9/10 - Unfortunately, I did not see this in theaters. Probably one of the few reviews coming in these past few days that saw it the good old fashioned way: on my tv via my dvd player. Yet, while I am sure that it is glorious on the big screen, Singin' in the Rain is such a magical and joyful experience, it is brilliant via any medium. The quintessential MGM musical of the 1950s, it was about time I really began to dive into musicals, especially after La La Land. So far so good. With tremendous choreography and musical numbers, Singin' in the Rain is a joy-filled experience that often feels like a work of art courtesy of Jackson Pollock with splashes of color dotting and engulfing the film. A showbiz musical that largely follows the cliches of the genre, Singin' in the Rain is not quite the musical that a film like La La Land is, in that it will not convert musical haters. But, for musical lovers or people who simply love good cinema, Singin' in the Rain is a classic in every sense of the word.

It is hard to write about a film so heavily discussed in the 65 years since its release, but I will do it anyways. One of the greatest elements of this film is, obviously, the music. Yet, while the music is incredibly well sung and well composed, the greatest achievement is how it is worked into the film. Telling the story of two famous silent film actors, Don Lockwood (Gene Kelly) and Lina Lamont (Jean Hagen), who are thrust into their first talkie and struggle to make it work with Don's bad acting and Lina's awful voice, the film seamlessly works in music. As Don pairs up with friend Cosmo (Donald O'Connor) and potential lover Kathy Selden (Debbie Reynolds) to change the film into a musical, the musical numbers are not only well executed, but they work. There is never a musical number that feels like it distracts from the film because, well, they are the point of the film. The plot is what happens in between songs to try and lead up to the next song and Singin' in the Rain gets an A+ in accomplishing this. Its plot is engaging and a fun look at Hollywood in the late 1920s after The Jazz Singer changed the game forever. Yet, while it certainly needs this plot, the introduction of boisterous and energy packed musical numbers never cheapen the plot or make the film lose any steam. Instead, the music numbers serve a purpose in regards to the plot or are simply too much fun to ignore.

A lot of this fun is derived from the choreography. Gene Kelly, Donald O'Connor, and Debbie Reynolds, are all real triple threats here with great dancing, singing, and acting. The choreography capitalizes on this with exuberant musical numbers that demand talented performers to execute them. Each dance sequence is incredibly intricate, long, and often synchronized with other dancers on the screen. The time and effort put into perfecting these moments must have been incredible and it really pays off as swinging, tap dancing, and moments of pure joy created in the dance sequences exceed any I have seen put on film.

The film also finds great success in the natural charisma and chemistry of its leads. Blending their more artistic talents with hardcore acting and comedy, the film is a greatly entertaining film that rises on the shoulders of its leads. In particular, Donald O'Connor may not receive as much screentime as his more celebrated co-stars, but his comedic ability adds great versatility to Singin' in the Rain's repertoire. Jean Hagen also makes for a killer villain and self-absorbed silent movie star who does not realize that the train has already pulled out of the station on her career. As people who initially hate one another and slowly fall in love, Gene Kelly and Debbie Reynolds are brilliant together and have great romantic and musical chemistry with one another. Together, they really complement one another quite well.

Incredibly influential on the musical genre, the impact of Singin' in the Rain on La La Land is clear and often. From the splashes of color, the scene on the set between Gene Kelly and Debbie Reynolds feeling similar to the planetarium sequence, and of course, swinging on light posts, the film has a long lasting legacy that hopefully will never die. it even influenced films such as Hail, Caesar, both via its musical scenes and the jokes regarding pronunciation. One of the premier musicals of its era, Singin' in the Rain is a blast from beginning to end.



8/10 - Lost Highway is as divisive as any other David Lynch film amongst critics and audience members alike. A confusing and convoluted film, Lost Highway's true interpretation is as hard to pin down as any other Lynch film, though it is perhaps a bit more accessible than, say, Mulholland Dr. In essence, Lost Highway is a film about the underbelly of society. Porn, sex, murder, and temptations abound in David Lynch's mesmerizing tale of a man who has opened his home to Satan and cannot get him out of his place. Told in the only way Lynch knows how - confusingly - Lost Highway can be off-putting, but for those willing to get swept up in its whirlwind, it is more than satisfying.

Satan has entered the home of the Madisons. This much is clear. If the suggestions in the beginning of the film that Renee Madison (Patricia Arquette) was different and not like herself, the conversation between Fred Madison (Bill Pullman) and the mystery man (Robert Blake) cement it. Telling Fred that this mystery man is in his home and also showing that he is the source of the videotapes they have received hinting at Fred murdering Renee, it becomes clear that Satan has a hold on this family. How did he get into the home of Madisons? Via Renee. Just as Eve is the reason sin entered the world after she bit the apple from the tree of knowledge, Renee is a sex worker and porn star. By engaging in these sins and keeping the company of Mr. Eddy/Dick Laurent (Robert Loggia), who has clearly sold his soul for money and fame, Renee allowed Satan into the home of her and her husband. Once this happens, Satan lets himself into the home and toys with the Madison's and messes with the mind of Fred. Sending him to jail and then dumping him briefly into the body of Pete Dayton (Balthazar Getty), Satan has his way with the Madison's, but ultimately gets his reward: their souls. Helping Fred kill Dick Laurent and welcoming Renee's nude body into his previously burning cabin, the Madison's souls are no longer their own. The transaction is, of course, orchestrated by Renee who says that the man who lives in the cabin will help her and her lover disappear.

Sin engulfs the entirety of this film with the porn tape between Renee and various people playing throughout much of the final half hour of the film. People are murdered or driven off the road by men like Mr. Eddy or they engage in a variety of other sins throughout the film. This indulgence and embrace of the underbelly of society wreaks havoc on the family unit and destroys it thoroughly. In many ways, Lost Highway crafts an ode to films such as Rosemary's Baby or a companion piece to fellow 1997 release The Devil's Advocate. All show the temptation of sin and the potential rewards of selling your soul, but they always come in this world. Once it is over, the fire rages all around (as it does in the Madison's fireplace and in the cabin) and nothing but the gnashing of teeth remains. This film and the others show the aftermath of this and the pain, strife, and threat posed to our lives if we allow Satan in via our own sinful tendencies.

A thoroughly hypnotic and freak experience, Lost Highway features a lot of similar traits to Lynch's works, namely wooden acting and weird people. Pullman and Arquette are terrific, however, and portray these sort of alien and confused people unaware of what hell their actions have awakened. The film is often stolen by Robert Blake, however, as the mystery man whose always looming presence is terrifying and thoroughly unsettling from beginning to end. Robert Loggia is also great in a truly intense and angry performance, instilling great fear and presence whenever he appears on the screen.

Lost Highway is a divisive film, but is an equally horrifying one that really feels Lynchian from beginning to end. A parable on the dangers of giving into temptation and making deals with the devil for success on Earth, the film is hypnotic, mesmerizing, and perverse. Yet, it is also brilliant and a truly surreal experience as with all of his works. Nobody makes unique films like David Lynch and every single one of his films continues to defy expectations and pre-conceived notions about the film.



4/10 - Lights Out was the horror film this year that was expanded from a short film, not Don't Breathe. Yet, Don't Breathe constantly feels like a short film with a paper thin concept stretched out over the course of a feature-length film. As the film kept going and the same cliched things kept happening, I sat and stared at my screen with similar pain as the kids in the house. I wanted out, but the movie just kept on going and going, never introducing any idea that was not filler or cliched in some fashion. Don't Breathe has some solid acting and a scary villain, but the concept is pretty lame especially when there are no tricks up its sleeves to add onto it. What you see is what you get for the most part and the portions it tacks on just feel like reaches that director Fede Alvarez added onto make the film longer and reach the hour and a half runtime. Simply put, this film is the very definition of tedious.

The tediousness predictability is constant and never lets go. The best sequence in the film - the basement sequence with all the lights off - is terrifically lit and really cool to watch unfold visually. Story-wise though, two of the would be robber teenagers who broke into a blind man's home just fondle the wall for a few minutes. As he fondles the wall right behind them, he is on his home turf and shows it, while the two teenagers are lost. Though well captured, the scene lacks in any sort of tension and serves as a microcosm of the whole film. When you anticipate a hand grabbing a character, guess what appears on the screen. These types of cliches are constantly adhered to throughout as Alvarez fails to find ways to obscure them. Instead, it just follows the beats on how to make a teenage, final girl, and home invasion horror thriller, while never innovating on them. Instead, it toes the line and cheapens its own scares by simply emulating the script put forth by better and more innovative horror films.

Even worse, Don't Breathe lacks guts. It fears killing its characters unlike any other horror film I have seen. It keeps them alive at all costs, in order to use them later on as a rescue for other characters. At the end of the day though, it is all done to lead up to a final girl who takes a stance against the big bad guy. The film even lacks innovation in its characterization as, at the end of the day, these are kids who perform robberies. They are robbing a blind veteran because they know he is sitting on a pile of cash. Unable to make the audience sympathetic to the leads otherwise, Alvarez adds in a subplot regarding the blind man with rape and impregnation that really feels cheesy and incredibly cheap. Thrown in just to demonize the blind man, he is clearly a bad guy, but it really adds no depth to the film. No tension, it merely just elongates it as finding the girl in the basement already made us root against him, no need to add on some perverse subplot.

The film continues to struggle, especially outside the house in and around the car. It just drags like all hell and it is supposed to be the thrilling finale. You know every beat of this scene if you seen any horror film ever released and it is really tiring to watch unfold. Ultimately, what I am driving at is that Don't Breathe entirely lacks atmosphere. At no point does director Fede Alvarez create an air of mystery or fear. Instead, it is just a largely dull film that mostly lacks sound to make up for any lack of atmosphere. It relies instead upon the silence of the room and of this blind man feeling his way around the room as the characters conveniently step on creaky floor boards.

Falling well below my expectations, Don't Breathe is an unscary, unthrilling, and thoroughly tedious teen horror film that only has its tight and well structured visuals in its pro column, as well as good acting. Every beat of the story is either done out of cliche or convenience to help move the story along in the predictable and tired fashion desired by Alvarez. For a film so highly praised by critics and audiences alike, it is fair to say that I expected far better than this film.



7/10 - Frantic often draws comparisons to the works of Alfred Hitchcock and Brian De Palma. This is certainly fair, but Frantic more-or-less feels typical regardless of influence. While comparisons to Hitchcock's The Man Who Knew Too Much stand out, as it is a fish out of water type story where Harrison Ford must navigate French customs (the plots are very dissimilar, but this element is reminiscent), Frantic really could be compared to many other thrillers. Though Roman Polanski is a great director who can take a genre, innovate on it, and improve it, Frantic really does not show this too much. Instead, it just feels like a slow burn European thriller with a far too happy and neat ending. Otherwise, it is just a pretty good and incredibly put together thriller.

Frantic is about a man, Dr. Richard Walker (Harrison Ford), who travels to France with his wife. While in the shower, she disappears. The only clue being that she was seen left leaving with another man and was possibly shoved into a car, which broke off her bracelet. However, Richard believes that the luggage she grabbed from the plane, which was not her's and was grabbed in error, may have some clue as to who took her and why. In tracking down his wife, he finds the luggage's owner, Michelle (Emmanuelle Seigner). Together, they find Richard's wife and deliver the nefarious goods inside the case to the criminals that took Richard's wife. While it may not quite be what you expect inside the luggage, the actual item is predictable when you see who the bad guys are. The film is also dragged down in regards to never deviating from classic thriller cliches along the way and its conclusion feels far too safe. It does not try to subvert expectations, rather it simply lives up to them and delivers a happy and neat ending to a film that should have been far messier. Involved with gangs, the French police, and the embassy, it is clear this is an international incident, yet Richard just tosses the nefarious goods into the water and the criminals give up. Is there some kind of statement I missed? Is this a political statement by Polanski or?

Regardless, it is quite thrilling all the same. Slowly paced and unraveling at a European pace, Frantic is thoroughly compelling and well plotted. Though largely predictable, it executes its cliches incredibly well and Polanski pairs up with Ennio Morricone to instill the film with an edgy atmosphere. While a fish out of water is hardly a new premise, Polanski does execute it well with Ford's confusion in a foreign land feeling consistently authentic and edgy. As the film progresses and his confusion - and ours - only builds, Polanski's assured direction really takes hold and keeps grasping the edge of your seat.

Acting-wise, Ford is solid. He was never a great actor and he hardly turns in a terrific performance in Frantic, but it works. He plays the concerned and angsty husband quite well, though he lacks the nervous edge to really make him soar in the work. Though he tells Michelle he is nervous, Ford's naturally calm and cool demeanor is ill-fitted for nervy. He is in control of every situation, which may not be a great match for this material. Nonetheless, he turns in a solid performance and really is admirably restrained for somebody so used to starring in action films. Alongside him, Seigner is seductive and would have convinced me to mule anything across borders. Yes, she was the mule, but if she asked me to do it for her, I would have a hard time saying no. In terms of acting, Seigner is solid and embarks on a lifelong partnership with Polanski in this film and it is not hard to see why. She is a talented actress and showcases that here in this film.

While largely quite formulaic, Frantic is a great testament to Polanski. Yes, it is partially influenced by Hitchcock, but that sells Hitchcock short, since that would be calling all of his films cliche. Frantic is cliched, but it emulates the cliches well and Polanski's directorial talents are on full display throughout. While not always engaging, it is always thrilling and a thoroughly entertaining film that focuses on thrills, not bullets.



5/10 - Is there a talented actor with worse luck than Armie Hammer? Since first establishing himself in teen hearthrob roles on shows such as Gossip Girl, he went on to show he was here to stay with a great turn in The Social Network. Since then, no matter what he picks, things just never work out for him. Sign onto J. Edgar, directed by Clint Eastwood and starring Leonardo DiCaprio? Critical failure. The Lone Ranger, directed by Pirates helmer Gore Verbinski and starring Johnny Depp in a big budget revival of a popular old television show? Critical and commercial failure. The Man From UNCLE, co-starring Henry Cavill and directed by Guy Ritchie, and another revival of an old television show? Mixed reviews and a commercial failure. Nocturnal Animals, starring Amy Adams, Jake Gyllenhaal, Michael Shannon, and Aaron Taylor-Johnson, while being directed by Tom Ford? This one has to be the one, right? Nope. Mixed reception and not likely to garner much Oscar attention. And now, we can add The Birth of a Nation to that pile. After seeing Michael Fassbender play a slave owner in 12 Years a Slave and in the aftermath of #OscarsSoWhite, this one seemed to be a safe bet to finally get Armie Hammer some popular recognition, but no, the film suffers critically and is maligned because of Nate Parker's past. Will this man ever find a film that is successful both critically and commerically?

The Birth of a Nation is a largely well put together historical biopic, a genre that I love. Though many hated the earlier The Free State of Jones, I am an apologist for the film and the genre as a whole. Give me some historical story and I would probably enjoy it a bit more than most. The Birth of a Nation, however, is hard to enjoy and its reasons only become clear in the second half. Initially a rousing tale of a slave, Nat Turner (Nate Parker), who learns the Bible and is sent to preach in horrible conditions to horribly treated slaves, the film is moving. It is always moving, in fact, with its images of brutality and horrifyingly poetic take on slavery. Yet, Parker overdoes it with symbols and a ham fisted approach to his protagonist's tale. Using butterfly symbols, a bleeding piece of corn, and repeated religious symbols (angels, crosses, and connections between Turner and various prophets), the film feels entirely misguided. This symbol-filled second half largely derides an otherwise solid film.

In the lead role, Parker is incredibly solid. Delivering powerful monologues, he captures the charisma and power of Nat Turner. Any man willing to take on his oppressor with nothing more than the Bible and an axe is a man that has incredible internal strength and confidence. Parker really captures this and turns in a consistently powerful performance of Turner. Alongside him, Aja Naomi King is brilliant as Nat Turner's wife, Cherry. Backing her husband on his mission from God all the way, she turns in a subtly powerful performance that will hopefully springboard her into larger roles.

Yet, as mentioned, it is the writing and direction that often let this one down. While the acting is rousing and the writing hits some high notes in the monologues, the film just feels too hamfisted. I am not one to argue that Nat Turner is bad. The men he killed undoubtedly deserved what they got coming to them for their treatment of slaves. Yet, the symbolism connecting him to Jesus or other prophets was just far too much. Turner lived with the sword and died by the sword, yet Parker is unwilling to criticize his hero at all, instead painting him as a religious prophet. While I concede that his situation demanded a violent uprising and that Turner himself was very religious, Parker comparisons between the violent Turner and the non-violent Jesus feel a bit too much. Of course, this only one instance of such ham fistedness with other instances of bleeding corn, some dream sequence in the trees with a half-naked Nate Parker or something, and the butterflies. All-in-all, Parker loses sight of his hero in these moments and instead turns into a symbolic look at a real story, when the real story was good on its own.

All of that said though, the first hour of The Birth of a Nation is quite good. Largely lacking the symbolism, it is a raw and powerful look at slavery. Combined with the sequence set to "Blood on the Leaves" at the end, Parker finds some truly stirring images in this film. Combined with good smoky cinematography covering the film is flat browns and grays, accented solely by blood or by the bright red/pink flowers given by Nat to his wife Cherry, the film is often quite pretty to look at. Through this film, Parker finds a captivating visual style and it is unfortunate that the final product does not live up to this style.

However, despite my reservations with this film, Nate Parker's past would not hinder my watching of any of his films. If I can watch the works of Woody Allen and Roman Polanski without hesitation, I can do the same here. Though his past is disgusting and he should feel ashamed for what happened in college, he does have a unique voice in cinema that will hopefully be heard in the years to come. The Birth of a Nation suffers from being a directorial debut and being overly ambitious. Should he get the chance to direct another film, I would definitely watch it and hope to enjoy the film, just as I did here. That said, it does seem like this is it for Nate Parker.



4/10 - Vapid, soulless, and inconsequential, Luca Guadagnino's A Bigger Splash is simply a dull film that has very literally purpose. It is a film that allegedly has some themes regarding immigration into Europe, but is mostly a drama about four rich people who all are attracted to one another. European to its very core, this slow paced drama film is erotic, dialogue heavy, and impeccably acted. While hardly engaging and largely just throwaway entertainment masquerading as something more (my biggest problem with this film), A Bigger Splash does feature tremendous performances from Ralph Fiennes and Tilda Swinton that exceed expectations. If nothing else, it cements that the world has been deprived of the David Bowie biopic starring Tilda Swinton for far too long.

A Bigger Splash is the kind of film that is not exactly pretentious, but it certainly feels that it is deep and important. It exudes a certain air of superiority towards its audience as Guadagnino shows off the lush country side of Italy and Ralph Fiennes' member. Nothing that happens - when stuff happens - is overly complicated. It is just jealousy, lust, and murder, aka the big three of film. Nothing makes this unique, just the two hours runtime it takes for A Bigger Splash to actually say nothing on any of the topics. At many points in the film, it is as if the cast decided to get together and vacation, while Guadagnino tagged along. I have no problem with films with limited plots, but it also has no characters. They are written paper thin and are hardly worth diving into further. These four characters - mostly Schoenaerts' and Johnson's - are not really even given the time of day to really communicate who they are in this film. Fiennes' Harry is loud, boisterous, and obnoxious. Swinton's Marianne is a rock star who has a problem with her voice, so she cannot speak. The other two are kind of there, but mostly silent. Harry does most of the talking and Fiennes knocks the role out of the park. He is phenomenal, but it is a shame that his character is so useless and uninteresting without him.

A Bigger Splash just simply never excited me. It just floated by and hinted at some commentary on the immigrants and the distrust they receive, but it is exclusively done through the dialogue and spelled out for you. There is one moment where Dakota Johnson covers herself up in front of some immigrants, but it could just be attributed to the men being strangers. This really drives at how underdeveloped much of the film is. The themes, the drama, and the characters, are all incredibly raw and undercooked from beginning to end. As such, they fail to engage and just leave the audience wondering if there is more to all of this. It is the kind of film that leaves the audience sitting and wondering, "So what?"

Typically, I love these plotless character-driven films, but there must be characters worthwhile enough to make up for the lack of a driving plot. A Bigger Splash lacks this and, as such, ranks as a dull disappointment for myself. Though Fiennes is brilliant and Swinton is oddly great in a largely mute turn, the film simply does not do enough to justify its own existence, even if the swimming was fun and locales entirely gorgeous.



6/10 - Little Men is a solid film from director Ira Sachs. A film about the friendship between two boys and how it becomes fractured due to a business dispute between their parents, the film feels real. At every turn, it feels like real life. These are real people and get authentic performances from good, down to earth actors. That said, Little Men is hardly perfect. Though it really captures the look and feel of Brooklyn and the surrounding community, in addition to its characters, it just feels so slight. It covers the topics of young male friendship, immaturity, and lack of understanding between parents and children, but it never does it in an acceptable depth. The film sort of appears, touches on these topics, and then disappears because it is far too short. That said, it does have moments of real resonance that stand out and make this a more than worthwhile experience.

Little Men introduces us to Tony Calvelli (Michael Barbieri) and Jake Jardine (Theo Taplitz). Following the death of Jake's grandfather, he and his parents move into his Brooklyn apartment and now own the store space below the apartment. Currently, the store is owned by Tony's mother, Leonor (Paulina Garcia). Unfortunately, she has been paying very little due to a favorable relationship with Brian Jardine's (Greg Kinnear) now deceased father. As Brian is a failing actor and his wife is the sole breadwinner for the family, he desperately needs to raise the lease amount. His sister also is pressuring him to do so, leading to friction with Leonor. This friction gets to the kids who, in an act of unity, refuse to talk to their parents. Yet, despite everyone's best intentions, the families are tragically driven apart.

It is in this relationship between the families that the film really soars. A lack of communication permeates this film and is what really drives them apart. People avoid confrontation or simply use muteness as a sign of disagreement. This really only exacerbates their problems, as little Jake soon realizes. In an emotional moment of the film, he has an outburst in front of everybody and apologizes to his dad for not talking to him and begs to understand why they are doing this to the Calvelli's. This outburst highlights the importance of communication (sometimes too much of it) and how it has led to the crumbling of relations between these two, once close, families. On this note, however, the observations feel relatively mundane and overly slight. It never dives into them enough and what really makes these people tick. It adds elements - such as Jake likely being gay - to add depth to the characters and add to the realism, but much of it never really impacts the film or the characters in any meaningful way. While that is fine, it would have been nice if it had added to the themes explored in the film or even the overall disintegration of the relationships in the film.

That said, the friendship in the film between Jake and Tony is terrific. Willing to defend each other no matter what, the fast friends are solidly acted by the young actors. They can be loose around one another and express their hopes and dreams, without fear of judgment. They encourage one another from the start and can simply pal around and do whatever. Really a tenderly written friendship, this element of the film is one of the best parts of Little Men and why it deserves the acclaim it has received for the most part. Not too many films create such a delicate and tender look at teenage male friendships, yet this one does and its authenticity is astounding.

The film also introduces an important theme of masculinity. Brian Jardine is not really a man in the eyes of people like Leonor. Her husband is off in Africa being a nurse and she also views this as not manly enough, as he clearly does not provide. Yet, she really looks down on Brian, even telling him that his father thought the same and told her as much. Since Brian is a struggling actor, his psychotherapist wife is the breadwinner and pays for everything they own. Though Brian and his wife Kathy (Jennifer Ehle) are fine with the arrangement, the reversal of gender roles is a tough issue for many to accept and even Brian struggles. You can see that there is something within him that is bothered by this arrangement and a conversation with Leonor really brings it to light. Unfortunately, like many other things in the film, it is introduced and then taken away far too soon.

Little Men is an incredibly slight film. It is too short for the amount of themes it wants to and it approaches those themes tepidly. While it is well acted, the film simply never really does nearly enough with its characters or its themes to be anything more than an above average film with the potential to be better. That said, as a business major, I do appreciate that Sachs took care to not demonize the Jardine family for kicking out Leonor and her business. It is a business decision, pure and simple. I would evict her too. It is simply good business sense. That said, Brian desperately needs to get a job. You are pushing age 50 and still acting full-time in not-for-profit plays? Dude. At least get a part-time job.