon was a very influential film for me as a movie watcher, so his follow-up to that in his loose Vietnam trilogy has long been on my radar, yet I've never gotten around to it up until now. Now that I have finally seen it, I can say that I do enjoy this a good deal, but I would also say that this is pretty inferior to Platoon in many ways. While upon revisit of Platoon I do concede that the movie can be too on-the-nose and Stone's approach can feel heavy handed, Born on the Fourth of July suffers from the same thing, although in my opinion to a far more obnoxious and self-indulgent degree. Right from the opening with the flashback to Ron Kovic's childhood with the parade, stirring John Williams music, sepia cinematography, and images of kids playing soldiers and the patriotic parade of soldiers, a very obvious symbolism of America's indoctrination of the youth into war and how it will be obviously juxtaposed to the war in Vietnam and America and the characters disillusionment to the war and patriotism, I could tell that this movie will be really obvious, heavy-handed, and self-indulgent by Stone's part. And it is something that never lets up throughout the film, as the film's anti-war, anti-Vietnam, and Stone's contempt for America is very clear and it can get pretty tedious for the long two-and-a-half hour runtime. Normally this doesn't sound like a movie I would like, but this is Oliver Stone at his peak, and the story itself is rather captivating, telling the real-life story of Ron Kovic, a Vietnam War vet who was paralyzed at the war, and later became an anti-war activist (and also co-wrote the screenplay with Stone based on his own autobiography) in a sweeping epic that also captures the growing disillusionment of many Americans about their country's involvement in Vietnam, but also telling a story about failure, defeat, survivor's guilt, and emasculation. Kovic wanted to go to war in order to prove something, but ends up feeling like a failure because of his own paralysis and his growing, complicated feelings about how the war turned out. While its sprawling narrative can lead to the film having some pacing issues, I do feel that the film does capture a lot of complicated feelings about questioning honor and trying to build yourself up after defeat. Also working in the film's favor is Tom Cruise's performance as Kovic. While I wouldn't call this my favorite Tom Cruise performance, as that honor goes to Magnolia, I do think he did a really great job showcasing a more dramatic side of him that many felt wasn't there given the roles he was taking post-Top Gun, and I do think this was really the only point in time he could do a performance like this, as he still had that boyish look and youthful inexperience, but was also in a spot to get vulnerable in a way he hasn't really done since. Magnolia does come close, but that was leaning on Cruise's strength as an actor. Born on the Fourth of July has him going against type, and it works extremely well! As for Stone's direction, while I do take issue with his heavy-handedness, I do applaud how assured his directing is, with not only how lofty the story is that Stone never buckles under the weight of the film, but also with his stylistic choices, as the film has rich cinematography from Robert Richardson that mixes different visual styles, from the use of sepia in the opening scenes, the rich yet overwhelming orange in Vietnam that feels overwhelming, and a lot of rich and detailed framing throughout the film, it feels like a prelude to what Stone and Robertson would later do with JFK, making something kaleidoscopic and sweeping but never overwhelming and delirious. Although there are places where the movie does start to dip into psychedelic and surreal the feels very interesting. I can see why Stone won his second Best Director Oscar for this. The John Williams score for this isn't exactly one of my favorites from him, but I do find the use of it to be fitting for the film. Overall while I do have some conflicting feelings about the movie, as a while I will say that Born on the Fourth of July to be a pretty damn good movie as a whole. I don't think this reaches the same heights as Platoon, but I do think this is a worthy follow-up as a spiritual successor to that film. I recommend checking it out! Also Ron Kovic's nephew is one of the co-founders of Rooster Teeth?!

I'm not a super big Rian Johnson fan, but I have enjoyed every film he has done that I've seen. That ends today with his forgotten caper in-between Brick and Looper. The Brothers Bloom was Johnson's attempt at making a caper with some indie quirk to it, but it lacks anything that would make that baseline all that enjoyable. The characters are just not terribly interesting to follow, especially Adrien Brody's character Bloom who is our main character, and all the quirky charm feels more like regurgitation of the typical indie comedy from the 2000s. Once more, the caper plot, while a little intriguing at first, wears itself very thin with constant twists and rug pulls on the audience it starts to get tedious after a while. Especially at the third act, where it just feels so stretched out I just wanted the movie to end by that point! Rian Johnson has often been accused of being too clever for his own good, which I've never entirely agreed with until now, because this does feel like he is trying too hard to make the film being smarter and more interesting than it actually is. It honestly makes me appreciate his Knives Out films way more, as those feel more like the kind of style that he was aiming for here. There are some things I did like, such as some fun set pieces and jokes, and Johnson's slick stylization does lead to some lively moments that does show that he did not half-ass this. But as a whole I felt pretty let down and severely underwhelmed by this. Unless you are a big fan of Rian Johnson as a filmmaker or you want to watch a quirky caper, there is no real reason to watch this.

I am tempted to call this the Dardenne's most famous work, but I'm not sure if that is an accurate assessment to make given their achievements as filmmakers. I guess the more accurate would be the one most would recognize, but even then I think that would be more for Marion Cotillard being the lead and her getting an Oscar nomination for her performance in this. And honestly it is a well deserved nomination, and a surprising one too given the subject matter and that the Oscars don't usually go for performances so natural, raw, and realistic. The movie heavily relies on Cotillard's performance, and she absolutely knocks it out of the park as a woman who must overcome her own personal anxieties to get back her job, and doing the impossible for her by getting co-workers on her side, all the while she discovers her own self-worth, something that the company cannot take away from her. It's such a powerful and realistic performance that it was honestly incredible to see, especially from a star like Cotillard. Honestly I think this might be my favorite performance from her! As for the film itself, it is a simple story, but one that does provide plenty of powerful insights into the human condition without overblowing its own significance. It is a grounded social realist drama about the struggles of the working class that presents all the reasons for the workers as to why they would and would not let her continue to work, all of which are believable, and all of which not given any kind of moral standing by the Dardennes. The only hard stance the filmmakers take are with the company and the capitalist system that crushes the working class, as there are nuances with the workers in presenting their reasonings as grey, but the reasoning for the company being black-and-white and complete nonsense. It also makes for a good showcase of how companies undermine class solidarity and forcing the working class to fight against one another. It's yet another powerful moral tale from the Dardenne Brothers that I was hooked on from beginning to end and ended up really enjoying! I would highly recommend checking this one out, and I would rank alongside the Kid with the Bike as my favorite from the Dardenne Brothers!

In spite of being a kid during the film’s unexpected cultural peak, I have never seen this until now. And it is for a personal reason. A petty vendetta. When I was a kid, I had the Kingdom Hearts disc in my PS2, ready to pick up where I left off. Yet when I put on my console, to my surprise it was not in there but the Napoleon Dynamite DVD. I went to find the Kingdom Hearts game in the case, assuming it was there. But no. One of my sisters just left it out on the floor, where it got scratched up, and I can never play Kingdom Hearts ever again. I was furious! And out of revenge I decided it was an eye for an eye and scratched the Napoleon Dynamite DVD as payback! And since I had never watched it because every time I would get so mad at what happened. Until now! And it was a pretty good movie! I probably shouldn’t have damaged that DVD, but hindsight is 20/20 after all.

The Dardenne Brothers hold the distinction of being one of the few filmmakers to win the Palme d'Or twice at Cannes, with Rosetta being the first to take home the top prize. Rosetta takes what La Promesse did with its social realist drama and documentary-like approach, and really pushes into darker and more confrontational places, telling a story about the resilience a young woman must force to do to survive and take care of her alcoholic and abusive mother, and getting an up-close and unflinching look at survival in a capitalist society, the dehumanizing struggle for job security, and even the exploitation of minors in the workforce in Belgium (there's a misconception that the Rosetta Law in Belgium that included a whole lot of youth labor reform there was inspired by this movie, but according to Jean-Pierre Dardenne, the law had yet to be voted through by the time the film came out). It is a compelling look at such a bleak worldview, and there is certainly a lot of power through the Dardennes's empathetic eye, as the movie empathizes Rosetta's resilience in order to survive, even if she is not exactly the best person in the world, with an equally resilient and raw performance from Emilie Dequenne in her debut performance. I also do find the filmmaking here to be rather compelling, with the film using a documentary aesthetic in capturing the raw story, and having up-close and unpolished camerawork that makes you feel like you are there. In a way it honestly reminded me of what the first Hunger Games movie did with a shaky cam style, and kind of like that I do feel like Rosetta did overdue it a bit with that up-close documentary approach. I wouldn't say to that degree, but I also did get kind of tired of it, especially with such a dour tone. I don't want to say this is exploitative of the character's situation or it is misery porn, because it is not that, but like a lot of other social realist dramas it does feel like the movie does stew over the situation a little too much to where it can feel overwhelming in its despair. Although the ending, which was honestly unexpected with how I think the story was going, was a moving way to close the story with. Out of the three I've seen from the brothers, this one didn't stick with me like the Kid with the Bike or La Promesse, but I did find this to be a compelling watch overall and would recommend checking out if you are in the mood for some social realist sadness. I can see why this won the Palme d'Or, but looking at what was in competition that year, personally I would have liked to see the prize go to either All About My Mother, Ghost Dog, or the Straight Story.

After really loving the Dardenne Brother's the Kid with the Bike, I was eager to explore more of their works. iringly it has taken a while, but with their new movie premiering at Cannes this year, I figured it would be pretty good time to explore more. La Promesse is considered the pair's breakthrough film after years of making documentary films and a few early narrative features, and it is easy to see why this put them on the map, as La Promesse is a very compelling social realist drama. It is a mix between neorealism and a coming-of-age drama that is centered on a moral dilemma about a teen boy who must decides to either do the right thing and help someone being exploited by his father's shady business practices of hiring undocumented migrants, or continue to be complicit in his father's actions. There is no real easy answer, and the film explores this dilemma while also making us care for the kid in this, played by a very young Jeremie Renier, which really took me by surprise seeing him so young, and he is also really good in the film, too. The viewer relates to the kid's struggle thanks to expert writing and the exploration of the film's social themes of exploitation and systemic issues, and it is pretty compelling to see what he will do by the end of the film. It is a heavy movie, but not one that feels entirely dour, and giving the viewer in a faint hope that things will turn out alright in the end. The film takes a documentary-like approach with unpolished camerawork and framing, which fits the tone of the film and does let the story and performances speak for themselves rather than distract with overt stylization. Which given how good the story and performances are, that is a good thing! If I were to complain, I do think the story meanders at points, but really that doesn't deter from how much I really enjoyed this one and found it to be utterly compelling! I definitely recommend check this one out! And it also isn't a bad place to start with the Dardenne Brothers, as from what I am aware this does feel more in line with their work than the Kid with the Bike, which has a different tone than this movie, but still a really good movie regardless. Honestly both movies are good and you should check out!

With how much beloved Paddington 2 is, any follow-up has some pretty big expectations to fulfill. Especially with the announcement that Paul King, the director behind the first two movies, would step away from the director's chair as he went to go make the surprisingly solid Willy Wonka prequel movie with the Lisan al-Gaib himself. Fortunately Paddington in Peru is a pretty solid entry in the much beloved series, even if it is the weakest of the series so far. The adventure in Peru does make for a natural step forward for the series that are adventure films, and given how much talk there is of Peru in the prior films, it is exciting to see the location being the backdrop for the series. Yet the quaintness of the prior two films does feel missing with the more adventurous story, sadly. As for directing, this time Dougal Wilson steps in as King's replacement in his feature film debut (prior he had worked on a few short films, a handful of music videos and commercials), and he honestly does a pretty solid job at directing and continuing the spirit that King brought to the prior two films, with a sense of adventure and witty charm for an expansive journey, even if the visuals and aesthetics don't exactly pop like they did in the second movie. I think there are some hiccups with his directing, such as the green screen compositing looking pretty cheap, but as a whole he does a good job as a replacement. On the notion of replacements, there is also the elephant in the room with Emily Mortimer stepping as the role of Mary Brown, replacing Sally Hawkins in the role. Now while Mortimer is a talented actor in her own right, and she does a solid job in the role, the absence of Hawkins is felt, as she does lack the same touches that Hawkins brought to the role that makes it less believable that is the same character. The rest of the cast are pretty good, with Ben Whishaw continuing the excellent voice work of performing the titular bear, and Julie Walters, who has been a delight in the prior films, does get more screen time here, and she continues to be a blast in this as expected. As for the new cast, Antonio Banderas is a lot of fun as the riverboat captain, and you can tell he is having a blast, which makes for the performance all the more infectious, yet Olivia Colman does manage to steal the show as the Reverend Mother, who gets the most laughs from me, and as expected her comedic timing is impeccable. The script might be the weakest part of the film, as it lacks the tight construction found in the prior films, it feels a little too flabby with the storylines, it lacks any interesting subtext found in the first two films, there is a pretty obvious twist reveal, and it does feel like it goes on longer than it really needs, even though it is like two minutes longer than the second film. I don't want to completely dog on the script because it is solid enough, with a fun plot, good jokes, and that usual heartwarming message about family and kindness that is core to the Paddington films are still here and does have that genuine earnestness that feels so endearing. It is a disappointment coming after a pretty big high, but as a whole it is a solid enough time and a worthy continuation of the Paddington films, even if it does feel like a step down from what came before. I mean the movie could have done something completely ridiculous and have the Brown family put Paddington in a foster family while they move away. That would have been terrible and undercut everything that made the series feel so special! Why would anyone do that to a movie about family? Also, was not expecting that Fitzcarraldo reference.

Rewatching the first movie, it makes me appreciate everything that Paddington 2 does even more, somehow. It takes what works about the first movie, the charming characters, funny humor, warm-hearted tone, lack of cynicism and embrace of earnestness, and theme of the importance of kindness, and expanding upon it with a remarkably strong script that feels so well-constructed in its plotting and payoffs, and such a tender story that the whole movie feels like a warm, comforting hug. Or rather a nice marmalade sandwich. I also do think the movie does improve upon the filmmaking, as the visuals do pop more in this film, and Paul King does display a wide range of visual dexterity, especially with the visual gags. The influence of Wes Anderson is way more apparent here this time, but not to the point where it feels like a cheap copy. Add to it two stellar ing performances from Hugh Grant and Brendan Gleeson, and it's one of the most delightful films to come out in recent memory and a well-deserved modern classic!

I also noticed the silly mustache Hugh Grant puts on when wearing the knight costume. Like he didn't need to do that!

After going through the series last October, I was pretty excited to check out the sixth film of the series. My curiosity continued to peak with reviews coming in saying that this is the best of the series. Do I agree with that? Eh, not really. It is a good and fun time, and the Final Destination series continues to prove that it is one of the most consistently enjoyable popcorn horror franchise out there, but I wouldn't quite say it tops the best of the series. It's more in the middle of the pact, which isn't a bad thing given the series's consistency. My big issues with this film continue with the issues I have with the other entries in the series, from thin characterization, flimsy plotting, and like the later films in the series, a reliance of CGI spectacle where it never feels all that convincing. I also do feel like this movie does suffer from sluggish pacing issues, and the third act did feel pretty underwhelming in of how the story wrapped up, and also the set pieces just not really offering much excitement or thrills in comparison to some of the other climaxes in the series. I do like the spin on the series in regards to family lineage and how Death comes after a family's bloodline, which is an interesting take, although I do think that it does feel like window-dressing for not really adding a whole lot new to this series in my opinion. Regardless, this was a fun time. Plenty of exciting thrills and carnage, and some really solid set pieces, with my personal favorites being the opening at the Space Needle-wannabe sky restaurant (which honestly had me thinking we were in Seattle for this movie), and the MRI machine being absolutely insane I loved it! I would also say this is one of the most solid cast in the series, as there really isn't a bad performance here, and everyone ranges from pretty good to honestly really solid, with Kaitlyn Santa Juana being a pretty big standout as the main character and quite frankly being way too good for the material she was given. I also did like the inclusion of William Bludworth in this and learning more about his character, even if they did go into over-explaining it a little too much for my taste. Plus for a send-off of Tony Todd, it is a nice way to go out, even if it did feel too on-the-nose and it kind of took me out of the movie a little bit. Also the score for this is really good! I can't if the rest of the series had outright bangers of scores like this one does, but the music for this was really good! Overall another good entry in the series, although I would hesitate to consider this to be the best of the series. If you do want my ranking, it would be 2, 1, 5, Bloodlines, 3, and at dead last the fourth movie (which I refuse to call it by its official title).

I will never forgive the marketing team for using the scene of Paddington cleaning his ears with toothbrushes as the initial impression of the film and making it look a million times worse than it actually is! I thinking this movie looks bad because of the trailers, and shocked when the reviews came in and they were very positive, and when I watched I was pleasantly surprised by how good it is! Well okay maybe not that good, it’s no Paddington 2 after all. The plot itself is pretty cliched for a family film, and while I do think the CGI work for Paddington looks very good, I do think there are times where it isn’t well implemented in the scenes and it is pretty obvious it is CGI. But otherwise it is just a delightful and heartwarming time with a touching story about family and home that does come off as being genuine and earnest in a way few family films can earn, along with being very funny. Rewatching this I honestly forgot how funny Hugh Bonneville is in this, as he has some of the best lines in the film, and his reactions are priceless! I also like how the movie never does that thing where everyone freaks out that the talking animal can talk, and the movie just rolls that this is a normal thing. It adds to the charm of the film and it does feel refreshing in comparison to other CGI talking animal movies aimed at kids. I also picked up more on the subtext about Paddington being a metaphor for being an immigrant than I did the first time I watched it, and the movie is sub-textually about the immigration experience in the U.K. But I also like that the movie never does explain that to the audience and lets them pick it up without distracting from the story at hand. It’s smart storytelling and you can watch the film with out without that interpretation in mind. It’s an easy to love movie and very nice to put on after a long day at work, and I can see myself enjoying this as a kid if this was around for my childhood. It is a shame that the sequel did overshadow this movie, because this is a pretty good time. Although it could have done without the Gwen Stefani song at the end. Because that song is TRRRRAAAAAASSSSSHHHHH!!!

Watched on Monday May 19, 2025.

Marvin is the only Looney Tunes antagonist I feel sorry for. He always seems so excited about world domination, puts in so much efforts into his plans, and has this childlike wonder to him and polite demeanor. And then here's this rabbit scumbag that ruins all his plans and humiliates him for his sick kicks!

"And now then, eager young space cadet, here is the course we shall pursue to find Planet X. Starting from where we are, we go 33,600 turbo miles due up. Then west in an astro-arc deviation to here, then following the great circle seven radiolubes south by downeast. By astro-astroble to here, here, and here, then by space navigo-com to here, here, and then to here and here. By thirteen point strato-cumulus bearing four million light-years, and thus to our destination. Now do you know how to reach Planet X?"

"Y-y-ye... Oh sure."

...

"Well, I wish you'd explain it to me some time, buster!"

Watched on Monday May 19, 2025.

Why does Marvin the Martian sound like a mix of Porky the Pig and Ringo Starr in this?

Life lesson, be grateful about what you get, even if it doesn't come with gravy

I'm with Dan Backslide, if I get dabbed on three times, especially by those Dover Boys, I'd also be driven by hate filled rage and alcoholism.

Watched on Monday May 19, 2025.

Maybe this is how it actually happens, but this movie is so stupid I completely checked out of this movie after the first five minutes

William Wyler has an impressive career of cinematic classics under his belt, yet the Heiress has often been touted as being Wyler's crown jewel, and recently it has gotten renewed attention because of Scorsese citing this film as an influence on Killers of the Flower Moon. I've long been curious about this film, and now I'm finally taking the plunge. Glad to say that I really enjoyed this one, and would consider this my favorite of Wyler's work alongside Roman Holiday. The film is a very strong melodrama, telling a story about a woman's desire for love while questioning the man who is courting her and questioning her position within her family, especially her relationship with her dad. Some may find the story to frivolous, but for a melodrama it is exquisitely rich in detail and characterization that makes it rather compelling to see Catherine navigate her position in life and whether or not she will embrace Morris or not. All of which pays off with a magnificent ending that honestly had me clapping at the end. It is a really engaging story when you buy into the emotional story, and it is easy to do so thanks to a strong plot with equally strong writing and characterization, and plenty of complexities with the character dynamics along the way. Not to mention the rich visuals on display from the gorgeous art direction and Edith Head's costume work, but the rich cinematography and Wyler's expert eye, crafting among his strongest and most lyrical shots he's ever done as a filmmaker. I know I said that before with Mrs. Miniver, but quite frankly I think this might be his most visually dazzling film he has ever done. Plus the cast is excellent, with Olivia de Havilland making for a compelling lead and given a meaty role to really let her digest and excel with such dramatic and searing flair. Well deserving of her Oscar win. We also do get Montgomery Cliff making for a suitable romantic lead and his method acting perfect for the audience to question his intentions, and Ralph Richardson maybe giving the best performance in the film as Catherine's neglectful and mentally abusive father, who does act as a nice foil in the film and is such a fascinating character in his own right as a man who may or may not hate his own daughter, and Richardson really excels at the character with such dramatic and theatrical heft. It is a very good and impressive melodrama all around and one that I would point to as being a good example of the genre in of being compelling drama and not just frivolous fluff. I can also see why Scorsese was influenced by this film, as the material here is just really compelling drama. I highly recommend checking this one out and I can honestly see myself rate this movie higher on rewatch!

A hilarious, heartwarming, yet ultimately tragic story of Will Smith farting out a generic sci-fi action epic for his son to star in, woefully misunderstood why Will Smith is a good actor and thinking Jaden Smith can lead a project like this, getting M. Night Shyamalan to direct this sci-fi epic when it is very much out of his wheelhouse, expecting this to be the next Star Wars with franchise building potential, and it is all crumbling down before him and ruining his son's career. Like Icarus flying close to the sun. It almost brings a tear to my eye.

Going into this, I wasn't sure how the POV perspective would work on me, and I feel that after watching it I do feel a bit mixed on the use of it for the film. While I never had any problem buying into the emotional heart of the film or drawing empathy for Elwood and Turner, but I do feel like the film's use of POV did feel like the director wanted to show off what he could do with the technique. A lot of shots feel more like an exercise in formalism or stylistic indulgences that did feel like it breaks the central idea of the film being from the perspective of the two characters. On top of that, I also did feel like the filmmakers didn't go further with the POV perspective, as the stationary camerawork and rather flat shot compositions make the film feel, I don't want to say artificial because that isn't the right word here, but also not really being able to buy into the central stylistic premise of the film. And at 140 minutes, it does feel too long for its own good. Yet when the POV perspective does work, and it is pretty often, it does create a magical effect of being an immersive, empathetic, and powerful look into systemic oppression, the power of friendship, and what it means to be Black in America during the Civil Rights era. A lot of times it is hard to watch with how dark and upsetting it gets, yet the film overall has a fairly uplifting message about the power of defiance and finding strength in the most dire of circumstances. It is a unique and fresh take on both the coming-of-age drama and the historical period drama on the Civil Rights era that manages to overcome the usual cliches into creating something that feels so different in its familiarity, and a welcome embrace of stylistic invention. I also did like how the movie feels episodic in its storytelling, feeling more like a recollection of memories from a specific point in time, and what I will call abstract and avant-garde scene transitions of archival footage, makes this feel like a cosmic fluid of collective memory. I want to say the approach to this does feel like something Terence Mallick did with the Tree of Life, although ittingly that is a loaded comparison that isn't exactly a 1 to 1. Yet even though I do like the approach to the narrative, whenever the film does cut to Elwood in the future, it did take me out of the narrative and felt too jarring and took me out of the movie. I get why that is there, especially given the twist reveal and what happens at the end, but also it did break the flow for me personally. I wouldn't say I loved this movie like a lot of people did, but I also did find Nickel Boys to be a unique and interesting film that does work more times than it doesn't. More than anything, I do have a lot of respect for the film, and would certainly recommend checking this one out if you haven't yet!

One of those classic punk films that can range from being the perfect film that captures what it means to be punk, and a movie made for posers. As someone that does have an affinity for punk music, I found this to be a pretty good watch. It captures the punk attitude very well of anti-establishment, anti-authority, and chaotic but positive community and sense of camaraderie with one another. And also how self-absorbed and hypocritical the scene can be and how punks usually are. I used to work with one. Trust me, it's true! But the thing that did strike me is how well the film captures that uncertain feeling of being in transit in life, where you know you want to move on with your life, but you aren't sure you want to or are ready for it, and that sad feeling of knowing that it's all over with in the end. It's ultimately a really sad movie about living in a dead-end life and just getting trapped out of comfort even if you know things can be better for you. And even if you do make it out, that doesn't mean that feeling will ever change. It's a bit of a bummer. Yet the film does have plenty of funny moments, really bold visual stylization that perfectly matches the punk aesthetic, and a solid cast of actors who are all pretty good in their respective roles, with Matthew Lillard being a particular standout in a role perfectly suited for him and does showcase that, yeah, he is a really good actor who doesn't really get to showcase that range he has. Although given how people are giving him his dues in recent years, it is good to see people give him the credit he deserves as an actor. I also do like Michael A. Goorjian as our secondary lead character and Lillard's best friend in this, and he's pretty good too, Jason Segel playing a complete maniac and stealing the show whenever he pops up, and Christopher McDonald as Lillard's dad who is very fun in this. The movie does have a rather aimless plot that, while it does make sense for the overall story, does feel like it is directionless and unfocused. But as a whole I was very impressed by SLC Punk and found it to be a fun, if a bit of a bummer, watch and would recommend checking this one out if you like coming-of-age stories, 90s independent cinema, or are a punk fan.

Watched on Friday May 16, 2025.

Movies about America, either culturally or historically, positive or negative. Suggestions welcome.

• Nashville
• True Stories
• Magnolia
• Short Cuts
• McCabe & Mrs. Miller
• The Wolf of Wall Street
• GoodFellas
• The Departed
• Citizen Kane
• It's a Wonderful Life

...plus 2351 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

You have no idea the physical toll that three vasectomies have on a person!

Suggestions welcomed

• Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
• The Celebration
• Guess Who's Coming to Dinner
• Carnage
• Krisha
• Shiva Baby
• The Exterminating Angel
• I'm Thinking of Ending Things
• Get Out
• Hannah and Her Sisters

...plus 637 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

Grouping all the LGBTQ+ films I've seen during Pride Month 2025. These include films with actual LGBTQ+ storylines or documentaries, queer coded content, and queer adjacent films if it was made by an LGBTQ+ director.

• Mala Noche
• My Own Private Idaho
• Monster
• Howl
• Southern Comfort
• Jubilee
• Wild Combination: A Portrait of Arthur Russell
• Milk
• Queer
• Professor Marston and the Wonder Women

...plus 2 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

People jerk off the Criterion Collection too much, but I mean I like movies too sooooooooo

Ranked list of all the Criterion films I know are or were apart of the collection ranked in no specific order other than subjective onions!

There are various reasons why a movie is or is not on the list, but I am referring to the ones that are counted by Criterion as official entries. So movies from the Eclipse series and ones from director box sets like The Complete Films of Agnes Varda will not be included.

I also will not be ranking films that were shown on the Criterion Channel. In spite of how wonderful the selection and curation is, I see them as two separate things.

1. Nashville
2. Mulholland Drive
3. Come and See
4. Persona
5. Midnight Cowboy
6. Being John Malkovich
7. The Royal Tenenbaums
8. The 400 Blows
9. Rashomon
10. Seven Samurai

...plus 785 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

A comprehensive list of all the movies I own physically. Either on DVD, Blu-Ray, or 4K Ultra. Organized in alphabetical order, ranked to make it easier for cataloguing. Miniseries will be included, TV shows not right now as I am debating on it.

EDIT (4/20/23): I had decided to ultimately stop doing the individual updates and just categorized all the movies I have collected in one neat little list. Will update how many have been added or removed.

UPDATE (6/8/25): 3 4K UHD Blu-Rays, 4 Blu-Rays

1. (500) Days of Summer

   DVD

2. 2 or 3 Things I Know About Her

   Criterion DVD

3. Stromboli

   Criterion Blu-Ray Box Set (3 Films by Roberto Rossellini Starring Ingrid Bergman)

4. Europe '51

   Criterion Blu-Ray Box Set (3 Films by Roberto Rossellini Starring Ingrid Bergman)

5. Journey to Italy

   Criterion Blu-Ray Box Set (3 Films by Roberto Rossellini Starring Ingrid Bergman)

6. Underworld

   Criterion Blu-Ray Box Set (3 Silent Classics by Josef von Sternberg)

7. The Last Command

   Criterion Blu-Ray Box Set (3 Silent Classics by Josef von Sternberg)

8. The Docks of New York

   Criterion Blu-Ray Box Set (3 Silent Classics by Josef von Sternberg)

9. 3:10 to Yuma

   Criterion Blu-Ray

10. 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days

    Criterion Blu-Ray

...plus 1936 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

My personal ranking of the directorial filmography of Luca Guadagnino. This will include his feature films but not his short films.

Average: 8.6/10

1. Call Me by Your Name
2. Challengers
3. Suspiria
4. Bones and All
5. A Bigger Splash
6. I Am Love
7. Queer

My personal rankings of the Wes Anderson filmography. These are only including his feature films and not his short films

Average: 9/10

1. The Royal Tenenbaums
2. Fantastic Mr. Fox
3. Moonrise Kingdom
4. The Darjeeling Limited
5. The Grand Budapest Hotel
6. Rushmore
7. Isle of Dogs
8. The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
9. Asteroid City
10. The French Dispatch

...plus 2 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

My personal ranking of the films of Derek Jarman. This will only include his feature films and not his short films

Average: 7.3/10

• Blue
• Wittgenstein
• Jubilee
• Caravaggio

A comprehensive ranked list of the movies that I have seen in 2025 (officially released in the US) that are ranked in my own pointless subjective opinion. This list will only include feature films as short films and miniseries are not going to be allowed.

I will stop editing this list after all the 2025 movies have been release on either streaming or home video (probably around March or April) because I want this list to represent how I feel about these movies that I have seen at this point in time. So don’t expect me to hold the same feelings for these films in three years or so.

1. Sinners
2. Mickey 17
3. SLY LIVES! (aka The Burden of Black Genius)
4. The Phoenician Scheme
5. The Day the Earth Blew Up: A Looney Tunes Movie
6. Paddington in Peru
7. Final Destination Bloodlines
8. Not Just a Goof
9. Captain America: Brave New World
10. Another Simple Favor

...plus 1 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

It is honestly crazy that I've been doing this for six years. I would have thought I might have ran out of movies to watch, but I guess I was wrong lol

Rules for this list is that they aren't ranked but more so a collection of films I've seen, each entry when I saw them. I'm only counting production companies so films distributed by a major American studio will count, as well as films if they are almost spoken entirely in a different language too but made by American filmmakers. I will also count films in English speaking countries like Canada and the UK because they do count as world cinema when you break it down. UK cinema does operate differently from US cinema. I'm also including films that are dubbed like anime. This list is mostly for the films I have experienced for the first time but I will also include films I have rewatched again. When I choose picks for my favorite and least favorite they will only include films I have seen for the first time that year.

• Mr. Nice Guy

  Shot in English and Cantonese, but a Hong Kong production

• Wallace & Gromit: Vengeance Most Fowl
• Local Hero
• Kes
• Memoir of a Snail
• A Prophet
• Dheepan
• Following
• Doodlebug
• Paprika

...plus 33 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

Documentaries that I really enjoy. Ranked in no particular order but F for Fake is my all time favorite FYI

• F for Fake
• For Sama
• Hoop Dreams
• Crumb
• Won't You Be My Neighbor?
• Bowling for Columbine
• Rolling Thunder Revue: A Bob Dylan Story by Martin Scorsese
• Stop Making Sense
• Rush: Beyond the Lighted Stage
• Paris Is Burning

...plus 175 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

My personal favorite LGBTQ+ films, in no particular order but Moonlight is number 1!

I wanna make a few clarifications as to how I personally see a movie as LGBTQ+. 1, obviously, it has to be the main focus of the plot or the lead or one of the leads are identified as such, so characters that are in the ing roles that are identified as such will not belong here unless there is a significant portion of the film to them, which is why Perks of being a Wallflower is here. Second, this isn’t going to include fan theories or coded characters, they have to be clearly identified UNLESS there are some backing to their coding like the source material (I.E. Interview with the Vampire) or confirmed to be by the director/screenwriter (I.E. Lawrence of Arabia). Top Gun is the exception to the rule because holy shit it is homoerotic as fuck! Third, this isn’t a list of the perfect or accurate or positive representation of LGBTQ+ community, these are just movies that I happen to enjoy. So if there is a movie on here that bothers you by the way the character is represented then don’t get too mad.

• Moonlight
• Blue Is the Warmest Color
• Angels in America
• Milk
• Call Me by Your Name
• The Perks of Being a Wallflower
• Velvet Goldmine
• Mulholland Drive
• The Rocky Horror Picture Show
• The Imitation Game

...plus 180 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.