Cats (2019): A tribe of cats called the Jellicles must decide yearly which one will ascend to the Heaviside Layer and come back to a new Jellicle life.

It’s not hard to know what you’re going to get walking into a screening of Cats. Universally panned, bombing at the box office, the reputation of this film far proceeds itself at this point. Yet, never have I ever been more excited to watch a film as I was going into Cats. I even flirted with dressing up as one because, why not? If you’re gonna go watch Cats at 10:30 at night, might as well go all out. Do what the film should have done and dress up in a unitard and dance around for two hours, right? From the first moment to the end credits of this 110 minute cat-tanic disaster, my hands never left my mouth. I was shocked and amazed, yet delighted that something as purrible as this could possibly be green-lit by a studio, let alone have that studio legitimately think they had a glitzy, deserving awards contender on their hands. (Cats has since been removed from Universal’s “For Your Consideration” awards page. Don’t worry, though: cats have 9 lives, right?) This film somehow, inexplicably exists, and honestly we are better off for it.

Do you need a summary of what Cats is? Is that why you’re here? Probably not, but if you are, Cats comes to us from direct Tom Hooper (bless his heart, he’s done good work before and will make good films again. If he can get over the PTSD of looking at this digital fur technology for an entire production cycle) and is an adaptation of the musical of the same name from playright and man-who-just-discovered-LSD Andrew Lloyd Weber. The musical is essentially cats introducing themselves for 2 hours via hit-or-miss numbers, with the final cat (that the rest initially shun because that cat is poor and uncharismatic, but we won’t talk about the message of hating something simply because it’s different) singing the (admittedly) iconic “Memory” and instantly winning the competition for 9 lives. Or the Jellicle Cat award. I don’t know, whatever trippy title Weber thought of when he wrote this. (Are you mad I just spoiled Cats? Are you really?) Tom Hooper’s cat-daptation (they’re not gonna stop, I am gonna work through all my lives with these) tries to use CGI to create “digital fur technology” (yes, that is the official PR phrase from our friends at Universal, and don’t you feel better knowing that) so it doesn’t look like we are looking at people in form-fitting unitards dance around for 2 hours. Instead, we have to look at some of the worst CGI on the planet, so that’s better? I guess? Don’t worry, we’re gonna talk more about this digital fur technology in a bit. Ugh. Never have I ever been more ashamed to like cats. 

If you’re looking for a disaster in filmmaking that is so bad it’s actually kind of fun to watch it implode on itself…. Look no further than Cats. Literally every aspect of this film is catastrophic, from the editing to the cinematography to the lighting to the sound design to the very un cat-like performances themselves. The editing varies WILDLY from number to number, as it was clearly used as a crutch to mask the hilariously terrible CGI. Some numbers have so many cuts it’s literally incatprehensible to process what is happening on screen. (I’m pretty sure I counted something like 25 cuts in less than 30 seconds in one number? That is NOT how you want to film a musical) Fortunately, “Memory” is almost a single close up on Grizabella (Jennifer Hudson) in a moment that is totally-absolutely-not a shameless attempt to recreate the “I Dreamed a Dream” sequence in Les Misérables. (which, to be fair, is also a Tom Hooper film so not the worst thing?) This sequence, akin to the actual musical itself, is the only thing of any value Cats has to offer to the world. 

There is absolutely no direction in this filmmaking. How do you butcher the sound design in a musical? I’d rather listen to cats howl than listen to this again. The vocals were clearly added in post production, so how do you not get the balancing right among the singers? And how do you not balance the singers with the instrumentation properly? These are basic qualities of a movie musical, and when you can’t even get that right…. Yikes. Also, the lighting. Is so bad. Like the rest of this dumpster fire, the lighting is created via CGI, and it looks like the filmmakers spent their CGI budget on cat fur and forgot that they needed to actually light the cat fur, too. And can we talk about the set design? Because, it’s great. Said no one, ever. The sizing of the cats in correlation to the set around them is wildly inconsistent. It’s distracting and uncomfortable watching a cat transform from the size of a peanut to a human in correlation to the set around them from one scene to the next. It’s almost as if the filmmakers ran out of time adjust the sizing of the cats, or had some sort of existential crises realizing they were working on Cats and tried to escape before completion. It’s bad. 

But the worst offender in all of this is undoubtedly the digital fur technology, and the actors underneath the disturbing CGI. At best, the CGI creates a disturbing cat-human hybrid, a product of a science experiment gone horribly wrong, and at worst we witness an abomination that would make Sega Genesis graphics proud. This was amplified by the cast, which clearly didn’t rehearse together before shooting, as there was no consistency in the performances whatsoever. Some (like James Corden) are actually trying to act like a cat, others (like Rebel Wilson) are making jokes at the expense of cats, (rude) and others (like Ian McKellen) are just walking around like humans, clearly not even trying. 

Ok, ok, ok. I need to vent and ask the void what on earth are Ian McKellen and Judi Dench doing here? They can’t sing, they barely dance, (and the dancing they do do is baaaad) they don’t have a chance to act under all the CGI, so…. Why? Both of them are clearly #initiforthepaycheck, but why give them the paycheck at all? They bring nothing but their likeness to these roles, a likeness which you can barely see under the digital fur technology, so, I ask again: why? But that question is exactly what I was asking myself for basically two hours. An indecipherable, incatprehensible disaster of a film that is the very definition of “so bad it’s good.” Destined for cult status, this film is almost worth watching during its brief run in theaters just to say that you witnessed it. Because, at the end of the day, it is a lovable, joyous meowtain of cat litter.

My Number: 1/10 So Bad It's Good


Image Credit
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BYjMwYzI2ZmYtOWI3My00MTFiLWI2NDMtODQyYTA0YWNjOTRhXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyODkzNTgxMDg@._V1_SX1777_CR0,0,1777,744_AL_.jpg

So the winter of 2019/2020 has kind of gotten away from me a bit, and as a result I didn't have the chance to write full reviews of some of the most talked about films of the year. However, I wanted to take a quick moment and give you my brief thoughts on three of them. Enjoy! 

Uncut Gems (2019): A charismatic New York City jeweler always on the lookout for the next big score, makes a series of high-stakes bets that could lead to the windfall of a lifetime.

​What a wild and insane film. The latest from the Safdie Brothers, (who have been around for a while but burst on to the scene with 2017's Good Time) Uncut Gems follows the crazy, chaotic life of Howard Ratner in NYC. (Adam Sandler) Howie is a rather stereotypical New Yorker, a Jewish jeweler living in the heart of Manhattan who likes to bet big on sporting events. He's a cunning salesman, able to (or at least attempt to) talk himself out of any situation and completely addicted to the life he leads. There are girls, collectors, insane schemes, plenty of booze, and of course, Kevin Garnett. I love it, and I'm so here for it.

There's a fiery sense of palpability to the Safdie Brothers' filmmaking. I've only seen two of their films, Good Time and this, but their handiwork is instantly distinguishable. Their prophetic use of colors and closeup to elicit heightened emotional responses are at the forefront of this style. While I would say Good Time leans into these aesthetics a bit more than Uncut Gems, the later makes up for it with some utterly insane dialogue. This film is chaos, for chaos sake, and nowhere is that more prevalent than in the dialogue. A great double feature to see the power of dialogue firsthand would be this film and Little Women. Both use a stacked dialogue style to tell their respective stories. However, whereas Greta would use stacked dialogue in an elegantly chaotic sense, to elicit a sort of organized, controlled chaos in Little Women, the Safdie Brothers use stacked dialogue in a totally destructive way. Everyone is talking over one another, constantly upping the ante to eleven to try and get their point across. (Very New Yorker of them, right?) This dialogue is chaos for chaos sake, in a very unrefined sort of way, which does have its downsides from time to time. 

When you have a film as raw as this, there will be some imperfections. Certain scenes can be hard to follow, particularly when you add Howie's superfluous lifestyle into the equation, (the sound design struggles to keep up when you're talking over each other in a loud night club) but it's nowhere near enough to detract from the wild ride this film is. And, at its core is some of the craziest pairings I've ever imagined in a film. Who woulda thought you'd see Idina Menzel, Kevin Garnett, LaKeith Stanfield, and The Weeknd in a film led by Adam Sandler? Makes perfect sense, right? And who woulda thought Adam Sandler would be so good? The long-standing actor puts in possibly the best performance of his career, (certainly the glitziest) a jarring reminder that the dude who is making money off the likes of Grown Ups 2 and The Ridiculous 6 can also act when he feels like it. It feels like Sandler just needs to remind us every few years that he can act so he can make three more crappy movies, but hey. If what we get in this theory is the likes of Uncut Gems, I ain't complaining. 

It also helps that Howie is an incredibly interesting protagonist. He's wild and unpredictable - incapable of thinking more than a few seconds ahead, while also having the undeniable charm of a snake oil salesman - with a hilariously depressing home life and hordes of collectors / adversaries closing in. Howie is the reason you watch Uncut Gems, as his character arc is as fascinating as it is harrowing. The Safdie brothers grip you to the edge of your seat from the first moment to the film's completely unexpected ending. (May be the best ending of the year, by the way. Certainly in the conversation.) Find it and experience it, as this journey is as wild a journey you can find to come out of 2019.

My Number: 9/10

So, I was writing my review of Little Women the other day, and when I went to link to my Midsommar review, I realized it was trapped in my Google docs, along with reviews of Men in Black: International and The Last Black Man in San Francisco. So, enjoy these incredibly overdue reviews of films that came out back in the summer! Woo! 

Bombshell (2019): A group of women take on Fox News head Roger Ailes and the toxic atmosphere he presided over at the network.

I’m not really sure what I just saw. Bombshell is a film devoid of purpose or meaning. On the one hand, it tells the naturally dramatic story of the women of Fox News courageously rising up and speaking out against the harassment of Roger Ailes. There are some harrowing moments that come along with this story, and it’s sold by the determined, paranoid, dogmatic performance of John Lithgow in great makeup as Ailes. But, on the other hand…. How director Jay Roach and screenwriter Charles Randolph choose to portray this story is… puzzling, to say the least. The film is a tonal catastrophe. One second, we’re watching a disturbing sequence between Kayla (Margot Robbie portraying a conglomerate character of the women Roger abused at Fox News) and Ailes, the next we’re cracking jokes with Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) and watching her grapple with a weird semi-hero’s journey. What?
 
Lets talk about what Bombshell gets right. Its story is gripping and dramatic. (Shocker, right?) Gretchen Carlson’s (Nicole Kidman) storyline is very captivating. Unfortunately, it’s largely secondary to Megyn Kelly’s, which is understandable (since Gretchen signed an NDA in real life when she settled her lawsuit against Ailes) but also frustrating. Gretchen Carlson’s calm, coordinated plan to take down the most powerful man in the media industry was significantly more interesting than Megyn Kelly grappling with setting her personal ambition aside to do the right thing. (Positive things. Positive things….) Carlson is played with a cool, collected demeanor by Nicole Kidman in the strongest of the core three performances. (Kidman, Theron, and Robbie) Additionally, the makeup in this film is AMAZING. Lithgow, Kidman, and Theron disappear into Ailes, Carlson, and Kelly thanks to some excellent makeup and great costume design. (Colleen Atwood strikes again) However, the makeup around Megyn Kelly was a bit inconsistent at times. It felt rushed in a few places, like much of this film, and made me very aware that I was watching Charlize Theron play Megyn Kelly. However, when it worked, it worked. 
 
Let’s talk about Megyn Kelly for a second, shall we? Bombshell tries to ride a fine line with this character – not making her out to be hero while having her simultaneously embark on a hero’s journey – and I do not believe it does this successfully. Too many times Kelly is glorified while grappling with a basic moral quandary, with the reminder that she is largely to blame for letting Ailes abuse and harass women while she sat silent in a seat of power only being mentioned once in the film by Kayla. Too often is Kelly cracking jokes in uncomfortable moments, or having a sympathetic moment being harassed by Trump supporters in her million dollar villa for me to not feel like she was being somewhat glorified for her actions. Yes, it takes great courage for anyone to come forward and upend their lives, and she did play a crucial role in bringing down Roger Ailes, but to sit silent for that long is equally troublesome. I don't know. It felt.... uncomfortable, and to simultaneously glorify her definitely turned me off. Also, we need to talk about Kayla. She is a conglomerate of all the women at Fox News abused by Ailes over the years, but she is a rather poorly written character with narrow, underdeveloped perspectives. She also has a romance with Jess Carr (Kate McKinnon) that is mentioned and dropped immediately? Huh? Actually, Jess Carr as a whole…what is she doing in this film at all? What is her purpose? She has a fascinating perspective to offer – a closeted lesbian / democrat working at Fox News – but has approximately 10 minutes of screen time and one scene to flesh this out. What a complete waste of a character. (And Kate McKinnon – sigh.)
 
And that’s the ironic summary of this film. A fascinating story largely wasted on tonal inconsistencies (and pacing… my God is the pacing all over the place) and, well, Megyn Kelly. Solid acting, great makeup, and a harrowing performance by John Lithgow (seriously – bless his heart for falling on the sword and playing Ailes. He goes all-in on this role too) are forgotten in a haze of uncomfortable jokes, shoddy editing, and overall just going too much like The Big Short. (Yup, addressing the elephant in the room finally.) This film is trying to hard to be another The Big Short, and I’m beginning to think The Big Short really did catch lightning in a bottle. This style has been tried several times now since then, both by The Big Short director Adam McKay (see: Vice) and others, but it has never had the same gravitas or effectiveness. Also, maaaaaaybe it would’ve been helpful to have a woman take a pass at this script. Just saying.
 
My Number: 4/10

​
Image Credit
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjI5YjViZmUtYzg4Zi00MTY0LTljMGUtOWRkOWQzMzJmNWJlXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTkxNjUyNQ@@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,1416,1000_AL_.jpg

Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (2019): After Palpatine mysteriously returns, the Resistance faces the First Order once more in the final chapter of the Skywalker saga.

It’s hard to approach this film with any sort of objectivity. I, like countless others, was raised on Star Wars. One of my earliest movie memories was seeing my brother’s VHS copy of Episode IV (with a title scroll that did not feature “Episode IV” in it) and thinking it was the coolest thing I had ever seen. That childlike sense of innocence and wonder is integrally tied to Star Wars for countless fans, so it’s hard to look at the finale of the latest trilogy in the biggest franchise in movies with a critical take. Especially when you add in the divisiveness of the previous installment. However, I will do my best because that is what I’m here for, right? So, let’s talk about The Rise of Skywalker!

The Rise of Skywalker is the 9th installment in the Star Wars saga and 11th film in the Disney mega-franchise. The finale in a trilogy that began with Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens, this installment sees director J.J. Abrams return to the helm after Rian Johnson led the groundbreaking and divisive 8th film, Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi. The film concludes the battle between the lowly Resistance and mighty First Order with the same cast of characters from the previous two films. From the opening scene, J.J. Abrams sets the tone for a frenetic and chaotic Episode IX, often to the film’s detriment. One of the many wonderful traits of many Star Wars films is its lush and beautiful planets the characters visit. However, because of the frantic pacing of Episode IX, you hardly ever get to take a breath and enjoy these worlds. It also doesn’t help that the primary world this film takes place on, the mysterious planet of Exegol, (which I had to look up to remember because, worst name ever) is a hideous, decrepit, and forgettable setting with nothing but distracting, seizure-inducing lighting that is some of the worst lighting I have ever seen in any film, let alone a Star Wars film. Seriously. I wish I knew what J.J. Abrams and co were thinking when they made this planet the crux of this film, because there are ways to promote the idea of a “sinister” planet without making your film unwatchable in the process. *Facepalm*

Little Women (2019): Four sisters come of age in America in the aftermath of the Civil War.

There’s something marvelous about Greta Gerwig and her filmmaking. The wonderful actor-turned-director’s, easy-going, innocent style is perfect for the latest adaptation of Little Women, the pioneering, iconic, revelatory coming-of-age story originally penned by Louisa May Alcott. And that’s exactly what this film is: lovely, free-spirited, beautiful, and, of course…. Fun. Sure, it has some confusing editing, (we’ll get to that) but this story could not have been put in better hands. Greta’s directorial debut and titanically successful Lady Bird may have enabled her the opportunity to helm this film, but the idea was in her head long before her 2017 breakout hit. (As evidenced by the fact that she wrote the first draft of this script before directing Lady Bird.) Gerwig’s entire career has led to this moment, and the result is nothing short of a cinematic triumph.
 
Little Women is the second film from director Greta Gerwig, and the fifth(ish, but who’s really counting) adaptation of the classic Alcott novel. The story follows the March sisters – Jo, Meg, Amy, and Beth – as they come of age in Civil War era America. Their struggles to be independent in a sexist economical and societal system designed to repress them are conveyed with a wonderful combination of chaos and meticulousness by Gerwig. The film features a non-linear style with two separate storylines, one set during the Civil War, 7 years earlier than the later. This side-by-side allows you to see two separate portraits of each of the March sisters: one of where they are discovering themselves and who they want to become, the other after they’ve (mostly) molded into what their lives will be. While some have complained that the editing between these storylines was muddy and hard-to-follow, I felt Greta did a marvelous job balancing them thanks to her subtle and clever use of lighting. The earlier storyline was shot entirely with warm lighting, while the “present day” storyline was shot entirely with cold lighting. (If you have no idea what I’m talking about, here’s a handy crash course.) Apart from providing practical help, this also played up the themes of each storyline, as the earlier felt more vibrant, child-like, and innocent, while the “present day” storyline felt more industrial, flawed, and joust overall grown-up and realistic. It’s not every day that the lighting in a film gets to take center stage to help tell its story, but here it is an invaluable character.
 
That said, the strength of Little Women is in the characters themselves. Each of the March sisters have their own unique set of qualities that Gerwig explores with a carefree, spontaneous sense of self-discovery. At the helm is the chaotic, disorganized, yet fiercely independent Jo March. Portrayed by Saoirse Ronan, there is a palpable fire to her character, both thanks to the strong writing of her in the source material and thanks to Ronan herself. This was the role Ronan was born to play: her fusion with Jo is downright uncanny at times. (Greta has talked at length about this seamless transformation on the press tour.) There’s Meg, played by Emma Watson, who is the closest thing to a traditional feminine character this story has to offer, but even she is unconventional. She is kind and patient, the elder of the group, and becomes a metaphor for the manifestation of true love while still offering wisdom and guidance for the rest of the sisters. Emma Watson’s calming facial expressions brought a real soothing sense of peace and joy to this character. There’s Beth, quiet and reserved, played in a down-to-earth way by Eliza Scanlen and a welcome contradiction to the rest of the sisters. And finally, there’s Amy. Her struggle for social acceptance, combined with her unquenchable ambition, was the most relatable for me. This, as well as her impromptu yet calculated personality made her my favorite of the sisters. Additionally, while the other three stars felt at home in their characters, Florence Pugh’s performance was the most impressive of the group. It really felt like Pugh had to settle into the skin of Amy and mold herself to the character she was playing, versus coming naturally equipped to play the role. Between this, Midsommar, and Fighting with My Family, Pugh has certainly arrived in the business. (Also, she started filming this 4 days after wrapping Midsommar, so that is quite the impressive transition.)
 
The supporting characters are also incredibly strong, but the highlight is definitely Laurie. Timothée Chalamet strips away his “bad boy” persona for this grounded yet romantic and innocently kind take on the boy next door. I have a natural predisposition to like everything Timothée Chalamet does, but I really enjoyed his portrayal of Laurie. He is a romantic, searching for his one true love, but also willing to step aside and do what’s best for others around him. He’s never selfish and always fun, and that’s right in Timothée’s wheelhouse. Laurie is the embodiment of how men should act around the women they love. That said, the bad boy vibe does come through a few times and feels somewhat awkward when it does, and, even though you can see the torment of his past actions shining through in these moments, they still feel very out-of-place compared to the character we see the rest of the film. But, of course, it’s Timothée Chalamet, and I am gleefully obligated to love anything and everything that he is involved in. 

Honey Boy (2019): A young actor's stormy childhood and early adult years as he struggles to reconcile with his father and deal with his mental health.

Rarely does a film come around with the rawness of something like Honey Boy. The passionate, reconciliatory brain child of Shia LaBeouf and Alma Har'el, Honey Boy approaches its primary subject, forgiveness, in one of the most unique ways I've ever seen. While it doesn't always work - the unpolished edges can lead to some rather distracting / incomprehensible moments - the end product is nonetheless emotional, purgative, and alluring.

Honey Boy is the feature debut of both director Har'el and screenwriter LaBeouf. LaBeouf also places himself in front of the camera (a position he's certainly used to by now) and plays James Lort, a stand-in for Shia's own father, Jeffrey Craig LaBeouf. Portraying Otis, the stand-in for Shia LaBeouf, is Noah Jupe as a kid and Lucas Hedges as a 20ish year-old grappling with the effects James left on him as a kid. It's a rather hard film to summarize, other than to say it's about anger, coping, and forgiveness, but the parallels shown between each storyline go a long way to conveying traumatic events and how one grapples with them while simultaneously trying to forgive the person responsible. It's a fine line to try and ride that Har'el does a fairly great job with.

Let's talk about forgiveness for a moment. So many films portray this complicated subject in black and white terms. A singular moment in a film where the main character realizes the errors of their ways, delivers a touching monologue, and all is forgiven. Rarely does it work that way in real life, and this is exactly how Honey Boy tries to tackle the subject. James Lort is a wildly flawed, yet somewhat relatable character who is despicable on the surface. Yet, despite his (at times) heinous actions, Otis continues to follow him because he genuinely loves him and cares for him. We all have that person who's hurt us, emotionally or physically, that we need to search the inner dimensions of our own feelings to forgive because we know that's the only way to truly move on and grow as a human being. While, at times, Lort amplifies these misdeeds for cinematic effect, (and the message become somewhat incomprehensible because of it) the end result is still identifiable and personable to the viewer. It also helps that the man playing him, Shia LaBeouf, delivers one of the best performances of the year. A raw, emotional, unnerving turn that was clearly therapeutic for the real life man who's been around the business his entire life. Love love love.  

We also need to talk about Otis. This character is played effectively by both Noah Jupe (definitely the child actor performance of the year) and Lucas Hedges, (who does a great Shia LaBeouf impression, and I loved it, too) and almost acts as a vehicle for the viewer to place themselves in this role. I absolutely love this character. He's written so well by LaBeouf. It's clearly himself, but he writes the character in a way that makes him ascribable for the audience. The viewer can easily channel himself through the young Otis, (Jupe) which makes the older Otis's (Hedges) path to forgiveness with his father that much more identifiable. 

I know I keep returning to the topic of forgiveness, but that's what makes Honey Boy so great! Sure, sometimes the visuals are….. distracting, and the hand cam isn't always welcome, (seriously, you don't need hand cam in every scene!) but how this film approaches forgiveness and coping with one's past actions is so wonderful. James Lort, on the surface, is a terrible human being. He commits abusive atrocities on Otis that (understandably) lead to his drinking / ultimate PTSD. And yet…. You feel for Lort. You see his insecurities play out in screen. You see his unwavering drive to see his son succeed. You see how Otis follows in his footsteps and how Lort influences him, both good and bad. While the filmmaking is distracting and overproduced at times, this message is applicable to all demographics. If you're looking for an artsy film that is intimidating, yet approachable, look no further than Honey Boy. 

My Number: 8/10

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019): Based on the true story of a real-life friendship between Fred Rogers and journalist Tom Junod.

There’s a certain sense of tenable awe one feels when they think about the legacy of Mister Rogers. Whether you watched his program as a child or not, (yours truly would fall into that later category) Mister Rogers persona has become synonymous with generosity, kindness, and good-will. He was a genuine, down-to-earth person, and his program was overtly simple, yet poignant and touching. His legacy, and a wonderful example of his unwavering hospitality, was destined to find its ways into the hands of one of the most touching directors in the business today, Marielle Heller.

For those who don’t know, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood is the latest work from director Marielle Heller (who previously directed last year’s overlooked and underappreciated film Can You Ever Forgive Me?, as well as 2015’s The Diary of a Teenage Girl) and stars America’s real-life dad Tom Hanks as Fred Rogers. The story follows reporter Lloyd Vogel (played by Matthew Rhys and based on real-life reporter Tom Junod) as he is assigned to profile Mister Rogers for a real American heroes” segment in Esquire magazine. Lloyd is dealing (poorly, as we see in one of the film’s opening scenes) with a multitude of personal issues. He and his father are estranged (to put it mildly) and this estrangement has trickled down to Lloyd’s lack of intimate connection with his own newborn son, Gavin. These personal issues have seeped into his work, as well. Lloyd has developed a reputation for being a hard-assed reporter, searching for the worst in the people he’s interviewing. As we discover when Lloyd begrudgingly accepts the Mister Rogers assignment, no one else wanted to be interviewed by him.

While the film takes its time approaching the first interaction between Mister Rogers and Lloyd, the conversations they have throughout the film are some of the best film conversations I’ve seen all year. This is where the mastery of director Marielle Heller comes in. Her ability to make a simple conversation mesmeric is remarkable. Her use of shot reverse shot, the most simplistic technique in filmmaking, is perfect. It holds on the relevant character for the exact right length of time, is never distracting with too many edits, and lets us really see into the minds of these characters with its use of close ups and (to a lesser extent) mids. These exchanges between Lloyd and Mister Rogers are done mostly in close-up, which means there’s very little excess in the shot to distract you from the characters, what they are saying, and how they are saying it. The conversations between Mister Rogers and Lloyd are simple and intimate, yet they provide us, the viewers, with so much insight into their respective mentalities. Lloyd is troubled and cynical, while Fred Rogers is heartfelt, loving, and most of all genuinely concerned by Lloyd’s demeanor. Mister Rogers takes over these exchanges as they progress, and Marielle Heller’s cinematographer, Jody Lee Lipes, will show this transformation with a subtle change of the camera angle halfway through the scene. These exchanges between Lloyd and Mister Rogers are not just the best scenes this film has to offer, it’s some of the best scenes I’ve seen in any film all year, period.

The quietness of these scenes comes to a head in the third act. There is a scene between Mister Rogers and Lloyd that occurs in a diner in Pittsburgh, shortly after Lloyd experiences some particularly traumatic events and responds to them by fleeing to see Mister Rogers. In this scene, Mister Rogers asks Lloyd to sit back and think about all the people that love him for an entire minute. We, the audience, proceed to sit in silence with these characters for that entire minute, while the camera slowly and deliberately pans around Mister Rogers until he is looking directly into it and thus at us. This therapeutic minute was emotional and cathartic, a courageous inclusion by Marielle Heller in an age where most big budget films are terrified to have even a second of silence in their respective films. There were audible sniffles and tears throughout the theater as we shared in this incredibly touching and minimalistic moment.

Frozen II (2019): Anna, Elsa, Kristoff, Olaf and Sven leave Arendelle to travel to an ancient, autumn-bound forest of an enchanted land. They set out to find the origin of Elsa's powers in order to save their kingdom.

​As usual, I need to preface every review about an animated film by reminding you that I don’t watch that many animated movies. Trying to review them tends to feel rather foreign to me. However, this isn’t just any animated film, it’s Frozen II – the sequel to the biggest animated film of this decade – so I’ll give it a whack and see what happens.
 
The moment I walked out of the theater after seeing Frozen, (fun fact: one of the first reviews I ever wrote right there, so go easy on me) I knew I had seen a genre-defining film. Its story was timeless and inspirational, the characters were lovable and charming, and the music was damn near instantly iconic. (“Let It Go” has been stuck in my head ever since, as I’m sure it has been in yours.) So it goes without saying that the predecessor has big shoes to fill. Unfortunately, this sequel is not Cinderella. Instead, it’s one of the evil stepsisters.
 
Forced Disney metaphor aside, before I go any further let me just say this: this movie is fine. It’s cute, fun, upbeat, brisk, and energetic. Young children will almost certainly be entertained. But, as a sequel to Frozen? This is the best you could do? Really? The film’s problem’s start with its music, which is decent at best and decrepit at worst. The only song here with any sort of staying power is “Into the Unknown,” which is 100% propped up by the enviable diaphragm of Idina Menzel. (The Panic! At the Disco version is better, but that should hardly come as a surprise. BRENDON URIE SINGS THIS SONG IN THE SAME KEY, PEOPLE. THE SAME KEY. AS IDINA MENZEL.) Even this song, the best Frozen II has to offer, is seriously lacking in instrumental catchiness, with a very awkward and sudden ending to cap it off. If this song goes on to win Best Original Song at the Oscars, that would mean it was a depressingly weak year for Hollywood and original music. Meanwhile, the worst song in this film undoubtedly goes to Kristoff’s (Jonathan Groff) big number, which somehow manages to totally waste the voice behind the character on an awkward, out-of-place 1980’s hair metal-esque song that is clearly only here for the dads in the audience that have to watch this film. Seriously… what was that, and why do you waste Jonathan Groff on something like that? At least have that be an Olaf (Josh Gad) number! (While still out of place, that would’ve been funnier, at least.) But I want to know why it’s in the film at all, as it feels so out-of-place it borders on an actual Frozen parody.

While the music is…. Disappointing, the characters are not. Once again, the core cast is excellent, with Anna (Kristen Bell) and Elsa (Idina Menzel) successfully reprising their beloved characters. There’s even a clever bit of gender reversal here, as Kristoff spends most of the film trying (and hilariously failing) to propose to Anna. Hey, isn’t it nice to have a guy spend an entire film talking about a woman, for once? I also thoroughly enjoyed Olaf’s comedic relief. Writer / directors Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee transform Olaf into a sort of teenage philosopher, and adults in the room will find themselves laughing a lot as he discovers the world with a contemplative sense of zeal, joy, and innocence. But, the overarching story? It’s a cardboard cutout of corporate mandated filmmaking. The film never takes anything even resembling a risk, forgoing anything that could be viewed as a deep and contemplative philosophical topic or theme in place of a standard hero’s journey with sisterhood, FTW! thrown in to boot. While the music was disappointing, the story may be Frozen II’s biggest offense. There is absolutely no courage to it. No edge. Every side is smoothed out for the widest possible audience appeal. Heck, the only character failure in this film arises from someone being overly ambitious to discover the truth, which is kind of ridiculous when you think about it. (Imagine what our world would look like if we all taught that to our kids…) The characters hardly face any meaningful adversity, and when they even approach the topic it’s cast aside with an overly simple, single line of dialogue. There is absolutely nothing here to grapple on to, which could not be more disappointing.
 
I don’t know. I’m just frustrated that, in a animated sequel of this titanic proportion, Disney and the filmmakers weren’t more willing to take some risks in their storytelling. The original Frozen was significantly more interesting in its tale of overcoming the fear of something you don’t understand with Elsa’s great character arc. However, this story couldn’t be more ordinary if it tried. I don’t think it’s too much to ask for the sequel to one of the biggest animated films Disney has released this century to have a bit of fortitude to go along with being entertaining. But this lack of audacity, combined with the instantly forgettable music, is what leads to Frozen II being nothing more than…. Fine. Take the kids, have a good time, then forget about it as soon as you get home. Sigh.
 
My Number: 5/10

​
Image Credits
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTY4OWU0NTMtMDZjZS00MWYzLWFmNmEtZGUwZGIxMTg4MjgxXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTkxNjUyNQ@@._V1_SX1777_CR0,0,1777,744_AL_.jpg
​​https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BZTNjODJiMjMtYmU0OC00ZmM1LTk1MDAtZGI2MDY0MDUwYTY5XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjg2NjQwMDQ@._V1_SX1777_CR0,0,1777,744_AL_.jpg

Doctor Sleep (2019): Years following the events of The Shining, a now-adult Dan Torrance meets a young girl with similar powers as he tries to protect her from a cult known as The True Knot who prey on children with powers to remain immortal.

It's rare for a film to leave me this flabbergasted. This dumbfounded. This awestruck by the sheer audacity of what I just witnessed. We've waited nearly 40 years for a sequel to one of the greatest horror films, (and films period, for that matter) and, in this current Stephen King Renaissance, it was inevitable that it would finally come. Doctor Sleep is that long awaited sequel. Going in, I was temperamentally excited. How bad could a sequel to The Shinning, The EFFING SHINING, possibly be? The Shining's haunting formula of psychological terror and human degradation is the standard-bearer for what horror films should be. All they had to do was replicate that genre-defining formula, or at the VERY LEAST attempt to mimic it, but instead we get….. witches. And, look. I get it. Stephen King is weird and somehow didn't like Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of his book. The Overlook Hotel (the setting for The Shining) isn't even in the Doctor Sleep novel. That's not my problem with this film - in fact, I actually somewhat enjoyed the lore King expanded on. That's not my issue with this film. My issue is that it ignores EVERYTHING that made its legendary predecessor great in favor of…. witches. Effing witches. Doctor Sleep is not just the most disappointing film I've seen all year, it's one of the most disappointing films I have ever seen. WHY DO YOU IGNORE EVERYTHING THAT MADE YOUR PREDECESSOR ICONIC? 

Ok, I'm gushing over it to a near unhealthy degree, so let's talk about The Shining for a minute. Yes, the original is buoyed by one of the greatest performances ever, (thank you, Jack Nicholson) but the meticulous filmmaking of director Stanley Kubrick (you've probably heard of him) also amplified the sheer horror of this pillar of American cinema. The Shining plays on the very human fear of the unknown to deliver its terror, versus the stereotypical jump scare. As Kubrick himself put it, The Shining is, at its core, about one family going insane together. It's simple, quiet, and elegant. And that's what makes it terrifying. You don't have any singular omnipresent being slowly ramping the scares up to eleven before everybody dies. The Shining is, simply, a study in the human psyche when confronted with some weird and unusual, yet eerily plausible events. However, Doctor Sleep gives all of that up in favor of witches. By rooting this sequel in the supernatural, director Mike Flanagan (and more so Stephen King, for that matter) forgo the entire psychological evaluation that made The Shining as great as it was. The fear of the unknown is completely lost in favor of something realistically implausible, something supernatural and near omnipresent, which is as frustrating as it sounds.

Hustlers (2019): Inspired by the viral New York Magazine article, Hustlers follows a crew of savvy former strip club employees who band together to turn the tables on their Wall Street clients.

Ok, first things first. Before you read this review: GO WATCH THIS MOVIE. RIGHT NOW. It is an absolute must-watch and deserves every cent of its box office gross. Stories like this, told like this, don't come around very often. A film about female empowerment, female companionship, based on strippers, that avoids the male gaze thanks to its meticulous female director, Hustlers is exactly the kind of film I want to see more of a post #MeToo Hollywood. Make ALL of the money, please! 

This film is an unstoppable force, and it shines through in the performances and the filmmaking. Jennifer Lopez is at this film's molten center, like the freaking star that she is, putting in easily the best performance I've ever seen from her, ever. (And I've seen more of her films than I should probably care to admit!) Her performance as Ramona is the heartbeat of this film. From the first moment she's on screen, Ramona owns this film and everything in it, and we're just lucky enough to witness it. However, she is complimented spectacularly by Constance Wu. The star of Crazy Rich Asians puts the haters to bed by showing us that she really can bring it, regardless of whether the role is in her comfort zone or not. Her character, Destiny, is the brains to Ramona's unbridled spirit. Destiny is the emotional centerpiece of this film, and her character is fleshed out flawlessly by director / writer Lorene Scafaria. 

We need to talk about Lorene Scafaria, because she is the reason this film works as well as it does. The director / writer of this film, (and formerly of Seeking a Friend for the End of the World acclaim) she puts a touch on the filmmaking that sets it apart from so many other films about criminal subjects. She makes Ramona and Destiny personable, authentic, and relatable. Not only in the writing of each character, but in the filmmaking itself. The editing, reminiscent of an Adam McKay project, (he and Will Ferrell happen to be producers on this film) is a driving force, and a big reason why these two characters are so relatable and sympathetic. Pulling a play out of The Social Network, this film intersperses sequences with the journalist who wrote this real-life story, (played by freaking Julia Stiles and I'm here for it. Also Lizzo, who I'd be seriously depressed if I neglected to mention the fact that LIZZO IS IN THIS AND NOW I'M ALIVE. Wait, where was I?) which really helps to ground the story. This film is not like The Wolf of Wall Street, which focuses on the excess itself, instead, Hustlers focuses on the relationships and how the excess both brings them together and tears them apart. This makes Hustlers far more human, even as they're giving each other million dollar fur coats in their penthouse apartments. You feel for them, and their suffering, which is all thanks to the perspective director / writer Lorene Scafaria puts on this film

End of the day, this is one of the best films I've seen all year. While it does struggle to develop any meaningful characters outside of Ramona and Destiny, it doesn't necessarily need to. These characters are more than worth the cost of admission, as is this story of female empowerment. See it once. See it twice. See it a hundred times. Hustlers is still worth it. 

My Number: 9.5/10

Image Credit
​https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BYTA4Yzk4NDUtZGEyNS00NTE4LTk0OWItZWNlM2M1ZGYwMjhlXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTA3MzEwOTEw._V1_SX1776_CR0,0,1776,749_AL_.jpg

It: Chapter Two (2019): Twenty-seven years after their first encounter with the terrifying Pennywise, the Losers Club have grown up and moved away, until a devastating phone call brings them back.

Two years after the wild success of It, one of the most successful horror films of all-time, a film which brought about the Stephen King Renaissance we're currently in, Pennywise and the Losers Club return in It: Chapter Two. And…… I'm not sure what happened between the first (which I loved) and second film, but this time around the formula feels... forced and uninspired. While there is absolutely nothing that can replace the feeling of watching big budget horror unfold before my eyes, which clearly I LIVE for, (please give us more of this, Hollywood) It: Chapter Two is missing the magic that made its predecessor work so unexpectedly well. Maybe it's the fact that we've seen 14 Stephen King adaptations since 2017. Maybe it's the fact that It: Chapter Two does the exact same thing as its predecessor, only 27 years later. Or, maybe it's just the fact that its predecessor caught irreplicable lightning in a bottle. Whatever the case may be, while I did enjoy It: Chapter Two, it failed to live up to the (admittedly) lofty expectations set by its predecessor and becomes nothing more than a (rare) big budget horror film that's…. Fine.

One thing I love about this film that is undeniable: it is wonderful to watch AAA list stars like Jessica Chastain, James McAvoy, and Bill Hader wander through horror setpieces. Yes, the best part of this film is the fact that it is a big budget horror film, and the dark ages of the 2000s and most of the 2010s are still so recent that it still feels invigorating to watch it unfold before you. We, as a society, need more big budget horror, stat. Let's see a solid psychological horror with Amy Adams at the helm. (No, Nocturnal Animals doesn't count.) Or a film where Tom Hanks plays a creepy serial killer. (We can dream, right?) Watching James McAvoy navigate a funhouse (the scene from the trailers) was an absolute delight to watch, as was watching Chastain interact with a superficially kind old lady. The horror setpieces are grand and pragmatic, and their orchestrater, Pennywise the DANCING Clown, is as menacing as ever. Once again Pennywise is a terrifying and unstoppable villain, played manically by Bill Skarsgard, only this time he's treated as an established entity versus an unknown one. Which, unfortunately, detracts from the overall film. 

I'm really trying to put my finger on why this film doesn't work as well as the original did. I just rewatched the original one night prior to seeing It: Chapter Two, and once again I loved it. The setpieces all served the easily translatable narrative about overcoming your fears, with a relatable and identifiable core of misfits. The effects were huge yet delightfully cheesy. But here, the Losers Club feels recycled and reused. Rehashed in a narrative that feels almost identical to its predecessor. It just feels….. lazy and uneventful. I'm all for the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" narrative, but you have to give us at least some originality. This time, Pennywise is a character you know and either love or loathe. The backstory to how he came to be is utterly ridiculous. (I know, the source material this franchise has to go off of is pretty ridiculous, but still.) So, you're left simply loving (or loathing) Pennywise because… he's Pennywise the DANCING Clown. He's no longer this new and unknown figure, he's just this ominous, sentient being our heroes have to kill. Maybe this sequel never had the chance to give us a "fresh take" on Pennywise. Maybe my expectations were too lofty to begin with. But just doing the exact same thing again left me unfulfilled.

I think that's the biggest loss of this franchise. Because of the million Stephen King properties between the 2017 It and now, combined with the fact that this film essentially picks up the original 27 years later and does the same thing again, It: Chapter Two feels like nothing more than a rehash and, at times, lazy sequel to its 2017 counterpart. While it is wild to watch Jessica Chastain go through a horror setpiece, and every member of the Losers club puts in a great performance respectively, the magic of the original is all but gone. Which just leaves us with a bloated, big budget horror film. And, while we do still need (a lot) more of those…. I was hoping for so much more.

My Number: 5/10

Photo Credit:
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjBkZTIyNDUtNzZiYS00MTc0LThjZTMtZDYxZTllNzU0MzM4XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjQ4ODE4MzQ@._V1_SX1777_CR0,0,1777,768_AL_.jpg

Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood (2019): A faded television actor and his stunt double strive to achieve fame and success in the film industry during the final years of Hollywood's Golden Age in 1969 Los Angeles.

Quentin Tarantino is back! The 9th film from the so-called "Godfather of indie films" turns the self-indulgence and self-referential humor up to 11 while inexplicably doing everything he can to derail an otherwise enjoyable film. That's right, folks. The worst thing about Quentin Tarantino's latest film is.... Quentin Tarantino. But, despite Tarantino trying so hard to be the most Tarantino possible, the final product is still a somewhat enjoyable one, thanks entirely to its once-in-a-generation collaboration between two of modern Hollywood's most recognizable stars. Which makes all the Tarantino aspects of this film THAT MUCH MORE FRUSTRATING. 

Ok. Look. Before I trash Quentin Tarantino's distracting storytelling style, I should tell you: like every self-proclaimed film buff, I love Quentin Tarantino films. When his style works, it's iconic. I will never forget how I felt when Lt. Hicox held up three fingers the wrong way. Or when Pumpkin decided to hold up a random diner that's not-so-random. Or when any Christoph Waltz character did anything in a Tarantino film. When it works, it works! But when it doesn't, you'll find yourself bored out of your mind, wanting to SCREAM at the screen to move along. This film DRAGS. The Hateful Eight did too, but that film also heavily featured a Tarantino trait that is sorely lacking for most of Once Upon a Time….. tension. Without any sort of tension, Tarantino's overzealous style becomes glaringly distracting, and it does everything it can to derail an otherwise perfectly enjoyable film. Also, where TF are the women?? The male gaze is disturbingly obvious here. Let's not forget Tarantino was BFFs with Harvey Weinstein, and the legendary Uma Thurman had some things to say about his…. abusive directing style once the #MeToo movement was in full force. So, what does Tarantino do in his first post- #MeToo film? Have a female lead who's rich, dynamic, and interesting? Hahahaha NO. ABSOLUTELY NOT. MARGOT ROBBIE HAS NOTHING TO DO BUT BE CAUGHT IN SQUARELY IN THE MALE GAZE. About 2 hours in, when Sharon Tate (Robbie) FINALLY goes to a local movie theater to watch herself in one of her films, she had had basically one line of meaningless dialogue the entire film. (Yes, that one scene from the trailer is basically her only meaningful scene in the ENTIRE film) For the first TWO FREAKING HOURS, Tarantino spent more time uncomfortably checking her out with the camera than actually letting her speak. After SKIRTING by the #MeToo movement…. This ain't a great look, Quentin. Oh, and if you think any other woman will have a notable part to play in this film….. lol! Think again. Squeaky (Dakota Fanning) has ONE SCENE. She was probably on set for a single freaking day! Sure, the same goes for George, (Bruce Dern) but if only the old white dudes were ignored as much as the women. JAY SEBRING (Emile Hirsch) HAS AS MUCH DIALOGUE AS MARGOT ROBBIE. WHAT ARE YOU DOING, QUENTIN. Pussycat (Margaret Qualley) has one scene too, and it's there entirely to serve one of the male leads. And I haven't even mentioned the controversy surrounding Bruce Lee's character! Which is a major problem in and of itself. Seriously, this film flirts with being a #MAGA's wet dream, and the further I get away from it, the more frustrated I am by it. 

(Deep breath.) That said…. Maybe it's because Tarantino has unlimited budget and clout in Hollywood at this point, but damnit….this film is also so freaking charming. When you accept this film is essentially a buddy picture between two best friends who happen to be played by two of the biggest stars in the world, who have somehow never shared a silver screen before, in a nostalgia-driven 1960s fantasia Hollywood…. yes, you will have a good time. Leo and Brad are iconic! Leonardo DiCaprio, playing the lead Rick Dalton, in his first role since winning his Oscar no less, reminds us why he is one of the greatest living actors today. And his dynamic with the equally rich Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is palpable and (frustratingly) worth the cost of admission. Both Dalton and Booth are incredibly fleshed out and have a great relationship with each other and everyone around them as the events of the film drive them apart and bring them back together. And the nostalgic odes to classic Hollywood are intoxicating. How many directors would be able to revert the actual Sunset Blvd to its 1969 state? The attention-to-detail is incredible. Just give them the Oscar for Best Production Design right now. These tracking shots are so cool! And the music is so good! Tarantino's taste in music is impeccable once again! H!

This film is so polarizing! It's propped up squarely by its two iconic (white male) leads, while leaving its female star in the dust. The male gaze is so infuriating. Its director does everything he can to ruin the experience. And its ending..... is something. I wasn't a huge fan of the moment where Tarantino finally went full Tarantino at the hands of an acid-dipped cigarette. Your mileage will vary with this ending, but I will put it squarely in my rearview. As I will the rest of this film. Why oh WHY did we have to waste this iconic duo on Tarantino? Can we get a do-over, please? Hey, Damien Chazelle, you watching this?

The Critique: Despite having one of the most iconic collaborations of the 21st century as its leads, Once Upon a Time squanders any hope of greatness at the hands of its overzealous director. 

The Recommendation: Film buffs will rush out to see this if they haven't already, but the rest of you? Just rewatch Rocketman or something.

Rewatchability: Low

My Number: 4/10

Image Credit:
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMWU2MWQ0YjAtOTNiZi00N2E1LWI5MTAtY2JlMmViNWM1ZTc3XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjg2NjQwMDQ@._V1_SY1000_SX1500_AL_.jpg

Even though we stayed out long past midnight, we were up early once more with our final day in Cannes. The final day of our accreditation program coincided with the final day of the festival, which meant the primary venue was screening the "best of fest" films. This gave me the opportunity to see the film that won Best Actor, (Antonio Banderas, Pain and Glory) Best Actress (Emily Beecham, Little Joe) and the ultimate winner of the prestigious Palme d'Or. (Bong Joon-ho, Parasite) Quite an action-packed day that started bright and early at 8 AM!

The queue for Parasite was absolutely insane. And this was before it officially won the Palme d'Or.

And with that, our journey through the wonderful world of Cannes came to a depressing end. For 3 delirious days, we were at the pinnacle of the movie world: not watching the cultural conversation through the lens of social media, but actually at epicenter of it all. It was nothing short of incredible, and something which I look forward to repeating next year in my final year of eligibility for this program. Till next year, Cannes!

The intro that greeted us before every film during the festival. It's kind of cheesy, but it's undeniably iconic.

After sprawling out on a Mediterranean beach until the wee hours of the early morning drinking cheap wine with great company, our journey through Cannes continued with an early morning screening of the new Terrence Malick film, A Hidden Live. At least, it should have. The film gods had something else in store for my early morning screening.