Reviews

Each of Shakespeare's many plays has been told in so many various different mediums and iterations that it is difficult to comprehend new and interesting versions of these same stories. Yet, as Joel Coen's new film THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH shows, filmmakers can still reinvent these stories and create something fresh and creative. One of the most visually satisfying movies of 2021, MACBETH both showcases technological wizardry and serves as a powerful reminder of the universal themes that pervade Shakespeare's tragedy. The film includes Denzel Washington with a stellar lead performance that will likely be considered the quintessential version of the famed character Macbeth for years to come.

When I say that THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH is an adaptation of the Shakespeare play, I don't mean that the film keeps the general story and makes the dialogue its own, similar to how The Taming of the Shrew was adapted into 10 Things I Hate About You. No, I mean that this film is word-for-word the original Shakespeare play, so much so that it often feels like watching a stage production onscreen. The very first scene contains a hefty monologue which brings much of the exposition needed to begin the classic tale, and even serves as a filter for those who aren't aware they are about to watch a piece of Victorian literature. (I discerned the movie better than I thought, although I did have to rewind after the first 5 minutes and turn the captions on.) From then on, THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH is unique in that it manages to bring to life a classic tragedy with a long legacy while also proving to be a highly original experience.

The film owes its originality to the visual mastery displayed by director/writer Joel Coen and the incredible crew -- namely director of photography Bruno Delbonnel. The film is shot in black and white, and on small sets, which gives the viewer a sense of confinement and insanity, and reminds one of the acclaimed 2019 film The Lighthouse. Every shot Delbonnel produces has an almost otherworldly nature to it, making Macbeth's mental deterioration feel like a shared experience. Some of the more intangible aspects of Shakespeare's play (the vision Macbeth has of the dagger, the three witches, the moving forest) are portrayed with a clarity that showcases the visual creativity of everyone involved with this film. THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH is easily one of the most well-shot movies of 2021, and it is a clear frontrunner for the Best Cinematography Oscar (especially because The Green Knight will likely be snubbed by the Academy).

Another aspect of MACBETH that elevates it above other adaptations is the lead performance from Denzel Washington. Saying that Washington gives one of the best performances of his career is a difficult statement given just how many amazing roles are in the running. The fact that this performance is anywhere near the top of his filmography should be an indication of the talent he demonstrates here. The way Washington delivers his Shakespearean dialogue allows the average viewer to understand the meanings behind each scene with clarity. All of the performances in THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH are from good to great, but Washington is a reason alone to see this movie even for those who have no desire to see a Shakespeare adaptation.

Possibly the largest and only downside to THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH is that the story has been told many times before, making the whole narrative a familiar one. However, the movie is so consistently original and refreshing that it supersedes any comparisons that could be made to previous adaptations. Macbeth has always been one of my personal favorite Shakespeare tragedies, so to see it told with such care and creativity at the forefront is immensely satisfying. Coen proves that he doesn't need his sibling to direct a fantastic, award-winning film and crafts a literary essential in the process. THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH may be getting some acclaim now, but in years to come it will be a definitive example of how Shakespeare can be adapted correctly into contemporary cinema.

A-

The nature of movie criticism is to dissect the many different meanings a film can possess, determining for an audience whether said film is worth watching based on how one's interpretations fare. Many people hold movies up to a uniform standard of complexity and meaning, but for me it depends on what direction a filmmaker is trying to go. THE TENDER BAR, a new film directed by George Clooney, is a coming-of-age story based on a memoir by acclaimed journalist and author J. R. Moehringer. Young JR (a fantastic child performance from Daniel Ranieri) grows up in Long Island with his mother (Lily Rabe), grandfather (Christopher Lloyd), and charismatic uncle (Ben Affleck), and finds a home in the local bar in his small town. The film is a typical bildungsroman in every respect, and the movie is captivating in that sense. Many will justifiably complain that THE TENDER BAR never attempts to be anything more, but Clooney doesn't shoot for the stars with this narrative, which never hinders the nostalgic story.

Perhaps the most desirable aspect of THE TENDER BAR is the authentic experience of childhood portrayed in the first half. The experiences of Young JR are lived-in, true to reality and portrayed in a way that will remind audiences of the people who influenced their lives when they were young. This film is filled with memorable supporting characters who may not seem important in a plot sense, but whose presence will impact JR's upbringing in an irreversible manner. Most of us look back at our childhood with fond eyes even if there was hardship involved. The main character in this movie does the same, even though JR is constantly struggling with an absentee father and a lack of money. Time quickly passes to JR as a young adult (Tye Sheridan), and suddenly those small moments in childhood feel like more than small moments, but defining memories that one longs to relive. The nostalgia of one's upbringing is fully captured in that sense, reminding viewers of the times when living was simpler.

Much of this blissful feeling of childhood is captured by JR's Uncle Charlie, an eccentric yet caring man who serves as a father figure to JR. Affleck plays this character beautifully, continuing a hot streak of amazing performances he has maintained from The Way Back to The Last Duel. He steals every scene he is in, and delivers one of the best supporting performances in his career since the strikingly similar role he had in Good Will Hunting. The other highlight is Sheridan as the older JR, who proves himself yet again to be a great up-and-coming star who will snag some great roles in the near future. These two lively performances heighten the connection to these characters stolen straight from real life, and make THE TENDER BAR a compelling narrative to watch despite the relative lack of plot. The movie shares this quality with the 2021 film The Hand of God, and while THE TENDER BAR never has as much inherent meaning as the aforementioned example, it captivates equally.

Some may find THE TENDER BAR tedious or pointless, and though it contains some quality performances and direction, the film does contain moments that feel unnecessary. Clooney has not made a tight film with perfect pacing, instead settling for an imperfect experience full of superfluous, fleeting moments. Clearly the intention was to reflect the state of life, but at times more of a solid direction could be craved. However, the movie as a whole still succeeds at its goals of being a tender story of growing towards adulthood. Those who lived through the 70's will also find plenty of nostalgia in the great production design, while also being reminded of their childhood loved ones in the parental figures portrayed. In this sense, THE TENDER BAR is a great success, making for an experience in which viewers will be able to connect with the real characters and find their own meaning.

B.

In the past couple of years, Netflix has cemented themselves as one of the most prolific generators of award-winning content due to the constant frequency of high-profile projects they release. Due to this high frequency of movies, some are inevitably bound to be lacking in quality compared to the major hits. Maggie Gyllenhaal's THE LOST DAUGHTER, despite the efforts of the talented people involved, seems to be a case of a movie that inherently generates buzz among critics, but never has the thematic punch seen in other worthy films. The film feels stuck in the first 30 minutes, so by the conclusion the character arcs and themes never quite come together in the way the movie intends. However, if for nothing else, THE LOST DAUGHTER is a fantastic showcase of great acting from the two leads: Olivia Colman and Jessie Buckley.

The film centers around Leda (Colman), a woman who arrives on a small resort island to take a quiet vacation. The audience knows very little about her as the movie begins, and much about her is assumed by the way she treats others and keeps to herself while on this vacation. This is one respect where the movie succeeds: the audience feels up-close-and-personal to Leda and the film shows the struggles of her past well through the small actions of the character. However, this may be due to Colman's fantastic performance more than the script or the direction, so because of the good casting this aspect of the film starts out strong. As Leda's stay continues, she begins to become enamored by the life of a large family, specifically a younger woman named Nina (Dakota Johnson) and her small child. The experiences she sees Nina deal with remind Leda of her past, shown through flashbacks with Buckley playing the younger version of the character, and this peaceful vacation becomes a reliving of her past mistakes.

Obviously, Colman is one of the highlights of THE LOST DAUGHTER, which is a given at this point since she hasn't put in a bad performance in memory. However, the performance that steals the movie is Buckley, who must not only carry the emotional weight of every flashback scene, but who alters her mannerisms impressively to become a younger version of Colman. The whole ensemble here puts in good work, although some, like Johnson and Ed Harris as the caretaker of the home Leda stays in, are wasted with either too little screen time or unfulfilling character arcs. This speaks to a larger problem first time director/writer Gyllenhaal has with her characters in THE LOST DAUGHTER in that the progressions lack thematic relevance to the film's topics and overall commentary. Thus, even though Colman and others do their best with the material, the script never gives their performances the meaning they require to truly succeed.

THE LOST DAUGHTER is never truly bad. In reality, it's much the contrary -- for a first feature Gyllenhaal proves that she has the directing talent to craft a personal, interesting slow-burn drama and adapt a rich novel with critical acclaim. Her screenwriting here is less impressive, with the powerful themes about the responsibility of parenthood heading nowhere by the end of the film. The script and the novel clearly deal with a loaded subject and have plenty to say, yet by the end no pointed commentary is made that generates empathy for mothers and their great responsibility. In fact, the film ends up doing quite the opposite -- making viewers believe that women should be better parents than they are by portraying a character that is at times nonsensically flawed. Colman's character does so many questionable things that one wonders whether someone like her should be a parent at all, which was clearly not the message Gyllenhaal was intending to deliver.

The complexity of the characters in THE LOST DAUGHTER is what many hold to be its greatest strength, yet the only complex character in this ensemble seems to be Leda, and even then the negative traits of the character get in the way of any possible lesson to be learned. Parenting is difficult and sometimes it can get so hard that a mother can find herself feeling disdain towards her children. This difficult message is one worth pondering over, and Gyllenhaal's examination of this is a worthy one even if it contradicts itself at times. The performances here (Buckley and Colman especially) deserve the acclaim they could potentially receive, and Gyllenhaal proves to be a worthy director who will retain audiences' attention once her next film releases. THE LOST DAUGHTER just cannot seem to pull its themes together by the end and feels like an empty and confusing experience without an emotional payoff that will not keep the film in viewers' minds after watching.

C+

Some movies have a certain spark to them -- a magic of sorts that pervades the entire film and makes it feel nostalgic even if one has never experienced anything similar to the events of the movie. LICORICE PIZZA contains this energy in spades, reminding one of the times in life when obligation was small and spontaneity was plentiful. Director/writer/producer/director of photography Paul Thomas Anderson writes this movie about the time and place he grew up in, but the specific experiences were not derived from his own life. Yet somehow, Anderson manages to craft the film like an autobiography about the times he yearns for from his own life. This mentality is communicated heavily through the themes and artistic decisions of LICORICE PIZZA, which creates authentic moments full of humor, deep subtext and earned nostalgia.

The plot of LICORICE PIZZA can seem like a love story on the surface, but in execution the narrative is more of a coming-of-age tale of two naive and young free spirits. Gary Valentine (Cooper Hoffman) is a 15-year-old aspiring Hollywood actor who already has his own entrepreneurial efforts in starting a water bed shop and making his name known in the community. Alana Kane (Alana Haim) is a 25-year-old who is taking portraits for the high school that Gary goes to, and he falls in love at first sight, despite the unacceptable age difference of the two (I'll address this topic later in the review). Gary and Alana embark on a wild and memorable summer together, full of unethical decisions, toxic behavior, and near-misses with danger. The two start out with unbelievable chemistry, and while this never disappears, it also devolves into heated arguments, backstabbing and mutual manipulation.

The instant aspect of LICORICE PIZZA that stands out and doesn't stop shining until the very last frame is the two lead performances. Hoffman and Haim are making their feature film debuts in this movie, yet these are easily two of the best performances of the year, injecting the movie with a limitless charisma that never fails to impress. Hoffman is wonderfully awkward in the first act, knowing exactly how to play each moment for the maximum amount of uncomfortable humor, but his endless confidence still shines through and charms the audience right out of their seats. Haim is the perfect antithesis to Hoffman's confidence, but she also creates an incredible character of her own. Her great timing and hilarious facial expressions make each scene exponentially better, and she commands the screen better than an actress with four decades of film experience would. Both should be frontrunners for awards this season, a remarkable feat for newcomers of any caliber.

What is truly special about LICORICE PIZZA is the way it reflects the innocence of youth, while also transitioning into the adult realization of how one's life fits into the bigger picture of the world. Gary represents the innocence aspect of the story, even though he is yet another overconfident male in Hollywood who never fails to get into lucrative situations because of his charm. However, Gary fails to realize that the world does not revolve around him, and that the actions he chooses in the present may affect his future and those who care for him. In the beginning, he has wild dreams of the things he will accomplish, but as the movie progresses he understands the reality of his actions even though he still decides to lean into his youth. Alana, however, is aware of her place in the world even when we first meet her. Yet she too goes through a period of growth in which she is aware of how her community affects her and her friends. By the end, her maturity far outstrips that of Gary, which is why their relationship always has just as many periods of toxicity and bickering as it does adventure and romance.

Much controversy has been created around the age difference of the two protagonists, with people claiming that the movie glorifies and condones an illegal and unethical relationship. While LICORICE PIZZA does depict a questionable dynamic, the film in no way endorses the relationship -- in fact, I'd argue that Anderson's entire point here is that their relationship leads to chaos and imbalance because of their ages. While both of these people are searching for their own meaning and have good intentions, they often manipulate other people for personal gain and direct that behavior towards each other, creating an unstable situation that could crash at any given moment. The beauty of LICORICE PIZZA is in the complexity of the story Anderson is telling, not in the glorification of a relationship that by all means should not exist. Yet these truths are challenged by the overt nostalgic qualities of the narrative, which has an American Graffiti-like carelessness and randomness to it. The nostalgia is something that 25-year-old Alana indulges in by being interested in Gary, and neither wants to escape it by the end of the film.

The one major issue with LICORICE PIZZA is the ending, which feels rushed to wrap up the complicated themes of the relationship in a tidy bow. This relationship is not one that needed a typical rom-com ending, but instead the ending should be unresolved and uncertain to reflect the constant ups-and-downs Gary and Alana perpetuated. Instead, the ending presents a glossy, feel-good picture that in no way reflects the tone of the painting that Anderson seems to craft with the rest of his film. However, this ending is nowhere near enough to dull the effects of Anderson's magical movie experience, which often feels like gliding through a fairyland where nothing matters but the decisions we make in each fleeting moment. Even when the reality of the world begins to hit Alana, the magic of LICORICE PIZZA remains, and while this could be attested to the nostalgic quality of the story, the truth is that this film is just a wonderfully-created rarity of creativity in a Hollywood reliant on formula.

A-

If there is one thing that the Matrix films always deliver on, it is providing an ambitious and thoughtful concept that one could never find anywhere else. The franchise has been through its fair share of highs and lows since the original classic film debuted in 1999, but even the moments that don't land take more risks than the majority of Hollywood blockbusters. All of this can be said for the new Matrix reboot, THE MATRIX RESURRECTIONS, which returns to the world where the Earth has been taken over by machines that are holding humans in a false coded reality. The film is directed by Lana Wachowski, one of the two siblings who helmed the original Matrix trilogy, and the film retains the same dramatic flair and existential dialogue, even if the look and feel is different. Wachowski clearly has a great knowledge for the material of this franchise, creating a movie that uses the previous films to develop a new experience with strong messages about the state of consumer culture in media and the state of storytelling.

The previous film left off with the final human outpost of Zion having just been saved by Neo (Keanu Reeves) and Trinity (Carrie Anne-Moss), both of whom sacrificed themselves to create peace between the humans and the machines, however temporary it may be. Now both find themselves living normal human lives -- Neo as a video game designer and Trinity as a regular mom with a typical good-looking husband. Both start to question their reality as the film goes on, and start to realize that the same forces of evil that plagued them in the previous films may be back and keeping them in their monotonous existence. As per usual with the Wachowski Matrix films, THE MATRIX RESURRECTIONS is very confusing and difficult to comprehend for much of the runtime. The opening sequence drops the audience in the middle of a developing situation with no context as to what exactly is happening and why. Of course, Wachowski eventually explains this and much of the other confusion that pervades the first watch of the film, but even then the movie gets bogged down by the overly convoluted exposition and storytelling.

All of the issues seen in THE MATRIX RESURRECTIONS are the same of every other Matrix film, so the confusing plot details and irrelevant existential conversations are to be expected. However, this Matrix film delivers many positives which are new and fresh even for the stereotypically innovative franchise. The storyline is similar to the very first Matrix film (Neo is trapped in the Matrix and must discover his true potential while breaking out of the clutches of the machines), but the delivery and how it gets there creates an original experience despite the thematic callbacks. The film comments very heavily on the nature of storytelling and fiction, and how the art of creation has been commodified in modern pop culture. At first, they use the video game designer position that Neo holds as a meta commentary on the massive expectation to create a good reboot of the Matrix franchise that fans will enjoy. As the movie goes, the Matrix itself becomes a fight for creative freedom and the ability to exist as a creator without corporate powers dictating each decision.

These themes were not prevalent in the previous Matrix films, and their existence here is the most fascinating and compelling aspect of RESURRECTIONS. The other fantastic addition is the new characters, most of whom end up creating more interesting arcs than the ones followed by Neo and Trinity. Neil Patrick Harris delivers one of the best performances since his How I Met Your Mother years as Neo's therapist ("The Analyst"), and Jonathan Groff lives up to his fantastic predecessor as the new version of the rogue Agent Smith, previously played by Hugo Weaving. Jessica Henwick is also an impressive find here, playing a character who I hope they bring back and expand on in future installments. The only character that did not impress me is the new version of Morpheus played by Yahya Abdul Mateen II, a fantastic actor who just delivers cheap nostalgia in place of an actual human arc.

Abdul-Mateen's character speaks to a larger issue of RESURRECTIONS -- an overreliance on nostalgia to carry the film instead of compelling original moments. Wachowski often shows clips from the previous movies to let viewers know if a scene is calling back to a previous moment, and this technique is used so often that it feels like the movie never becomes its own narrative. I understand the need to satisfy the fans when rebooting a popular franchise such as this, but the plot sometimes never moves past the iconic moments of the original because the film constantly tries to reference them. It is an interesting irony that Wachowski comments on the difficulty of making original content in today's culture, yet relies heavily on the previous material in the franchise to craft the narrative.

With that being said, THE MATRIX RESURRECTIONS presents enough of a different and intriguing experience that it is worth the watch. The quality of this new Matrix film is similar to that of the previous two sequels, so fans will be sure to find value in the weirdness of this sci-fi adventure as they did with Reloaded and Revolutions. However, the flaws of those two are found here, and the franchise has yet to live up to the innovative and masterful first film. Wachowski proves that she has immense creativity when it comes to science fiction, and even redeems herself from the 2015 mess that is Jupiter Ascending. RESURRECTIONS definitely highlights some shortcomings and could have been a better and more satisfying reboot, but the narrative contains enough great ideas and themes that the movie fits nicely into the preexisting Matrix canon.

B-

Marvel has gotten to the point where they release more projects a year than a person could count on both hands. It would be easy for their projects to slip into redundancy, but the constant reliance on human emotions and storylines has made each project unique and interesting. HAWKEYE, the newest Disney Plus superhero show, is a fantastic example of how good characters and care for the material can turn a possibly boring and overdone show into a fantastic watch for all ages. This show never treads unfamiliar ground, but the way it expands on the emotions of the characters we already know while introducing intriguing new characters is all anyone could ask for from a Hawkeye series. Sprinkle in some good cameos and fan service, and you have a fun, fast-paced Marvel project that serves as a perfect viewing for the holiday season.

Even though the show is titled HAWKEYE, and is advertised as the long-awaited solo offering for Jeremy Renner's bow-and-arrow wielding Avenger, the beginning of the show centers around Hailee Steinfeld's Kate Bishop instead. In fact, the majority of the six episode season centers around Bishop and her wishes to become a hero similar to Hawkeye, making this just as much her show as it is Renner's. The beginning of the season, where the two main characters are being introduced and the exposition is at full throttle, is the weakest stretch of the show. Some of the dialogue feels unnatural and not as smooth or well-written as other Marvel shows in the past. However, once the narrative sets itself up by the end of the first episode, the writing gets far better and the show becomes thrilling and engaging.

Steinfeld and Renner are an amazing team, and throughout the series they have a fantastic comedic chemistry which creates the most consistently funny MCU project all year. The jokes land in this show and do not rely on pop culture references, which, therefore, will cause them to have comedic value beyond six months. The two also have a dramatic connection that makes their characters interesting as emotional foils to each other. Bishop grew up rich, chose to practice archery so she could learn to save the city like Hawkeye, and must grapple with the criminal activity that may be occuring in her family behind her back. Clint Barton/Hawkeye is attempting to move on from his troubling past by taking care of his family, but keeps getting dragged back. The criminal world is not finished with him due to the past damage he caused to gang members' families. This unlikely relationship is the centerpiece of the show and is one of the reasons that the whole narrative works as well as it does.

By the end, the audience receives a better sense of what truly makes Hawkeye tick than anything viewers received in the previous projects he is featured in, making this story one worth telling. As usual with the MCU, the action is fantastic throughout the show, with one car chase scene in the third episode containing an impressive sequence in which the director pulls off a shot that is a clear ode to Alfonso Cuaron's Children of Men. It is also refreshing that the final fight scene is not an overstuffed CGI mess like many superhero movies these days, and instead relies on great stunt-work to create the most thrilling sequences. The show doesn't waste much time either -- instead of including multiple filler episodes that drag the pacing down it makes the most of its six episode length to fully expand each character. HAWKEYE manages to avoid much of the pitfalls of recent superhero shows and movies while using the superhero clichés it contains to create the maximum possible result.

HAWKEYE is not a show that will stick in fans' minds as much as projects like Spider-Man: No Way Home, but for a show that highlights possibly the least interesting Avenger, it does a hell of a job keeping viewers invested. I watched almost the entire show in one night because each episode pulled me in to the extent that I had to watch the next one every time the previous episode ended. Most people who begin this season will have the same experience, which is a testament to the solid writing and storytelling the show has on display. HAWKEYE is a show that could have easily been phoned in so the streaming numbers could generate an easy profit, but the creators and directors clearly put time and effort into producing a story that viewers would care about and be invested in. Perhaps that is a low bar to hold a show to, but HAWKEYE achieves these goals so well that I think the show is another Marvel production worth commending.

B+

Director Adam McKay, known for irreverent works like Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy and The Other Guys, has recently been honing his comedy skills down to making pointed social satires in films like The Big Short and Vice. McKay has now come out with his most ambitious satire yet, an apocalyptic mirror of our current society called DON'T LOOK UP. In the first couple minutes of the film, two astronomers -- one a PhD student named Kate Dibiasky (Jennifer Lawrence) and the other a professor at Michigan State (Leonardo DiCaprio) -- find a 10 kilometer long comet from the Oort Cloud that is heading directly towards Earth. This could be an extinction level event, so the duo attempt to head directly to the Oval Office so action can be taken to save the human race. Of course, they start to realize that nobody takes themes seriously, starting a series of pointed political critiques that make for McKay's most focused satire by leaps and bounds.

DON'T LOOK UP begins as a typical political criticism in the same tone in which McKay has excelled in his previous films. The very first scene in the White House with a bumbling U. S. President (Meryl Streep) and her cluelessly reckless son/Chief of Staff (a hilarious Jonah Hill) is a parody of modern political inaction. McKay mocks U. S. Presidents who often show apathy when something critical crosses their desks unless it politically benefits them. If someone could come to a President with the news that the world is about to end and they could care less, then what is the point in having this institution represent the public at all? DON'T LOOK UP asks this question, along with poking fun at the ridiculousness of the modern American political landscape, where everyone cares so much about their image that they neglect the issues that actually matter in the world. Seeing Streep play a direct parody of Trump if he handled a comet impacting Earth is vastly meaningful even with a new President in office.

The predominant metaphor that the incoming comet serves to represent is the climate crisis Earth is facing. Scientists have predicted the Earth will deteriorate quickly over the next hundred years with officials and societal leaders doing nothing. This interpretation is where the film thrives, especially when McKay delves into the human impact these events will have on innocent, well-meaning civilians. In this respect, the last act of DON'T LOOK UP succeeds far more than the rest, delivering a cautionary tale that will make most stop in their tracks and wonder what it is that we as a society hold dear. McKay's main message seems to emphasize the connection we have with each other as human beings, and how we should reach out to and cherish the people we love. I don't believe the film would have worked at all without this powerful message to bookend the satire, and it transforms DON'T LOOK UP from a long Saturday Night Live segment into a worthwhile movie experience with a message that will stick with viewers.

Much of the reason why these points land in addition to McKay's interesting concept is the all-star cast that handles the material on-screen. Saying that DiCaprio and Lawrence deliver fantastic performances seems to be a given at this point, but their quality work in this film makes that sentiment worth reiterating. The comedic talent ends up coming from an improvisational Jonah Hill and an unexpectedly hilarious Timothée Chalamet, among many others. The score from Nicholas Britell also adds exponentially to the chaos, hilarity and dramatic heft of the film, delivering jazzy flourishes and hard-hitting emotional strings in the moments that matter. Couple this with some quality visual effects once the comet starts approaching Earth, and audiences get a movie that rises above most other surface-level Adam McKay comedies.

DON'T LOOK UP is by no means a masterpiece, for nuance and specificity have never been aspects that McKay has excelled at given his overt comedy roots. However, the emotional and political significance of this film ends up being more poignant than anything McKay has accomplished yet, making it an essential movie to close 2021. While the unreasonably large cast sometimes distracts more than aids the movie as a whole (Ariana Grande and Kid Cudi are present for like five minutes), the message is strong enough to cut through the celebrity distractions and hit home some strong takedowns of modern-day political and social norms. DON'T LOOK UP does not claim to have all of the answers to these problems, but it points out some hilarious, yet troubling issues with the culture we take for granted and the figureheads we place in high regard.

A-

Authenticity and being true to oneself are large factors that define the best filmmakers of any generation. These traits are also what define Paolo Sorrentino's new film THE HAND OF GOD, a personal story of a teenager in Naples, Italy who is looking to become his own person within the chaos of an overbearing, yet loving family. Sorrentino claims to have written this film about true events that happened in his childhood, and whether or not this is true, the passion and love for the material shows through the fantastic filmmaking. Much of the first act of the film consists of the younger Sorrentino, played excellently by Filippo Scotti and named Fabietto in the narrative, being drowned out by his family's banter and gossip. The film cements into the audience the nature of the family and of the culture before it focuses in on Fabietto and becomes a personal coming-of-age story.

The very first shot of THE HAND OF GOD is one of the most stunning of 2021 -- a sweeping helicopter shot of Naples from the sea in front of it, giving viewers a look at the vastness of the city and the extent of the culture before sharing one of the many personal stories from it. THE HAND OF GOD is just as much a film about the city of Naples and the people in it as it is a story about a teenager who has a love for football (soccer in America) and his eventual desire to direct film. Sorrentino understands that his story is just one of many stories from his city that could be told in a film format, and he constantly highlights the great number of supporting characters, showing their issues as well as his own. Supposedly, Alfonso Cuaron's masterful Roma was a major inspiration for Sorrentino's decision to produce this film. Cuaron proved that a specific, personal story could become a successful and acclaimed movie that connects with people on different levels all over the world. THE HAND OF GOD will likely achieve this feat as well, delivering a story that anyone will find something in.

While the culture-specific ramblings of Fabietto's family near the beginning are essential to contextualize the story, they also drag the movie's pacing. Multiple times during the runtime, it is difficult to comprehend what direction the plot seems to be going in, which requires the audience to be patient before any direct characterization or important events kick in. However, Fabietto's story is still an entrancing one full of inspiration, self-discovery and great sadness. The film is full of oddly specific details that could only be told by someone who took those events from lived experiences, and despite the dragging pace is full of a cultural richness that is rare in a movie that crosses over to American audiences. Sorrentino shows the community of the people in Naples, Italy through their shared excitement for football superstar Diego Maradona's transfer to the Napoli club. At times, the people in Naples develop a larger attachment to Maradona than they do to their loved ones and religious beliefs, which shows the importance of community and idolization in the culture of Sorrentino's youth.

By the end, THE HAND OF GOD is a coming of age story first and foremost. The innocent bantering of the first 30 minutes feels years away by the time the final act arrives, similar to how one's first day of high school feels like a lifetime ago after turning 20 years-old. Fabietto's future feels almost within grasp when the movie ends, which is a hopeful irony given the product of his future endeavors is the very film being viewed. Sorrentino's journey back to his childhood is one worth taking, and not just if you can relate to the culture or the specific details of the story. THE HAND OF GOD is a personal story that viewers seldom see in cinemas these days, and more films need to be produced with the same intimate roots and open-minded possibilities.

A-

One could argue that there has been no movie more anticipated in the last couple of years than SPIDER-MAN: NO WAY HOME. Spider-Man fans and moviegoers alike were dripping with anticipation to see how Tom Holland's version of the character would handle the Multiverse, and now that the moment is finally here, fans are exploding with excitement. After all, if there is one thing that NO WAY HOME excels at, it is giving the die-hard fans an experience that will leave them in a state of euphoria for weeks. This film is one that is unabashedly created for fans, which is admirable given how well it gives Spider-Man followers what they want and more. However, when it comes to being an actual movie with a solid plot and humor that sticks the landing, the film often comes up well short.

Describing the plot of this film is like walking through a field of landmines, so everything I describe will have to be maddeningly vague so as not to spoil the surprises. The film continues from exactly where the end-credits scene of Spider-Man: Far From Home left off, with Holland's Peter Parker being accused by Mysterio of murder and with his identity as Spider-Man revealed. These revelations alter his life and the lives of those around him, causing him to turn to Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) for some help. However, Strange reveals more horrible problems that may not only impact Peter, but the fate of the entire universe.

NO WAY HOME starts off as a somewhat typical superhero movie with a decent yet forgettable plot and humor that often falls flat on its face, making the first act the weakest stretch of the movie. Much of the movie's plot revolves around the main three characters (Peter, MJ and Ned) attempting to get into MIT, which comes across as a cheap device to get the actual interesting superhero stuff started. Parker makes some very poor decisions near the first half and ends up accidentally causing all of the catastrophe that ensues. The movie reminds the audience that Peter is just a kid and his decision-making skills are naturally not the best at his age, but the plot relies on these poor decisions to such an extreme extent that the film falls apart if one thinks about it for more than five minutes. The first half contains the same fundamental issues that dragged Far From Home down, including a sense of humor that falls flat just as often as it makes the audience chuckle.

However, the film also contains a lot of the strengths that power the previous two films -- mainly Tom Holland himself as Spider-Man. Holland embodies this role like no other has before, and delivers an emotionally charged performance that surpasses any expectations of a superhero movie such as this. The other performance that stands out here is Willem Dafoe, who steps back into a role that he hasn't played in almost two decades as if he never left. (That is not a spoiler, it was in the trailer.) The villains in general are surprisingly well-fleshed out and supply some of the strongest scenes in a somewhat underwhelming first half. The last performance that should be highlighted here is an actor who brings more emotion than every other, and who proves to fans that more material should be created starring his rich and interesting version of an iconic character. (Have fun deciphering the possible subject of that last sentence.)

Luckily, NO WAY HOME picks up in a major way during the last hour of the film, with plot elements that prove to be far more interesting and emotionally compelling than anything presented previously. Even the humor seems to land more in the last act, and the chemistry between certain characters is electric, making me wish the entire film had this degree of quality. As some expected, the last act of the film has a substantial amount of fan service -- moments that pander to fans' expectations and which will have little significance to the uninitiated. Sometimes fan service can fail miserably, but in this case it works so well that the movie becomes far superior as a result. The writers also blend the fan moments with important plot points and very powerful scenes, making the last act as satisfying as it could possibly be. The saving grace for NO WAY HOME is the knowledge that despite the lackluster first half, the writers knew exactly where the destination of the plot was located, creating an satisfying experience overall.

SPIDER-MAN: NO WAY HOME is an experience worth having, especially in the theater with a large crowd of fans on every side. As a fan-centered project, this film is an unqualified success of epic proportions, and is already on track to become one of the most successful movies in history. Nothing I can say in this review can minimize an achievement like that. However, for a movie that is endlessly praised and hyped up, NO WAY HOME fails to deliver an unique and new experience other than the fan service. At the end of the day, the film is another MCU movie, and no amount of moments that are created for crowd reaction will remedy a decent and forgettable script. This movie will be justifiably remembered for being an ode to Spider-Man, what the character means to people, and the fans that make the character the phenomenon it is today. If only it proved to be a better stand-alone story without relying on the Marvel Cinematic Universe to curate the mediocre plot.

B.

As far as remakes go, most typically aren't as sophisticated or handled with as much care as Steven Spielberg's WEST SIDE STORY. Most remakes these days feel like cash grabs or an attempt to capitalize off of a preexisting property without putting a great amount of effort in, which gives the word a bad connotation in film discussion. With just the very first shot of WEST SIDE STORY, filmgoers will know that this particular remake has something entirely different in mind. The time and effort put into this film is clearly unparalleled and curated with such precision that it puts most other musicals to shame. Spielberg, for someone who has not yet helmed a full-on musical such as this, knows exactly how to make an all-time great musical, and his version of this classic story rivals the original in terms of quality.

Those who don't yet know the plot of this classic Broadway musical should know that it is basically a remake of Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet but with two rival gangs in New York City instead of the Capulets and Montagues. The Jets, an all-white gang, are constantly fighting with the Sharks, a proudly Puerto Rican gang, for the turf of their poor city neighborhood that will soon be demolished to make way for the future Lincoln Center. At a dance in which both gangs are in attendance, Tony (Ansel Elgort), a member of the Jets, and María (Rachel Zegler), a member of the Sharks, fall in love at first sight much to their families' dismay. Their relationship quickly causes even more war between the two gangs, and things quickly escalate to a level of violence that neither gang could have possibly foreseen.

For a musical, WEST SIDE STORY has a remarkably dark plot, yet one of the greatest characteristics of the movie is the joy and celebration in its musical numbers. Spielberg directs and choreographs some of the best musical dance numbers ever put to film, showcasing a level of specificity and talent that comes with a sense of wonder as to how any of it was accomplished. The ensemble cast of this film is great on every level -- Spielberg made sure to cast the most talented dancers from both film and Broadway to round out his heavily ambitious sequences. The ensemble musical numbers are helmed with the same high level of skill as the action sequences in Raiders of the Lost Ark, showcasing Spielberg's immense range as a filmmaker.

Spielberg also did not waste time on casting the lead roles, almost all of whom are stellar and future stars-in-the-making. Rachel Zegler, who plays María, has one of the best singing voices in a Hollywood movie while also being able to steal any scene she's in. Both Zegler and Ariana DeBose, who plays Anita with a passion and heartbreak that showcases her immense range, are A-listers in the making, and it wouldn't be surprising to see them both pop up again over the next couple of years. However, the true highlight for me is Mike Faist as Riff, who not only nails the complicated dance numbers near the beginning, but showcases a hidden emotional vulnerability behind his tough-guy persona. Faist's fantastic performance is a stark contrast to one of the film's biggest weaknesses in multiple respects: Ansel Elgort. He is never terrible as Tony, but he plays his role in an average and forgettable manner, which is nowhere near the transcendent performances of people like Zegler or Faist.

This performance ends up impacting the plot, for the relationship between Tony and María does not hit the audience in the way it should for the last act to have its full effect. It does succeed in many ways, but certain emotional beats don't seem to land as much as the original. This isn't to say that the last act is not immensely moving because of Spielberg's symbolic direction, but certain plot beats leading up to the final moments feel weak and irrational in a way that does not add to the message of the film. Much of what I love about the new WEST SIDE STORY is how the hubris and pride of the men in this story escalates the hardship both gangs end up facing. However, sometimes these bad decisions are carried out by both male and female characters just to further the plot, which leaves the script contradicting some of the better themes of the story.

Many people have focused on the glaring flaws of WEST SIDE STORY as being evidence to not seek it out, but this musical is far more than one actor or one plot point can make or break. The cross-cultural messages and commentary on the defensive masculine culture that negatively impacts all groups is powerful and worth the revisit, and the talent involved is immense. I can only imagine how long the rehearsal period was to prepare for almost every scene in this two hour and 35 minute epic, and the cast and crew clearly dedicated themselves to pulling off some of these near impossible feats. In general, Spielberg's WEST SIDE STORY is a rarity, for it proves that a remake can match the quality of the original. It may have flaws that hold the film back from greatness, but this achievement is not one that should be taken lightly.

B+

Humanity is flawed. After all, we are destroying our planet, subjugating some people to poverty and oppression, and we treat people who are different from us with a suspicious disrespect. But yet, humanity is filled with intelligent, caring, and loving people who would do anything for the ones they care about. Never have I felt more positive about humanity than when leaving C'MON C'MON, one of the biggest surprises of 2021. The film provides further evidence that Joaquin Phoenix is one of our best actors, while it also contains some stellar supporting performances of the highest possible caliber. Rarely does a movie cross the presence of theater screens with relationships so pure and real, and with the magical things about everyday life on full display.

Phoenix plays a documentary filmmaker who is traveling to certain American cities and interviewing the youth about their perspective on their lives, the future of their generation, and the state of humanity in general. The film opens with a montage of the kids of today talking about their hopes and fears of how the Earth has been left for their generation, and throughout the movie these interviews are returned to, giving the personal story some much-needed perspective. Phoenix's character Johnny has to take a detour from his interviews to take care of his nephew Jesse (the incredible Woody Norman), who is left at home when his mother/Johnny's sister (Gaby Hoffmann) has to take care of her severely bipolar husband (Scoot McNairy). However, Johnny has to get back to New York City to interview more subjects for his work, so much to his mother's dismay, he decides to take Jesse to New York with him, starting a road-trip full of self-discovery and realization.

Mike Mills directs and writes C'MON C'MON, the first movie of his since 2016's 20th Century Women, and he gives audiences an experience worth waiting for. Mills shoots the film in black and white, yet not once does it feel like something from the experience is lacking -- in fact, the details of each shot are even more noticeable with the gorgeous cinematography from Robbie Ryan. Mills proves in C'MON C'MON that, like in his other recent critically acclaimed hits, he can write a human story that speaks to the times like no other. This film is perfectly suited to today's landscape of volatility and division, and cuts through the noise to deliver a positive message of empathy despite all of the hardship. Each character's unique experience in this movie feels so grounded that it almost seems as though watching the film is equivalent to meeting them in real life.

All of Mills' characters in C'MON C'MON are facing some sort of intense struggle that takes a lot of energy out of them, yet they persevere and find happiness in the small moments with the people they love. Johnny, for example, is dealing with crippling loss while also dealing with a recent divorce, both of which have left him all alone. Phoenix plays this role with the usual expertise that he brings to every film, giving his character room for the deep emotional complexity without overplaying it or making it feel any more or less than real. Meanwhile, Johnny's nephew Jesse must deal with the fact that his father is not doing well mentally and his mother must be away to take care of him. Woody Norman is exceptional as Jesse, smashing any expectations that could possibly be leveled for a 12-year-old actor and stealing scenes from Phoenix every chance he gets.

Another theme that impressed me in C'MON C'MON is the extent to which Mills emphasizes mothers as being heroes of our society. Much of the work of raising our society's youth and shaping the generations to come is left to the moms, and they go through hell just to get to the following day at times. Gaby Hoffmann plays Viv, Jesse's mother, exceptionally and is a clear frontrunner for best supporting actress at the Oscars this year in my eyes. The stress and the constant fatigue of being a parent is felt in her amazing performance and the way in which the script highlights her sacrifice is noble, heartwarming and will make every sane person want to thank the mothers in their life.

The glorious thing about C'MON C'MON is not just the way it emphasizes the struggles of the characters in this movie, but the way it expresses empathy and hope for the common human struggles of connection, finding happiness, and creating meaning in life. The movie is roughly 15 percent documentary and 85 percent dramatic, so the hardships that Johnny, Jesse, and the rest of the characters face are put into perspective through the eyes of tomorrow's adults in eloquent fashion. This evolves the characters beyond fiction to becoming vessels of ordinary people, dealing with these same issues that one may run into on the street. By the end of this film, I felt more optimistic about humanity's future and the everyday person walking the streets than I felt when walking into the theater, and there's not much more I can ask for from a movie. C'MON C'MON instills a reality in viewers that is rarely seen in film -- one that causes the audience to walk out and treat each other with more kindness. I can recall no other effect that better encapsulates the heart of filmmaking.

A+

THE POWER OF THE DOG is slow, meditative and patient. It is a film that takes its time to unfold the true motivations behind each deeply complex character, yet when the realizations occur, the emotional payoff is a disturbing, personal assessment of gender and generational trauma in the west. Easily one of the finest films of 2021, THE POWER OF THE DOG is Jane Campion's triumphant return to cinema after an 11-year hiatus from directing. The movie contains gorgeous cinematography from the talented Ari Wegner, a haunting score from the prolific Jonny Greenwood, and some of the most powerful thematic strokes of the past couple of years of film.

Benedict Cumberbatch stars as Phil Burbank, an aggressive and outgoing rancher who runs a farm with his brother George (Jesse Plemons). Phil mocks George, calls him names, and exudes a mean-spirited demeanor which inspires fear in some and anger in others. His personality clashes with that of the kind and innocent Peter (Kodi Smit-McPhee) and Rose (Kirsten Dunst) Gordon, who serve them a fried chicken dinner in their dining establishment. George, however, takes to Rose and in no time the two are a couple and getting married, much to Phil's dismay. Phil acts in spite towards Rose, treating her with malice and disrespect for taking his brother from him. His actions end up affecting Peter and Rose mentally, and his relationship with them ends up affecting the worldview of everyone involved.

From the very beginning of THE POWER OF THE DOG, Cumberbatch disappears into his character, making the audience afraid of his presence even if they know him from roles like Sherlock or Doctor Strange. His mannerisms and subtle facial expression speak volumes by saying very little, and his vulnerabilities slip through the cracks in some of the more powerful scenes. Cumberbatch gives perhaps the best performance of his career, and is just one piece of the complex puzzle that Campion intends on unfurling. The other highlight is Smit-McPhee, who, like Cumberbatch, begins the movie as a seemingly simple character but who proves to be more complex than meets the eye. Each lead performance in this film has to showcase one personality on the surface, yet show something else entirely underneath, and all four main actors step up to the plate in some of the best work of all of their filmographies thus far.

Campion has always been a filmmaker who understands the innate emotions behind a character's actions, but here she outdoes herself by creating an emotional masterpiece highlighting the flaws and damage that can be caused through trauma and abuse. She shoots the film, even though it is set in the American West of the 1920s, in New Zealand, making the scenery a stunning backdrop to a deeply personal and rough narrative. The film starts out as a comment on toxic masculinity and how these ideals rub onto both others and the people that perpetuate it. The atmosphere that Phil creates on his farm is that of mocking others and being frightened of the norms that differ from the regular, and while he seems to revel in this life, his insecurities and personal secrets reveal that he too has been a victim of this mentality. Toxic masculinity is a corrosive poison that eats all it encounters, including the people who adopt it for their own benefit.

However, as Campion's script progresses, it soon becomes clear that THE POWER OF THE DOG has far more on its mind than just one toxic man. The film turns into a case study of trauma passed down from generation to generation and how people justify the past through their own actions. Each character in THE POWER OF THE DOG has internalized their struggles in their own unique way: some perpetuate the problems that already plagued their lives and some do everything they can to stay away from the darkness of the past. Either way, the remnants of previous traumas remain with these people, as they do with any family that must deal with difficult truths.

The film also confronts the manner in which different personalities can clash with each other and cause the thoughts and beliefs of all involved to forever alter. Phil, for example, rubs off on everybody he comes into contact with, which is why his fellow cowhands partake in his petty and childish games towards others. However, as Phil interacts with Rose and Peter throughout the movie, we see bits of them transfer over to him and we realize that despite his opaque exterior, Phil has desires and thoughts that reflect those of someone who craves connection. The last act of THE POWER OF THE DOG is splendid, giving audiences some of the best symbolism in quite some time and leaving viewers with a multitude of thoughts and interpretations. Campion is truly a writing/directing master, and this film will likely bring long overdue attention to her work in general.

It must be stated that THE POWER OF THE DOG will not be liked by all viewers, and does not have a structure that many will find engaging. The timeline of the story is confusing at times and the film feels long due to the sluggish pacing that Campion relies on to let viewers marinate in the characters. However, the film is thematically rich to such a great extent that I never felt the slowness was unjustified. Campion explores trauma and toxic masculinity deeper than any movie I can recollect, and for this I don't believe THE POWER OF THE DOG will be soon forgotten. This is a gorgeous film from start to finish, and I will be pondering the many motifs Campion introduces for some time.

A.

Life is short. The time people have on planet Earth should be spent living life to the fullest and spending time committing to activities that bring happiness. This is why I suggest skipping the new two hour 40 minute Ridley Scott biopic HOUSE OF GUCCI, despite the substantial amount of talent involved. The movie boasts an all-star cast and one of the most prolific directors in Hollywood, yet never seems to bring the quality content that everyone expected from such a high-profile project. It could be perhaps the story which holds the movie back from being memorable -- the whole runtime seems to be spent building up to the one interesting event that occurs at the very end of the film -- but the true culprit seems to be a mix of the painfully dull writing and direction. Both are serviceable enough to keep the movie from being anything resembling horrible, but they are so average that the story of the Gucci legacy becomes about as interesting as skimming through a long scholarly essay on the subject.

The story of the Gucci family is a long and dramatic one, or so the HOUSE OF GUCCI movie expresses. It starts when Patrizia Reggiani (Lady Gaga), a woman working within her father's modest garbage truck company, meets Maurizio Gucci (Adam Driver), the main heir to the Gucci house, during a lively club party. The two almost immediately hit things off due to Reggiani's perseverance, and things escalate from there, resulting in their marriage and her inclusion into the business dealings of the rich family. However, it soon starts to become clear that love is not the only thing on Reggiani's mind, and tensions begin between family members as she pushes her way further into the Gucci family's dealings. The entire future of the Gucci dynasty becomes a game of corruption, greed and even murder.

The main reason to see HOUSE OF GUCCI is the acting. Lady Gaga commands the screen in a way that becomes unprecedented the more one thinks about her quick transition from pop stardom to A-list actress. She and Adam Driver, who brings his typical A-game, work wonders together and inject electricity in each scene they co-star in. The supporting work is strong as well, with veteran actors Jeremy Irons and Al Pacino delivering performances that remind the audience why they are some of the best actors alive . The only weak link in this regard is Jared Leto, who delivers an ambitious yet distracting performance that never fits in with the rest of the film. Leto attempts to bring a sort of comic relief to this heavily dramatic narrative, which has caused many critics to claim that HOUSE OF GUCCI is a campy and self-parodying biopic. If this is the case, then it does a terrible job at maintaining this tone for all of the characters, and if the movie is truly just a drama, as I believe it is, then the odd humor is a misguided attempt to add some flavor to an utterly tasteless film.

HOUSE OF GUCCI starts out on a positive note: most of the scenes near the beginning involve Gaga and Driver developing their romantic chemistry, and these scenes work beautifully due to the amazing performances. However, once the rest of the movie's drama enters the picture and viewers find themselves wrapped up in a convoluted crime saga ripe with double-crossings and financial meetings, the film becomes difficult to sit through without checking the time or taking a nap. Ridley Scott's direction doesn't add much of anything to the picture either, proving that Scott only thrives if he has a quality script brought to his front doorstep. Add on top of this some very bland cinematography, underwhelming production design, and a horrible depiction of the passage of time within the movie, HOUSE OF GUCCI just turns into a typical biopic -- not great, not horrible, but just a film that exists.

It really is a shame that HOUSE OF GUCCI comes across as such an average attempt to make the Goodfellas of the fashion world. Scott has come under fire recently for attacking Marvel superhero movies for their terrible scripts, which just seems ironic given every recent Marvel film has a better script than this hot mess. The movie excels at small things like costume design because, after all, it is about Gucci, but none of the technical aspects or stellar performances are enough to make the film interesting on a human level. The cardinal sin that HOUSE OF GUCCI commits is that the movie never gives the audience an insight into any of the characters' true feelings or complexities. Viewers can see the events that supposedly occurred, but not once did I feel like I was delving into the thoughts of Reggiani or any of the Gucci family. Because of this, HOUSE OF GUCCI ends up feeling inferior to the Wikipedia entries of any of the real-life characters. Go read that instead, and save yourself some time and money.

C.

Sometimes "Oscar bait" movies feel like artificial Hollywood creations that exist just to win awards for its lead. However, even though many films are clearly made with that purpose in mind, some also have enough heart and passion to become something more than another awards' season movie. KING RICHARD, a new biopic starring Will Smith as the pushy and strict, yet motivational father of Venus and Serena Williams, is fortunately in the latter category. It not only serves as an interesting examination of the true story about two of the best tennis players in history, but it also excels as an inspirational sports movie with a truly heartwarming final act. Smith gives an amazing performance as well -- one that is not afraid to be daring and takes risks while grounding itself in a truth about fatherhood that many will be able to see in father figures they know in their own lives.

KING RICHARD ends up being a stand-up-and-cheer level of sports movie that everyone can get onboard with, but the first twenty minutes do not reflect that. The film starts out with a lot of unnecessary exposition about Smith's Richard and how he is pushing his two little girls to become the best tennis stars of their generation. At the beginning, Smith's performance was not convincing: it seemed as though his accent was somewhat inconsistent, and the movie took a while to grab me. However, once KING RICHARD ramps up and becomes a fantastic and compelling sports story, the movie takes hold of the audience and never lets go. The reason the film excels so much from a dramatic level is the moral dilemma that Richard must face of trying to push his kids to superstardom. The narrative also looks at Richard with a nondiscriminatory lens; is Richard trying to push his kids for their own benefit or is he doing it to find fulfillment within himself?

Smith's performance ended up winning me over -- so much so that by the end of the movie he disappears into the character. His accent work is very strong throughout the movie despite having my doubts near the start, and his mannerisms are amazingly specific to the real life Richard Williams in a way that is uncanny. Despite this, perhaps my personal favorite performance in the movie is that of his wife, played by Aunjanue Ellis, who steals every scene that she appears in. She plays an incredible foil to Smith's opinionated and egotistical father, and is not afraid to put him in his place if she feels like he is not doing what is in the best interest of her children. Ellis is riveting throughout, and while Smith will justifiably get much of the attention for this movie, I feel that his attention should not be given without the same attention doled out to Ellis.

The real highlight of KING RICHARD is the final act, which provides a fantastic sports match that will keep audience members on the edge of their seats. Sure, it's a formulaic story that hits all the narrative beats everyone has seen a million times before, but director Reinaldo Marcus Green does such a great job of building the emotion and suspense that it never matters. I believe that clichés can work wonders if the execution delivers, and KING RICHARD is a shining example of this. Along with being a great story, the movie does the legend of Serena and Venus Williams justice without entirely giving the credit for their careers over to their father. The film highlights his perseverance that got the two girls into much of the tournaments and championships that jump-started their career, but the narrative is still well-balanced between him and other characters.

KING RICHARD is no masterpiece of cinema and it never attempts to reinvent the wheel, but it still excels at being a fascinating and uplifting watch. Smith will receive at the very least a nomination for his work here, and this recognition is long overdue and justified. He and many others put in the work to make this movie the accurate and compelling biopic it attempts to be, and the work paid off. The film takes some time to take off from the runway, but after it does the narrative never stops soaring until the credits roll. Viewers will gain far more of an interest in tennis and the Williams sisters after watching, which speaks to the great work on display in KING RICHARD.

A-

Lin Manuel-Miranda has reshaped the landscape of the movie musical over the past five years. From his breakthrough smash Broadway hit Hamilton to his songwriting on the Disney hit Moana to his personal semi-autobiographical film adaptation In the Heights, Miranda's name has become almost synonymous with the phrase "successful hit musical" in Hollywood. His directorial debut, TICK, TICK...BOOM!, proves that Miranda is a force of nature in filmmaking as well as theater and songwriting. Not only is this one of the most impressive debut films I have ever seen, it is one of the finest musicals of the decade and one of the best movies of the year. Every scene in the film is awe-inspiring and lit by the passion of the filmmaking, and it doesn't hurt that Andrew Garfield gives a lead performance for the ages, cementing his status as one of the most prolific actors working today.

TICK, TICK...BOOM! Is an adaptation-of-sorts of the autobiographical rock monologue that famed playwright Jonathan Larson (Andrew Garfield) performed in the early 90s. Many people know Larson for penning Rent, one of the most critically acclaimed and long-running Broadway shows in history. But before his work became nationally recognized, he was just another struggling writer in New York City trying to get important people to notice his ideas. TICK, TICK...BOOM! Follows Larson in the days before his opening workshop for a science-fiction concept play he has written called Superbia. He wants this play to rocket him to Broadway superstardom, but has yet to write some of the most important songs in the musical days before the first performance. Along with this, his personal life is undergoing a permanent change as his relationships with both his girlfriend (Alexandra Shipp) and his best friend of many years (Robin de Jesus) are evolving.

TICK, TICK...BOOM! Is a perfect film for many different audiences -- first and foremost musical theater lovers. Miranda packs odes and homages to much of Broadway's best throughout this movie in a tasteful and emotional manner that is sure to leave any theater lover in a state of disbelief. TICK, TICK...BOOM includes a number that serves as an homage to the classic Sondheim musical Sunday in the Park with George, and Miranda adapts this into an artistically masterful scene with direction so precise that the accomplishment is difficult to fathom. For a debut director, the fact that Miranda can pull off these massively complicated sequences full of dance, emotion, and heart is unprecedented. The film is also perfect for creators of any type of art -- Larson's play, and by proxy Miranda's film, details the mental stress of throwing oneself into art to such an extent that it affects one's personal relationships. Anybody who has faced a major assignment on a deadline will find themselves in this narrative as well, for Garfield's Larson comes down to the last minute to write much of the play that could change his life.

However, the theme that makes TICK, TICK...BOOM! Even better than just a good movie-musical is the way it examines the passage of time and the fragility of life. Everybody has a limited time on this Earth and perhaps the most essential question that determines how people make their decisions is that of how we spend our time. Are we living our lives to the fullest extent they can be lived or are we wasting our lives chasing a dream or a goal that will never be fulfilled? TICK, TICK...BOOM! Captures the essence of this question with Larson's story and with the stories of his friends, some of whom are facing the HIV/AIDS pandemic and are forced to confront their own mortality. Larson did not live long -- he passed away the night before the first off-broadway performance of Rent due to a sudden aneurysm -- but he spent his days pursuing and practicing what he loved with the people he loved. Though he never got to see the completed version of Rent, one could argue that his life was lived to the fullest potential due to the passion and joy with which he conducted himself. By the end, Miranda hits this point home to such an effective degree that it is difficult to hold back tears while thinking about Larson's life and the lessons that could be applied to one's own life.

However, none of this powerful material could have excelled so spectacularly without some stellar lead performances, and TICK, TICK...BOOM! Contains that in abundance. Garfield breathes life into Larson as no other actor possibly could and delivers one of the best performances ever in a movie musical. Before the shooting of this film, Garfield had no vocal experience, yet he sings like a professional Broadway star during every musical number, injecting his characteristic emotional vulnerability whenever possible. A scene near the end of the film that involves Garfield singing and playing piano in Central Park is easily my favorite scene of acting all year, which makes me firmly back him as my choice to win Best Actor at the Oscars. Along with Garfield, Robin de Jesus also delivers a stunning performance as Larson's lifelong friend Michael, sometimes even outshining Garfield with his charisma. I will be waiting on the edge of my seat for the moment that Jesus breaks out into the mainstream and becomes a bona fide star.

TICK, TICK...BOOM! Left me awestruck. With each passing scene, I would doubt the movie could improve in quality, yet Miranda and Garfield kept proving me very wrong in glorious fashion. I will say that the film may not interest those who aren't musical theater nerds or who do not appreciate the structure of a stage play translated into film, but I would also say that regardless of one's interests, the film is at the very least worth checking out. I cannot recommend it enough, and ever since I have watched it I have had to restrain myself at social gatherings to keep myself from endlessly rerouting each conversation back to TICK, TICK...BOOM!. Maybe it's the theater geek in me talking, but I think it will be difficult to find a more meticulously crafted, wildly entertaining and emotionally vulnerable movie this year -- it is a marvel on every level.

A+

It seems the Mecca of dumb quippy action movies has arrived. RED NOTICE, a recent arrival on Netflix, is an expensive and overblown spy thriller starring Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, Ryan Reynolds and Gal Gadot. Supposedly it boasts the largest budget of any Netflix movie thus far. This is impressive, but it appears that much of the money went into collecting the A-list stars and planting them in elaborate sets with CGI backgrounds. The plot almost never makes sense for more than a couple minutes, and almost every scene is over-the-top to the point of absolute absurdity. And yet, because of Reynolds and Johnsons' charisma, the movie is constantly entertaining and engaging. RED NOTICE knows what it wants to be and never aspires to be too much more, which seems to call back to old Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger movies. Does this make the movie good? Not really -- but I can see RED NOTICE , and many of Johnson's other movies, seen in the same light as Stallone and Schwarzenegger films in the near future.

The plot of RED NOTICE isn't anything new or exciting -- it comes across as a typical globe-trotting spy thriller at best. Ryan Reynolds plays Nolan Booth, an art thief who self-identifies as the best in the world at his craft. However, FBI Special Agent John Hartley, played by Dwayne Johnson, is hot on his tail and knows where Booth is headed next. Both are on the hunt for three expensive and beautiful eggs that were supposedly a token of appreciation gifted from Marc Antony to Cleopatra back in Ancient Egypt. The variable that thwarts them both throughout their pursuit is The Bishop (Gal Gadot), a mysterious kingpin who manipulates the world of art theft to her own benefit. In order to outplay The Bishop, they must team up to find the three eggs before she does while trying to chase their own ulterior motives.

One trait that a spy movie needs to have in order to succeed is the smarts to outwit its own audience. If any movie has characters that constantly double-cross each other, then the movie needs to trick the viewers into believing these same tricks. Unfortunately, RED NOTICE director/writer Rawson Marshall Thurber seems to think his script is far smarter than it actually is, making the twists and turns of this movie feel laughable instead of shocking. On a dramatic level it doesn't quite land either, because although the two main male characters are given some solid backstories, the constant twists render these stories pointless because certain motivations are tweaked as the movie progresses.

So if RED NOTICE doesn't quite work as an espionage thriller and a dramatic character piece, then how exactly does it work? Well, it's a ridiculously overblown action movie with Ryan Reynolds and Dwayne Johnson in which they banter and throw insults at each other for damn near the entire runtime. I'd argue that the movie doesn't need to be much more than that. Reynolds is his typical scene-stealing, hilariously entertaining self, and the movie would be a complete failure if it weren't for his presence here. While Dwayne Johnson gives a fun performance as well, Reynolds elevates the quality of each passing scene just by making stupid comments, and this alone, along with the fantastic chemistry between the two actors, is reason to check this movie out on Netflix.

The rest of this film is generic and forgettable fluff, and despite the two charismatic lead actors, I cannot see myself looking back fondly on RED NOTICE in the future. Every other character besides the main couple ultimately falls flat, which includes Gal Gadot as The Bishop. This character seems like it was designed to give Gadot a chance to become a prolific deliverer of killer one-liners, yet she never steps up to the task, delivering another mediocre performance that makes me wonder why Gadot keeps landing such coveted roles. The CGI is also astonishingly inept given the enormous budget of this production -- roughly 200 million dollars that must have been spent to pay the A-lister stars on the poster. The film is jam-packed with big-budget action sequences, all of which look as if they were filmed in a green-screen studio in Los Angeles rather than an actual location. To me, this shows the amount of effort that was injected into this film: enough to let the major stars shine but not enough to make a quality movie worth remembering.

Many critics are treating RED NOTICE as if it is an existential crisis for the state of filmmaking, and that the quality of movies will forever deteriorate because of this formulaic Netflix hit. I think they're overselling the issue, because RED NOTICE to me seems like a harmless and reasonably entertaining action thriller that knows its audience won't be looking for The Godfather: Part IV. Sure, it's a formulaic and conceptually average film that never delivers anything that isn't just a carbon copy of one of the four Indiana Jones movies. This, to me, is not a complete condemnation, although it does stop the movie from being one I would ever pay money for (some movies deserve to be on Netflix). Ryan Reynolds and The Rock fans will rejoice regardless of the quality, and I must admit that on that level, RED NOTICE is a success more than it is a failure.

C.

The western appears to be a fading genre in modern-day Hollywood. It feels like the distance between releases of mainstream westerns gets larger and larger by the year. At this point, for creators to make a new western that stands the test of time like the old ones, they would either have to reinvent the genre entirely or lean into the campy cliches that make westerns so fun. THE HARDER THEY FALL, a star-studded directorial debut that released on Netflix recently, manages to do both. For a first time director/writer (other than a short film and a Jay Z music video), Jeymes Samuel shows a clear understanding of the genre while including many diverse influences that enhance the experience. THE HARDER THEY FALL seems destined for cult status since the work is not getting the positive acclaim it deserves but contains an infectious energy that viewers will remember.

At its core, THE HARDER THEY FALL is a typical old west revenge saga. When Nat Love (the excellent Jonathan Majors) was a kid, his parents were murdered in front of him by a ruthless and cunning outlaw (Idris Elba) . Love has never forgotten the day his life changed and has dedicated his adulthood to finding and killing those involved in his parents' demise. He finally finds himself with a major opportunity: the man behind the murders, Rufus Buck, has escaped from prison and is attempting to take over a small town and create his own domain. Buck is attempting to secure a large sum of money for himself and his gang -- money which happens to be in the hands of Nat Love. This gives Love the opportunity to seek the revenge he has always craved and rid the world of a formidable evil once and for all.

While THE HARDER THEY FALL is by no means a perfect film, it is still fantastic at leaning into sillier characteristics to create a movie reminiscent of old spaghetti westerns. This western contains some classic traits like the cheesy one-liners, the old-fashioned Mexican standoffs, and the overly violent yet fake deaths. Samuel acutely understands the ingredients of what made Clint Eastwood films great, yet he adds even more details that make this film unique to him. One excellent example is the soundtrack, which is so consistently outstanding that it serves as a character of its own. He plays reggae instead of country western music when the characters are riding across the desert, the opening credits include a Kid Cudi song with plenty of other recognizable artists like CeeLo Green scattered throughout, and he even includes choral music during the more dramatic scenes.

Samuel also gives the audience a sense of the pain that comes with being a Black American without focusing the movie on it or beating the audience over the head with a political message. All of these characters are supposedly real people even though the events are fabricated, which is believable because of how lived-in they feel. Maybe this is due to the fantastic cast, who, for the most part, play their roles with effortless charisma and emotion. The two highlights are Elba and Majors as the villain and the hero, respectively. Elba doesn't even need to try to be menacing -- as soon as he walks on screen the entire room shuts down because of his immense presence, yet when he has to crank up the emotion, he does so as no other actor in Hollywood can. Majors comes close to Elba's level of talent, making one scene they share together near the end of the film one of the finest scenes of acting all year. The fantastic writing from Samuel is much of what makes this scene incredible, but Majors is one of the most promising actors in film with projects like this, Loki and Lovecraft Country.

As I mentioned before, the film is not without its flaws, many of which involve specific writing details like convenient plot lines and elements that cut corners in a lazy way. Many times throughout the film, events occur simply so the story can move forward without disruption, and while these events likely helped the pacing, they don't often make sense in the context of the story. Along with this, certain characters do not stand out as much as others, with the main one being Stagecoach Mary, played by a miscast Zazie Beetz. Her character is not given all that much to do other than be a damsel in distress despite being set up as a strong female character. The mismatch is compounded by the fact that Beetz in no way resembles the actual Stagecoach Mary in both character (she was not a dancer and saloon-owner like she is in this movie) and physicality (Beetz is a skinny, light-skinned woman while Stagecoach Mary was a larger dark-skinned woman). Decisions like this are just lazy, and don't reflect well on the production as a whole. I don't think these decisions fully distract from the fact that THE HARDER THEY FALL is an excellently produced and quality western, but a little bit of effort in this case could have gone a long way in making this movie "masterful" instead of "really fun."

I nonetheless highly recommend THE HARDER THEY FALL, for not a lot of films like this get made and are seen by the masses. Plus, it's a fantastically directed movie, with some of the best shots of the year so far (one is so impressive that I wanted to rewind and watch it again) and some unexpected twists that add great meaning to this seemingly average western. Talent is flowing throughout the film, and not a second goes by that isn't entertaining and well-crafted. It could definitely be better, but in the end it was never destined for success because of the minimal marketing and Netflix release. Samuel clearly made this movie for theaters, and watching it in one's living room minimizes the impact of many scenes. Some movies just shouldn't have been bought by Netflix. Either way, THE HARDER THEY FALL still proves to be a new stellar western that knows exactly what it is trying to be and succeeds at achieving it.

B+

It's that special time of year! Around Thanksgiving and Christmas every year, moviegoers get hit with a bunch of biopics that are solely made so they can generate Oscar buzz and hopefully take home a couple of statues. Rarely do I see a movie as committed to this purpose as SPENCER, the new Princess Diana biopic with Kristen Stewart in the lead role. This is a film that tells three days in the life of Diana in which she is attending the annual Christmas dinner with the British Royal Family. At this point, she has made known her disposition as someone who does not conform to the old and outdated traditions of the crown, and the animosity from the rest of the family is heavily felt during her entire stay. However, she cares very deeply for her two kids, William and Harry, and she is a great mother despite all of the hardship she faces from their father, Charles. The movie's primary focus is showing the ways in which Diana does not fit in and how she retaliates against the forces that are trying to keep her in line.

There is plenty of artistic merit to be found in SPENCER, mainly from a technical perspective. Director Pablo Larraín, who has already flexed his biopic muscles on films like Jackie, helms yet another true story like a pro. His skillful direction, along with the incredible cinematography from Claire Mathon, makes the film look stunning and almost like a VHS tape from the 90s at times. The decision to come out so overtly against the British Royal Family was also a bold and powerful decision that I believe was necessary for this film to succeed. A Diana biopic would not work without some serious criticism shelled out towards the British elites, and this movie is not shy in its contempt for the way the Royal Family treated her. I'm glad that the message people will take away from SPENCER is one of sharp disdain for the regime that has controlled many people's lives, so the success the film may have come awards' season will not seem entirely unfounded.

Somehow, despite some great ingredients in the mix, SPENCER still fell flat for me because of some over-dramatic and silly writing that made the narrative feel like a mediocre recreation rather than an authentic account of Diana's mental state. I don't have to be a history expert to know that most of the events shown in this movie are dramatic retellings that didn't actually occur, and the script relies on these overpowering and absurd scenes to tell the story more often than not. Did this film need to be 100 percent true? Of course not. Movies like One Night in Miami are complete fabrications, yet they still send a powerful message about their time without feeling like they are doing wrong by the real people they depict. SPENCER sometimes feels like it is doing a grand disservice to Diana's real-life struggle by depicting many over-the-top dream sequences with overly emotional acting and metaphors that are so on-the-nose that it feels like a parody of itself.

All of this, unfortunately, has an impact on Kristen Stewart's lead performance, which always feels like an impersonation of Diana rather than a natural depiction of the real person. I don't believe this blunder is entirely Stewart's fault, for there are many scenes where she clearly has the emotional and physical attributes of the character down. The writing is what stops everything here from soaring for me, and if the movie wasn't so fixated on creating ridiculous dream sequences with Anne Boleyn and awkward confrontational dinner scenes that feel straight out of a well-shot soap opera, then perhaps Stewart's performance could have shined more.

I can't emphasize the overuse of metaphors enough as being a major issue of this screenplay: multiple times Steven Knight's script hits us with heavy-handed and silly metaphors such as the "horse that can't be tamed," or the "beautiful yet misunderstood bird that is simply bred to be hunted," or the ridiculous Boleyn dream sequences meant to give an artsy take on Diana's situation. Along with this, the movie sometimes paces itself like an art-house horror movie in order to make the audience feel isolated and scared like Diana. These choices come across as jarring and confusing at best with a Jonny Greenwood score that obnoxiously distracts from each scene.

At the end of the day, SPENCER is an artistic mess made with good intentions and talent. I appreciate much of the thought-process that went into the themes and messaging here and I definitely wouldn't mind if another movie expanded on it, but the execution comes across as forced and awkward for much of the runtime, rendering moot any of the film's potential impact. I don't see most viewers being wowed by this odd and sometimes silly movie despite it being about such a powerful public figure, but critics and lovers of risky decision-making in movies might find enjoyment in it. Larraín and others definitely put a lot of effort into the technical aspects of this movie and none of that will go unappreciated come awards season I'm sure, but the movie as a whole never seems to take off and never justified my viewing experience.

C.

Wes Anderson movies are a genre of their own at this point. Every shot he composes is uniquely his, and nobody else can seem to replicate his distinct style. Therefore, whenever Anderson is coming out with a new film, I, for one, am there. His new movie, THE FRENCH DISPATCH, may be one of his best yet, and contains some of the most enthralling, off-the-rails and beautiful storytelling of his career and of the year thus far. If Anderson was a new director and this were his first movie, he would be the clear winner for Best Director at the Oscars this year, but because he has established his style in the minds of critics and viewers alike, this is seen as a typical output. Whatever box one may try to put THE FRENCH DISPATCH under, it wildly succeeds as an ode to journalism and the art of storytelling itself. The movie never lost my attention despite being quite a lot of complex dialogue to digest in one sitting, and by the end I felt myself reluctant to leave the world this film had established.

The French Dispatch is the title of a small American magazine in France that covers world affairs and a wide array of subjects despite starting out as a branch from a different larger publication in Kansas. It contains an old-fashioned yet passionate editor (Bill Murray in his obligatory role in every Wes Anderson movie), a talented writing staff from all different backgrounds, and a knowledge of the fictional city of Ennui. The film does not follow one storyline, but rather three small stories and plenty more small asides, similar to how the structure of a magazine or similar publication may look. These stories are all completely different and bear no relation other than taking place in the town of Ennui, yet they all capture the essence of the importance of storytelling and journalism in capturing the adventure of life.

I'll come out and say that part of my immense appreciation for Anderson's movie is my well-established connection and appreciation for journalism, and many may not feel the same love for the disjointed structure. I can see people who are used to a typical story being overwhelmed by the amount of information thrown at them, but for me, THE FRENCH DISPATCH proves to be an immensely enjoyable thrill-ride from start to finish. Even the slower stories feel like a whirlwind of emotion and humor in a way that only Anderson can pull off. In concept, some of the stories may seem uninteresting, but as any good journalist does, Anderson structures and tells his narratives in such a way that every audience member will be on the edge of their seat by the end. While I'm not sure if I picked up every detail on my viewing due to the rapid-fire dialogue, I would not hesitate to travel right back to the town of Ennui and discover even more things I may have overlooked.

To say the acting is good in this movie is like saying the grass is green, especially since Anderson has cast every A-list star known to man to star in this film. Every other scene has some ridiculously famous actor appear (Hey, is that Edward Norton?)(Hey, is that Christoph Waltz?)(Hey, is that Elizabeth Moss?)(Hey, is that *insert actor name here*?), which would be distracting if they all weren't so good in their roles. The highlights for me are numerous: Benicio Del Toro is fantastic as a mentally ill, incarcerated art genius; Adrien Brody is charismatic as the art dealer trying to profit from Del Toro's art; Timothée Chalamet wins me over yet again as a stubbornly impassioned student protest leader; and Jeffrey Wright delivers the best performance in the movie as a struggling writer who finds meaning in food. Wright in particular is so excellent that he injects in the story an emotional depth that I did not expect, and also made me look back on the emotional potency of journalism in a different way. This is also due to Anderson's excellent writing, in which he maintains his journalistic integrity of non-bias ("NO CRYING") while also giving us glimpses of the emotion underneath it all.

Saying more about THE FRENCH DISPATCH would be pointless without telling you this: go in expecting a Wes Anderson-esque Wes Anderson movie with copious amounts of Wes Anderson thrown in for good measure. If that doesn't sound like it's for you, then don't bother. If that means nothing to you, then I'd highly suggest watching some more of his films before this one (Moonrise Kingdom, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Isle of Dogs, or Fantastic Mr. Fox are all great choices), because starting with THE FRENCH DISPATCH is like having your first concert be in the mosh pit for Slipknot -- a bit overwhelming. However, if that description sounds like fun for you, it will be one of your favorite films of the year. THE FRENCH DISPATCH serves as one of the best odes to journalism I have ever laid eyes on, and is a movie that I predict will have great longevity as viewers continue to mine endless amounts of detail and meaning out of this meticulously crafted film.

A.

I have never been more disappointed leaving a movie than I was leaving ETERNALS. Not because of the movie -- in fact, it was because the movie was astonishingly great that I felt this way. I was disappointed because I have never seen such an instant and passionate hatred online for a movie, and for no concrete reason that I can discern. ETERNALS is perhaps the best MCU film since Avengers: Endgame, and is the most ambitious superhero film I can think of in the past few years. Every minute looks gorgeous and is a visual feast. Director Chloé Zhao dares to go thematically where no Marvel movie has gone before. This is a brave and different big-budget tentpole movie that finally gives fans the deeper experience that many have been craving from the MCU, so it's only natural that critics are tearing this movie to shreds for being "boring" and "dry" while praising Dune in the same breath.

Eternals is, admittedly, a lesser known Marvel comic that only hardcore fans are likely to know in detail.. However, the plot is simple: the Eternals are immortal beings that have been residing on Earth for centuries and have seen it through each stage of human development. Their goal is to rid the Earth of Deviants: monsters who ravage planets and the life that resides on them. The film transitions between present-day and important events during the Eternals' history on Earth to effectively tell their story. In the present day, the Eternals begin to realize that the Deviants are returning for unknown reasons and planning something terrible for humanity. However, some truths that the Eternals have taken for granted are not what they seem, and the truth may reveal a more complicated reality that will unearth some uncomfortable revelations.

From the very start, the look and feel of ETERNALS is different from any other superhero movie, and that is almost entirely attributable to Chloé Zhao, who directs this big-budget Marvel blockbuster like an indie film. Most directors, when they are sucked into the MCU, are forced to water down their artistic tendencies and cater to the formula that Disney has established for their superhero movies. While Zhao still includes many of the trademarks Marvel fans are used to seeing, the general approach is different and more ambitious than the traditional origin story. ETERNALS is an epic of gargantuan proportions that has to not only develop each character at a personal level, but has to relay the story of how the universe was created and why life exists. Zhao does all of this with an auteur's creativity and expertise, and always manages to connect every aspect of the story to the deep human emotions ingrained in the plot material. Along with this, it examines some of the most existential and essential human issues one can explore -- it shares many themes with Zhao's previous films but on a bigger scale.

Zhao also adds her visual flair to ETERNALS, making this far and away the most visually impressive MCU film yet, which is saying quite a lot when Shang-Chi, Thor: Ragnarok and many others exist. Sure, the movie doesn't have as vibrant a color palette as, say, Ragnarok does, but, similar to Nomadland, Zhao constantly has an eye for the natural light and the beautiful Earthy background, which, in this case, adds to the sentimentality the Eternals have for the planet they've called home for thousands of years. The wide shots in this movie are gorgeous and shot in a way that no other director could, and that alone makes this film stand out from other superhero films. Some have pointed out the shotty CGI in one or two scenes, however I did not notice these while viewing but only when people complained about them on the Internet. Almost every scene in this movie has impressive visual effects, so one or two scenes where the effects are noticeable failed to take me out of the narrative.

The narrative is constantly engaging and emotional, and develops more layers as it progresses. A common complaint I have seen circling around film conversations is that all of the characters are dry and boring, and that the movie drags on because nothing is interesting. Not only do I disagree wholeheartedly with these thoughts, but I think these are some of the most complex, human and yet larger-than-life characters the MCU has introduced in a solo movie. Much of the details regarding each character's arcs are somewhat spoilers and were not revealed in any promotional material for the film, so I won't go into too much more specifics here, but the ethical dilemma that the Eternals have to face regarding the fate of humanity is one that even I was struggling to decide upon.

Sure, I understand ETERNALS is not going to be for everyone, but there is something about the reaction of this movie that seems off-putting to me. Not often do I see a movie regarded by all as being a complete failure before many have even seen it, especially when said movie is a fantastic and well-made film that stands out from the pack. The acting here is all top-notch, with not one weak link throughout (Richard Madden as Ikaris was perhaps my favorite, although there are many great performances), and there was never one scene that struck me as even getting anywhere near the definition of the word "bad." While this does not make the movie good on its own, I find it odd how Marvel fans have been clamoring for both a movie that breaks from the formula and a movie that showcases diversity, and when one that covers both comes handed to them on a silver platter, it becomes "the worst rated MCU movie ever made." All I know is that ETERNALS deserves far more attention than critics seem to be saying, and I genuinely believe that in years to come people will begin looking back at the initial reception of this film as being erroneous and misguided. The ideas it has are far more interesting and contemplative than the reviews seem to be saying, and the clear amount of effort and passion put into every shot tell a story of success and creativity.

A.

Every time director/writer Edgar Wright releases a movie, every film nerd in existence will be interested at the very least. He always has a unique stamp on his movies that no other director could leave, the cast is always stellar, and the soundtrack is always a character of its own. All of this remains to be true for LAST NIGHT IN SOHO, which serves as Wright's first endeavor into the horror genre. Because of this, audiences receive an entirely different product than they usually do from Wright; the characteristic witty sense of humor is nowhere to be found here, instead traded for a more serious and nostalgic tone. Unfortunately, LAST NIGHT IN SOHO does not work anywhere near as much as every other Wright film does, mainly because he tries to make too many different movies at once. It has an amazing first hour, but from there the movie goes in too many directions at once and never reaches its destination with any of them.

LAST NIGHT IN SOHO, among many other things, serves as a reminder that living in the past and ignoring the present can be dangerous. We follow Eloise (Thomasin McKenzie), an inspiring fashion designer who has moved to London, the city of her dreams, in order to make her love of fashion into a career. After she learns the hard way that the city and the people in it are not what she expected, she leans into her love of music and culture from the 1960s. She still listens to vinyl records and wishes she was part of the old-school culture of London 50 years ago. She soon finds herself mysteriously slipping back in time and spending her nights with a beautiful aspiring singer (Anya Taylor-Joy) trying to make it big time in glitzy and glamorous 1960s London. However, the past is not the paradise Eloise thought, and she ends up desperately trying to escape the demons of that time from consuming her mind.

The movie has a strong build, with McKenzie delivering yet another great performance that makes the character-building easy for Wright. Her loneliness and isolation are palpable during the first leg of the film, so when she slips into the land of her dreams it seems like a believable and necessary escape from the social hell of today's world. Sometimes Wright overplays this feeling by making certain female "bully" characters hyperbolic and exaggerated, but the point is nonetheless made. The direction in the first leg of the film is immaculate and on par for what I expected coming into an Edgar Wright production. The way McKenzie is cut into the scenes that center around Taylor-Joy is movie-making magic at its best, and creates some beautiful and enthralling sequences. The movie contains another star-affirming performance from Taylor-Joy and a standout swan song from Diana Rigg, who damn near steals the entire movie with her final performance.

Once the horror starts, however, the motifs of the movie get a bit muddled and the plot starts clashing with the themes. Around the middle of the film, Wright takes the narrative in a promising direction that involves the exploitation and objectification of women in a patriarchal society. By the time the third act comes around, the movie turns into an aimless scare-fest that doesn't seem to know how to handle its own subject matter. Much of this period involves McKenzie's character Eloise running around the city for no particular reason and without any goals, with random events happening to her that do not feel scary or consequential. Wright lost me with his final twist, which not only feels tacked on in order to create unnecessary shock factor, but contradicts the most powerful themes of the rest of the narrative. In retrospect, his idea for this twist (and the whole movie, really) is great on paper, but in practice feels in poor taste and a distraction from the real interesting story that could have been told here.

LAST NIGHT IN SOHO is by no means a bad movie, but it never sticks the landing in a meaningful way that will cause audiences to walk away from it in awe as they did with films such as Baby Driver or Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. Wright still shows off his directing chops here, but his script could have used far more work, especially in the second half. Many story beats do not seem to stick as much as they should given the impact of the subject matter, and some major climactic scenes come across as rushed or packed instead of forceful or shocking. This movie will likely polarize many viewers with its ending, and while I didn't enjoy it as much as others might, I still appreciate any original story that will cause healthy debate among film fans. There are still a lot of great ideas packed in this movie, and for that alone it might be worth the watch.

C+

I feel as though film releases lately have been consumed by horror movies. Part of this is because it is Halloween season, but even so I feel that the horror genre has been reinvigorated by an array of new and exciting releases. My favorite of all that 2021 has offered us is ANTLERS, the new film from acclaimed independent director Scott Cooper with a production credit from the legendary Guillermo Del Toro. Horror fans have waited since just about two years ago for this film to release because the film was pushed back due to the Covid-19 pandemic, so the fact that viewers finally get to feast their eyes on more than just the trailer is supremely satisfying. It is also satisfying to watch ANTLERS and receive a masterfully-crafted slow-burn horror movie that builds an atmosphere nothing quite like anything else in theaters now. Evidently this film is not for everyone, but it is a film that creeps up on the audience in the best way possible and that contains serious care and thought put into the themes and effects.

As you could probably guess from the name, ANTLERS is a horror film that explores the concept of the Wendigo, an old Native American folktale that feeds off and evokes greed, hunger and mental weakness. However, the movie takes a very indirect approach to the tale. The story takes place in a small and isolated Oregon mining town and follows a 12-year-old kid (the astonishingly great Jeremy T. Thomas) who is not only troubled, but hiding something from his caring teacher (Keri Russell). As she begins to find out more and more about her student's disturbing situation and her brother/sheriff (Jesse Plemons) gets involved, the truths become far more sinister and speak to the troubles that are plaguing everyone across the community.

Perhaps the aspect I most appreciate when a slow-paced horror movie is done correctly is the emphasis on character and themes that make the actual horror far more impactful. Much of the film is spent developing the difficult and hellish situation that 12-year-old Lucas finds himself in and exploring the trauma that teacher Julia carries around with her every single day. I was invested in both of these remarkably similar characters due to the two actors delivering top-notch performances that never feel over-dramatic or anything else but real. Jeremy T. Thomas in particular delivers one of the best child performances of the year and carries out some traumatic scenes that would have been taxing on the average adult, much less a 12-year-old kid. The audience feels a deep understanding of the years of generational trauma that has remained with these characters, which makes it all the more believable once the Wendigo becomes a major aspect of the story.

From a horror perspective, ANTLERS is expertly crafted in every way. Cooper builds tension like a director who has mastered horror in the past even though this is his first foray into the genre. From the first shots of the movie, he easily creates an atmosphere of dread and foreboding that culminates into full terror by the halfway point, with some of the best horror effects of the year. Much of the effects during the most terrifying scenes are practical with some CGI thrown in near the end, making these effects look visceral and real. Cooper nails every scene of body horror and presents images that will remain in the viewer's mind for weeks at the very least. The gore is never either too much so that the audience gets desensitized or too little so that viewers will be bored. Every single scene of terror has a great impact and feels like a life or death situation even though the audience is simply watching from a third-person perspective, making ANTLERS a memorable theater experience and an amazing horror film.

Perhaps one of the most respectable decisions made when crafting ANTLERS is the respect shown to the indigenous view of the folklore behind the Wendigo. The film does not present a whitewashed and empty version of the story, but presents it similarly to how the legend has been portrayed throughout history. This respect opens the door for deeper themes to be included about why the Wendigo is resurfacing when it is. While this question is left open to audience interpretation, the visual themes are plenty. Cooper constantly shows the scars put on the environment next to the town to show the damage done to the environment caused by human greed. He also emphasizes the cycles of trauma and abuse that spill down from generation to generation and that plague many families in today's America. Whatever the reason may be, the thought put into the legend of the Wendigo is apparent, and the audience will not come away with just scares, but ideas about the state of society.

ANTLERS is currently getting mixed reviews from most critics and audience members, and I cannot fathom why. It succeeds at damn near everything it sets out to accomplish, and manages to be one of the more unnerving and psychologically powerful horror films of late. Sure, the pacing is nowhere near breakneck, but I don't understand how the same people who sat through Dune or Titane and enjoyed them are complaining that ANTLERS is too slow. The narrative is compelling from the first scene to the last and Cooper makes ample time for the characters to develop fully before throwing violence in their faces. The movie never decides to explain the logic behind what is happening in detail, but this is never the point or focus to begin with so it doesn't affect the story. ANTLERS is everything it possibly could have been for those who waited for two years to see it release, and it is a surefire candidate to become a cult classic in years to come.

A-

What a fall it has turned out to be for horror junkies. We have the disturbing and odd Titane, the bonkers Malignant, and next week we have two more anticipated violent horror films: Antlers and Last Night in Soho. However, true horror fans will have been looking forward to HALLOWEEN KILLS, the newest sequel of the overlong slasher franchise that starts directly after the events of 2018's Halloween reboot. David Gordon Green's previous Halloween film was astonishingly good, and is debatably the best film in the franchise since John Carpenter's 1978 original. Green returns to write and direct this second film in a planned Halloween trilogy, which me and many others were highly anticipating because of the amazing job he did paying homage to Carpenter's classic in the 2018 movie. Unfortunately, in between 2018 and now it seems that Green has lost the ingredients to what makes a Halloween slasher movie fun and interesting.

HALLOWEEN KILLS continues almost exactly where 2018's Halloween left off, with Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis), her daughter Karen (Judy Greer), and her granddaughter Allyson (Andi Matichak) escaping from the burning house with Michael Myers in it. They all assume they have finally bested the notorious serial killer, but anyone who has seen more than one Halloween movie knows that Michael Myers doesn't go down that easy. Myers emerges from the fire with a reborn passion for murder, and in this movie he kills more than he ever has in a single Halloween movie. Along with this, the movie gives us a major subplot involving the mob mentality of the town of Haddonfield, Illinois in which they all come together to track down and kill Michael.

For the first 20-30 minutes of HALLOWEEN KILLS, the movie feels as though it has little to no plot other than just continuing the ending of the previous movie. The beginning includes many drawn-out flashbacks to the night of the original killings in 1978, all of which feel tacked on to create mediocre plot points and to include some fan service for the die-hard Halloween fans. Once a semblance of a plot begins to form, the ingredients are all so weak and forced that the movie never comes across like something that understands how to perfect the specifics of a good slasher flick or a movie in general. Green and the other screenwriters seem to have been fixated on the idea of the town of Haddonfield coming together, trying to hunt down Michael Myers, and then being consumed by their own fear in a way that further harms innocent people. This is a clear comment on how mob mentality and groupthink can cause more harm than good in a serious situation such as this, and while this isn't a bad idea in concept, the execution feels quite ridiculous for most of the runtime and doesn't deliver anything by the end.

Possibly my biggest issue with HALLOWEEN KILLS is that it completely misses the tone and spirit that makes a slasher movie worth watching. Almost every violent death in this film (of which there are many) doesn't match the tone of the tense buildup that leads to it. For example, there are two kills near the beginning that are built up in a lighthearted and campy way, but the deaths themselves are so disturbing that it left a bad taste in my mouth for the next 30 minutes of screentime. Meanwhile, there are another series of kills later in the movie that have a genuinely creepy build-up, but then the actual deaths are so ridiculous and dumb that the entire scene was laughable. Green could never seem to get the tone right, which is especially surprising given how great of a job he did with Halloween 2018.

Without spoiling anything, the ending of HALLOWEEN KILLS cemented the mediocre quality that the majority of this movie seems to exemplify. The writers create the setup for a truly great and gory ending with Myers shredding through basically half the town, but any slasher movie satisfaction is ruined by the most confounding and distracting camera-work possible given the situation. The kills aren't even visible because of how badly they are shot, and a major character death is glossed over due to the fact that the camera only shows Michael Myers' blank expression. The movie is gratuitously gory for 90 percent of the runtime, but then during the one scene where seeing the gore would have helped the impact of the movie land, nothing is shown. HALLOWEEN KILLS contains a decent amount of good ideas, but simple mistakes like these prevent the movie from being anything more than one of a great many mediocre Halloween sequels.

Green proved he is more of a talented director/writer than meets the eye with 2018's Halloween, so it's a shame that very little of that talent is visible here. HALLOWEEN KILLS feels like it was helmed by completely different people than the last one, which had some great homages to the original John Carpenter film and knew how to create some fantastic bloody kills ripe for enjoyment. There are definitely some fun scenes within this sequel -- the opening scene involving firefighters sets the tone well -- but those scenes feel like exceptions to the rule this time around. The third film, titled Halloween Ends, is slated to release in 2022, and because of HALLOWEEN KILLS, audiences will be approaching that film with skepticism instead of anticipation.

C-

Never has the simultaneous release on HBO Max and theaters been a disservice to a movie more than it has for DUNE, the new big-screen adaptation of Frank Herbert's classic science fiction novel. From an outsider perspective, it seems like every single shot of this two hour and 35 minute epic cost millions of dollars to produce, and every cent was worth it to create one of the most visually staggering films of the past couple years. Despite the film's very lengthy runtime, the film never seems to drag or be anything less than enthralling, and by the end of the movie I found myself thinking that I could have watched two and a half hours more.

Part of the genius of DUNE is how it makes the lore of an 800 page sci-fi novel feel simple and understandable to any audience member who may choose to watch. The main story follows Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet), the young son of the very powerful and influential House Atreides, led by his father Duke Leto Atreides (a standout Oscar Isaac). Once the former rulers of the desert planet Arrakis, the House Harkonnen, pull out and return to their home world, House Atreides is tasked by the Emperor to become the new harvesters of the most valuable commodity of the universe, found only on Arrakis. Hidden rivalries, mysterious prophecies, and dreams that foretell an uncertain future are all powerful players in this complicated chess game, yet in many ways this film is just a simple coming-of-age/hero's journey story akin to Star Wars.

The way that director/writer/producer Denis Villeneuve, who is easily one of the best filmmakers working today, manages to make DUNE both a grand epic about imperialism, feudalism and the corruption of politics while also centering a very human and personal turn of events involving a boy trying to live up to his father's legacy and make the world a better place is on the same level with some of the best science fiction ever put to screen. Even during scenes that contain some of the largest and most sophisticated visual effects physically possible, viewers will find their concentration focused on the characters and the impact these events have on them. Villeneuve has already proved how fantastic he is at delivering grand, yet personal films with projects like Arrival and Blade Runner 2049, but here he proves just how gargantuan he can get budget-wise while continuing to deliver incredible stories.

Similar to his previous films, Villeneuve delivers such an extreme feast for the eyes that he can almost get along on that alone. Director of photography Greig Fraser contributes to the gorgeous imagery, knowing exactly when to drain the color from a shot while creating a visual that comes across similar to a futuristic painting. The way Fraser's lighting combines with the out-of-this-world visual effects creates an immersive experience like no other, and makes this the clear frontrunner for both awards at the Oscars (The Green Knight needs to watch out). It goes without saying, then, that the world-building is utterly spectacular, to the point that when the movie ends it feels like stepping out of a portal to another dimension. For two and half hours, the audience is in another world entirely, and only when the first credit comes on-screen do they remember the obligations they have in their own lives.

While the movie is a bit long and a lot to take in, it never feels like a slog to sit through or a waste of time. Even in the more personal scenes with two actors planning out the next political move of their house, the stakes are felt and the audience's understanding of the DUNE universe expands ever so slightly. Part of this is due to the effortlessly great acting on display, even on scenes where one is not conscious of the many A-list actors scattered throughout this movie. Timothée Chalamet proves that he can carry the emotional weight of an 165 million dollar sci-fi epic without even batting an eye, which is no easy feat. Those who aren't already on the Chalamet bandwagon will have a hard time staying off of it between this and The French Dispatch. Rebecca Ferguson also quietly flaunts her versatility as an actress by playing the mother of House Atreides, and Oscar Isaac is the emotional core of the film, delivering a typically strong performance that will get no recognition as per usual.

DUNE is one of those movies that single-handedly pushes the bar higher for what is visually and artistically possible with big-budget adventure films. I would say this type of occasion is a rarity, but Villeneuve has accomplished this great feat with his previous three films along with this one, proving how genius of a filmmaker he is. While it is hard to compare DUNE to Villeneuve's previous masterpieces (Blade Runner 2049 and Prisoners are still vying for my personal favorite), this is undoubtedly a film that will stand apart from the rest in many ways, while becoming the definitive big-screen version of Frank Herbert's Dune (sorry, David Lynch). DUNE may not be for everyone, especially for those who want a fast-paced action-thriller or those who are only watching for Zendaya, who is in the movie for all of 15 minutes. Whatever one's personal thoughts, DUNE is a film that will be brought up in conversations decades from now, which to me is definitive proof of the awe-inspiring experience one will have after entering the theater.

A+

The worst feeling when walking out of a film is when disliking something that every other filmgoer seems to love. I had that feeling very strongly when I finished TITANE, the new film from critically-acclaimed independent filmmaker Julia Ducournau. Her only film thus far is a movie called Raw, and TITANE follows in the tradition of her previous film in that it contains extreme body horror and gruesome sequences that will disturb even the most seasoned veterans of horror. This movie is easily one of the most uncomfortable and difficult-to-stomach viewing experiences in recent memory, which many will view as a major compliment to the effectiveness of the narrative. However, I felt myself pondering the point of the film while I was watching, and once I began to realize that the jarring nature of the events was the whole intention, I found myself unable to appreciate the narrative in the way many others have.

Describing the plot of TITANE in detail would be a disservice to the experience Ducournau wants audience members to have when viewing, and even though I cannot say I was a fan, I still very much respect Ducournau as a filmmaker and an artist. Despite all of the gore and gross imagery, Ducournau directs the film with the expertise of an auteur and the precision of an artist who knows exactly how to manipulate each scene while behind the camera. When adding the beautiful cinematography on top of the direction, TITANE is a truly beautiful movie to look at while also being a disturbing experience. This was clearly the intention behind both the story and the style of the film -- TITANE starts out almost like an art-house slasher horror, yet as it continues it reveals itself to be something far more tender and heartfelt.

Ducournau embarks on an admirable endeavour at times, but the movie never seemed to reconcile being both a gross horror movie and a tender love story. Because both elements are relied on so heavily, neither seems to fully hit home due to the other's presence. Sure the movie is successfully disturbing, but it never does so in a way that I found emotionally or intellectually compelling, but only in a way that made me want to leave the theater (and I like horror films). Once the story becomes about love between two lonely, outcast individuals who could never find where they belong, it never takes off on an emotional level due to the constant reminder of the horror that exists in the background of the narrative. When the ending reaches the emotional climax and the credits roll, I only found myself feeling slight confusion and relief that I could move on with my night instead of a lasting emotional response.

To go even further, much of the movie felt so odd and random that it never emotionally impacted me in the way I wish it would have. The film could have perhaps been a fascinating character study of a disturbed and isolated individual who doesn't feel at home anywhere in society, but Ducournau includes so many scenes that specifically exist to evoke a physical response from the audience that the movie feels confused as to what kind of story it wants to tell. The main emotion I felt during the movie was a disgusted confusion that eventually gave way to boredom as I realized the narrative was not going to give me any meanings that justified the aggressive content. What could have saved TITANE from being a pretentious oddity, even though it still may have its problems, is a thematic purpose beyond a weak relationship between two troubled characters. I constantly searched for a metaphor that explained the constant inclusion of titanium and cars in the film, or even some themes or messages that gave the audience a social commentary regarding any aspect of the human experience. Instead, viewers are just given a deluge of weird events that never add up to a meaningful conclusion, and a narrative that comes off as pretentious instead of the artistic breakthrough that Ducournau seems to deserve.

While TITANE is very much not for me, next time Ducournau releases a film, my attention will not be hard to gain. Ducournau clearly has immense talent and contains the potential for some great and horrifying material in the future, which makes TITANE all the more infuriating, because that material never quite takes off here. I understand why many love it, and it is true that I have never viewed a film quite like it, but in the end nothing seems to come together in a manner that the average moviegoer will deem meaningful or worth viewing. The movie is trying harder to challenge the audience with its unorthodox and physical narrative than it is creating something meaningful for a vast majority of audience members, and for that I found TITANE to be close to unwatchable for much of its runtime.

C.