Captain Marvel

First of all, I need to address other reviews about this movie.  It's apparent that there are reviewers that are highly vested in promoting either a positive or negative opinion on this movie.  Everyone wants people to share their opinion, and apparently it's divisive.  My understanding of this is that the lead actress, Brie Larson, said things in the name of feminism that were deemed as disinviting, but I have intentionally not paid any attention to this drama.  As far as I am concerned, I only judge her on her acting career, because that's all I see of her.

With that having been said, what was the movie like?  What would make you want to see it or not see it?  Who is this movie for, and who is it not for?

First of all, anyone who loves Stan Lee should see this movie.  Marvel Studios constantly makes it difficult for me anoint one in particular as the best.  For a while there I thought that it was Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, but they keep on getting better.

Second, there are feminist themes, evoked about twice, both times with regard to the Air Force.  The setting justifies this, since Carol Danvers faced some discrimination in the Air Force during the 80's.  Go back and watch a movie like G.I. Jane and you'll see that the feminist topics in this movie are a good fit for the times.  The most feminist thing that the movie did, and the only thing that might be remotely overreaching, was changing an established character from the comic books from a man to a woman.  Some people are going to be fine with that, others won't, and I think that it ultimately depends on how attached you were to the original character.

Third, there was surprisingly little 90's nostalgia.  On one hand, I'm very nostalgic about the 90's and was disappointed.  On the other hand, exploiting decades' nostalgia is pretty gimmicky, so it could be a good thing that they didn't harp it to the same extent that the Guardians of the Galaxy movies did.  The best 90's stuff in the movie actually wasn't the overt references to popular culture, but the things that I subconsciously picked up on, such as the make of the cars, the technology, and even the architecture.  These details created an ambient sense that I was watching a 90's film, because I remember what 90's technology feels like.

But let's get to the real questions that people are asking.  Was the main character any good?  Well, it's complicated.  The trailers didn't do this movie justice, since they chose all of the most monotone moments of line delivery to represent her.  She does have some humor and charm.  However, I don't think that she's quite as magnetic as some of the other Marvel leading characters, and I'm not fully invested in her as I would have liked.  I'm not entirely sure if this is the fault of the director or the actress, and I feel conflicted saying this because I've seen Brie Larson in a few other things, and she's definitely talented.  There was something missing.  I've seen a couple of reviews saying that she's now officially the most charming person in the MCU and that Tony Stark can step aside; these reviews are clearly pushing an agenda.  At the end of the day, her performance isn't burned into my memory quite like Josh Brolin's Thanos was, or perhaps to make a more apples-to-apples comparison, Melissa Benoist's Kara Danvers.  I've had some time to think about it, and I think that the one element that was missing was vulnerability, at least in the performance.  It was also somewhat there in the directing, particularly during a big moment in the movie when Carol Danvers realizes who she is, and why she's going to "end" the war instead of "fight" it.  It was a moment that should have played strongly on the character's internal conflict, and ben rife with cognitive dissonance, and while it was there in writing, the directors breezed through the scene too easily.  As I said, her greatest moment of self-revelation should have had some vulnerability and made our hearts break for the character.

That isn't to say that the character is unlikable.  She does have a decent story arc, good writing, and isn't a Mary Sue, as some people were speculating.  She does earn her powers, does go through growth, does have complexity, does have interesting relationships, and she isn't wantonly over-powered.  I'm actually surprised at how nerfed her powers were, given the hype I was hearing from some that she's the most powerful person in the MCU, and the MCU's version of Superman.  Based off of what I've seen in this movie, she's about as powerful as Thor and Scarlet Witch, but not as powerful as Doctor Strange and Thanos, and definitely not the MCU's Superman.

I go on all of this at such length because, in context, this film is under heavy scrutiny over whether or not the character is a Mary Sue.  Ultimately, my verdict is that she isn't, not the way she's written.  I don't foresee there being too many Youtube videos criticizing this movie's in the same way that Star Wars: Episode VIII — The Last Jedi was.  However, if you thought that you might have a problem with Brie Larson herself, then you just might walk out from viewing this with unchanged sentiments.

The highlight of this movie is 90's Samuel L. Jackson.  He's easily the best part, and looking at other reviews, people are consistently coming to this same conclusion.  You don't notice the de-aging in the slightest.  People have also been saying that the cat from the trailers also stole the show, and is the breakout star, but I don't necessarily agree.  As nice as the cat was, I don't really think that it's one of the best parts of the film.  For me, that was Stan Lee, although I already said that.  To name something other than him and Samuel Jackson, I did like Ben Mendelsohn.  Plus, the little kid in this movie has a good reason for being there, not that I think there needs to be a reason, but a lot of people get annoyed by having kids in their action movies.

Overall, it was a standard Marvel movie.  In my personal estimation, a little bit better than the trailers.  There's a chance that you might think that it's the best one to date.  Everyone seems to say that about the most recent Marvel movie.  They said it about Thor: Ragnarok, Black Panther, and Avengers: Infinity War, back to back.  I don't see it that way.  To me, this is closer to Ant Man and the Wasp, which is just fine.  Perhaps the only area in which that is a problem is that the end-credits scene from Avengers: Infinity War hyped this up so much as being something as groundbreaking as Thanos, and this film was meant to build up to be a real game-changer for the Endgame, but I didn't necessarily find that it has the gravitas for that.  I also don't know how invested I am in this character over others that will be appearing in that film.  With that in mind, don't watch this because of the next Avengers movie, but rather to enjoy the adventure of this story on its own merits.  It stands on its own quite well.  It's a solid introduction to a character who, if Marvel's history is any consideration, will continue to get better with each sequel.

...


Wait...isn't she technically the "First Avenger?"  At least by name?  Or if we're going to say that Captain America was the first on the basis that he was around before her, would not Thor be the first Avenger?

Avengers: Infinity War

When the first Avengers came out in 2012, many people remarked that they had seen it without watching any of the movies building up to it, and they could still follow along with everything.  It still felt like a complete film, and every character made sense.  I cannot say the same for Infinity War.  The size of the cast has finally caught up with these movies, and I do think that you should see the films leading up to this in order to understand this universe.

Someone in the group of friends that I watched this with hadn't seen Thor: Ragnarok, and felt that he missed out on a lot of information.  I can definitely understand where he would be confused, so I highly recommend watching that movie in order to catch up.  The other movie that affected this movie a lot was Captain America: Civil War, which had far more lasting consequences than I thought.  Then, finally, I would recommend Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.  That one isn't quite as necessary, since they explain their backstory quite well within the movie, but they definitely also means that they're spoiling the movie for anyone who hasn't seen it yet.

Black Panther isn't required viewing.  If you've seen Civil War, you know enough about him for what you see in this film.  I wouldn't say that his character shines much within the crowded cast, although Wakanda definitely gets its fair share of glory, which makes up for it.

Some shots from the trailers didn't make it into the final film, and I was actually surprised since those shots would have drastically changed the story, and also took a lot of rendering in order to create.  I don't know if they had script changes, or if they were intentionally trying to throw off fan theories.  My guess is the latter, because a lot about the trailers edits shots and quotes in ways that kinda sorts tells the story of the film, but doesn't give away how any scenes will actually play out.  There were several times that I was about to quote the trailers, but then it turns out that the quote was said slightly differently than how it was first teased.

The stakes are higher and the conflict is more interesting than with the original movie.  On the flip side, there's less time for team chemistry and the structure of the story isn't quite as clean-cut and simple.  It's still a three-act movie though, so don't worry about it coming off like Batman v Superman.

I don't have much of a desire to watch the movie again on the big screen.  However, I think that most people will, if only to hear all of the lines.  If your theatre is anything like mine, people will be laughing constantly.  The movie made people laugh a lot.  It also received a couple of standing ovations.  I'll admit that I actually started one or both of those.  So due to the all of that, you probably won't hear the stuff that comes right after jokes and heroics entries.

If there's one thing really negative that I have to say about the movie, it's that whenever two characters go one-on-one, they seem to be evenly matched, no matter how much it doesn't make sense.  For example, there are villains who can rip apart vibranium, and take hits from powers that can rip apart vibranium, and yet Black Widow can defeat them with nothing but super-spy martial arts.  Perhaps most egregiously, Thanos gets his hand on at least a couple of infinity stones in this movie, and even with multiple infinities at his beck and call, the heroes are often able to slow him down.  He's still an intimidating villain, but he really should have been able to kill everyone in the first act.  It seems that the powers of the infinity stones were severely downgraded from how they were depicted in previous films.

Otherwise, I did get more satisfaction out of this movie than the original Avengers.  I've been following all of the movies, and I enjoyed how many of the characters went through genuine arcs in this movie.  That didn't happen in the others, so it's nice to see that a ensemble film can still fit in character arcs.  One more character, though, and I think that it would have been one too many.

But if they had gone with one too many...man, the greatest ensemble of all time really missed out on its  chance to include Kevin Bacon.  Can you imagine?

All the Money in the World

How can such a great thriller from such a great director have such ugly cinematography?  Don't get me wrong, right away I noticed Ridley Scott's penchant for gorgeous master shots.  He can capture the atmosphere of Italy quite well in a single take — and I realized that Ridley loves Rome like Spielberg loves back-lighting.  Yet, this may well be the ugliest filter I've ever seen in a movie.  Perhaps I could count 300 and The Immortals, which sear my eyes, but those are caricatures to begin with and were never meant to be taken seriously.  This, though?  Really, Ridley?  Why?  The only place I've seen filters like these done worse and played straight is in television, with shows like Riverdale and Smallville (and I was a fan of the latter).  The colors for this movie feels artificial, lifeless, and dull, and to make it worse, Christopher Plummer has a fondness for wandering around in dimly lit room that accentuate all of these problems.  This movie practically a doctoral thesis on how digital cinematography can go wrong.

Okay, okay, I understand, Ridley Scott is an auteur, and this was an intentional decision on his part in order to make the feel of the film reflect the coldness of its most pivotal character, J. Paul Getty.  I don't buy it.  It isn't enough of a reason to make this film look like puke, and I suspect that  shooting the movie on film would have lent more gravitas to the performances.  After all, Paul Thomas Anderson recently made a movie about a cold and detached individual, and he didn't let that deter him from making everything of his canvas.  Besides that, this is a period piece, yet the cinematography makes it feel like anything but.

With all of that having been said, yes, the hype for Christopher Plummer didn't disappoint.  For those not in the know, J. Paul Getty was initially played by Kevin Spacey, until the actor fell into disgrace.  Ridley Scott recast him at the last minute with the legendary Christopher Plummer, which was a stroke of genius.  First, Plummer looks more like J. Paul Getty to begin with.  Second, Kevin Spacey's persona as an actor brings with him a hint of villainy in every role.  Plummer plays J. Paul Getty without that baggage and creates a more nuanced character, someone whom you can have more conflicting feelings on.

All the Money in the World is about the former richest man in the world, oil tycoon J. Paul Getty, and how his grandson, J. Paul Getty III gets kidnapped in Italy for ransom money.  Getty Senior refuses to pay the ransom, since it would encourage  people to kidnap his other grandchildren, and refuses to do anything about the situation that might create a bad business situation.  He figures that he might get a former CIA agent, played by Mark Wahlberg, to find the kid and retrieve him without making any compromises.

Getty III's mother Gail, played by Michelle Williams, thinks like a normal person and finds this atrocious.  Most people will relate to her opinion more.  What's interesting, though, is that when I reviewed this movie other the phone for my own mother, she said that while she would be like Michelle Williams, she also understood Getty Senior's outlook, and it is interesting.

Far and away, the best thing about this movie is Plummer.  He takes a character who is incredibly extreme and manages to make him sympathetic, a man who never knows who he can trust because everyone, even family, seems to want something from him.  He's frugal, even to the point of claiming that not even his grandson is worth paying any money for, while also saying that he has a special love for him.  He captures an interesting balance.  As I said, far more than Spacey could have done.  Of all of the men supported for Best Supporting Actor, I hope that he wins.

The second great performance comes from Michelle Williams, who manages to look and feel like a normal mother.  She doesn't look excessively pretty, but she have the look of someone who became ugly for an Oscar-bait role, either.  She looks beautiful in the way that a normal mother who takes care of her appearance would.  She manages to take her character through a range of emotions, the best of which being her  states of disbelief and denial, where she's not  quite shedding tears but clearly looks in over her head.  For a moment, I misremembered the list of Oscar nominees and thought that she was one of them, but then I looked them up and realized that she wasn't on there.  That's right.  They had to put Meryl Streep on there instead.

For those just tuning in, my last several reviews have all taken potshots at the Academy for not recognizing that there's female talent outside of the Streeposphere.

The other performance that really stood out came from Romain Duris, who played a kidnapper called Cinquanta.  He's a likable guy, someone who doesn't want to see Getty III hurt and doesn't derive pleasure from his work.  He has the passion of an Italian, and a heart for family, and a sense of honor, and a knowledge of things in life that are valuable.  He delivers my favorite line in the movie, something that reminded me of a significant cultural difference between Americans and the rest of the world.

"Americans! I don't understand you. For us, family is everything. We are obbligo. I was born into my family, and that decides my whole life. My whole life."

The idea that family  determines anything about who you are offends many Americans.  Consider how many people disliked the notion that there was a special Force Family in STAR WARS.  Yet, in many other places in the world, your family relations determine not only the situation you're born into, but who you are as a person.  Not all of the world is quite so individualistic.

Anyhow, Mark Wahlberg did a fine job, although not anything particularly surprising.  I will defend hi against people who say that he can't act, but he isn't necessarily the most flexible actor.  I also didn't pay much attention to him considering that his character was obviously fictionalized.

To end on that note, the end credits make sure to point out twice that this movie was a dramatization inspired by true events.  Do not assume that it represents the real events all that well.  For example, the last scene with J. Paul Getty depicts a significant even in his life that didn't happen until years after the kidnapping.  However, the basic inspiration is true.  Family did initially assume that Getty III was joking around and wasn't in actual trouble.  J. Paul Getty did refuse to pay the ransom of $17 million dollars and cited dangers to his other grandchildren as a primary reason.  He was infamously frugal.  He did end up negotiating the highest amount of money that was tax deductible (which was a little higher than in the movie, if I recall).  However, Getty III's father had a little more involvement than in this film, but Scott found the drama more interesting if he wasn't present in the story and if he focused on the contrast between Gail and her ex-father-in-law as two opposing, extreme personalities from different worlds.

And you know what?  You get a pretty good performance out of that and a nice drama about the the extremes of stoic individualism versus compassionate family bonds.  Christopher Plummer is a legend.  And the color grading sucks.  I'm not sure which one of those is the greater takeaway for me.

The Post

Spielberg can make an Oscar-worthy movie on a dime, it seems.  While The Post doesn't reach the same level of prestige storytelling as some of his bests, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, Lincoln, and others, this most certainly won't detract from from his portfolio.  One day, I will have all of Spielberg's movies, and will watch them in a marathon, and this movie will hold up as one that belongs and contributes to the Spielberg Pantheon.

John Williams takes a back seat and only has one moment to shine, in the third act when the Washington Post begins to turn on their printing press.  Spielberg obviously enjoys the mechanics of the printing press, and so it has its own musical motif now.  Otherwise, the Man just hovers there in the background, his presence more of a spectator to the drama than an active player.  This was one area where I wish that the film wasn't made within a few months of its release date, so that Hollywood's most famous duo could spend more time developing their symbiosis.

Instead of John Williams, Spielberg seems to rely far more on his other longtime collaborator, Janusz Kaminski.  This movie highlight's Kaminski's talents more than anyone else's.  You can tell that it's shot on film; the canvas has a certain life to it.  The lighting is just right, rich and filled with depth, while also not bringing attention to itself.  Amateur photographers such as myself, however, will look at what Kaminski accomplishes and get jealous.

All the talk for this movie has been behind Meryl Streep, who gives a solid performance as usual, but I thought that Spielberg regular Tom Hanks gave a more engaging performance as Ben Bradlee.  He was more immersed and seemed less like he was on autopilot.  Bob Odenkirk gave what was, in my view, the second-most interesting performance of the movie as Ben Bagdikian, the assistant editor who tracks down the source of the Pentagon leaks.  I would also like to give a shout-out to Jesse Plemons, who I recently saw in Game Night and always knew as "that guy."  He's a good comedian and has one of those faces that people think looks funny, but just as a reminder, he also played a lawyer in this movie and a pilot in Spielberg's other drama, Bridge of Spies, plus was in the Paul Thomas Anderson film The Master.

This leads me to a rant about the Academy Awards.  Tom Hanks delivered an excellent performance, but of course he didn't get nominated for an Oscar because there's so much talent tot recognize that you inevitably have to ask, "Who would you have him replace?"  That's good.  It means that the Academy recognizes that there's so many talented actors that it's hard to just pick a top five.  However, they do not treat the women's category in the same way.  Meryl Streep only showed up and did her regular thing.  She gave a standard drama film performance.  It's good, and Spielberg certainly knows how to frame, edit, and pace a film in order to bring out the best performances possible, especially when he allows people to have conversations in long, continuous master shots.  However, I think that a lot of this reflects more on Spielberg's talent and not Streep's, and what's more, even though Streep gave a solid performance, she wasn't so good that she was in the year's top five female leads.  In order to nominate her, the Academy had to bump Gal Gadot, Vicky Krieps, and many other talented actresses with great performances last year, who could have used the career boost far more than Streep.  Yet it seems that many Academy voters simply don't think that the field is as crowded as the men's, and it reflects poorly on them.

Regardless of whether or not I felt it deserved an Oscar nomination, Streep's performance doesn't detract from the film.  It matches the tone, and I don't have anything bad to say about it.

In a movie about editors, The Post has great editing.  The flow within each scene and for the story overall works quite well.  The movie engaged me, and it felt like a worthy drama from start to finish.  You can feel all of the talent behind it.  The only two moments when the editing seemed to falter, for me, were in the prologue and the epilogue.  The prologue shows the person releasing the papers, which gives a lot of interesting information, but it didn't feel as organic as the rest of the movie.  The prologue...well, I'll get to that in a minute.

As everyone knows, this movie has political context.  The story is a timeless American tale, which Spielberg seems to do quite well.  He is very good at capturing what is timeless and resonant and mythic about history, which he has shown again and again and again, and that is why this movie fits right in with a Spielberg marathon.  Since it's timeless, Spielberg could have made this movie at any time.  The rights to the film were purchased back in 2016, before the most recent presidential election, and the script was written before that.  The script, in and of itself, does not seem to target anyone who was in power when it was released.  With all that having been said, the movie is timely and topical, and Spielberg said that the script grabbed him specifically because of the current political environment.  The script remains neutral and doesn't necessarily date it, except for a few changes.  I'm 99% certain that the epilogue, which flashes forward to Nixon banning the Washington Post and setting up Watergate wasn't in the original script.  The reason why I say that is because it isn't edited like the rest of the film and feels out of place.  The movie seems to naturally end on a definitive note, with a beautiful shot of Ben Bradlee and Katherine Graham walking through the printing press floor.  It's beautiful,and then the movie switches to the epilogue, which is shot differently, acted differently, and overall seems like an interpolation.  Others have noted it as well, namely the famous Screen Junkies in their review of the Oscar nominees.  Overall, I'd say that most everyone should agree with the story, but conservative viewers will naturally see a certain hypocrisy behind the camera.  Liberal viewers, of course, will appreciate how it manages to merge the timeless and the topical.

For fans of Spielberg, it's worth watching.  It isn't quite vintage, but it still has many great elements.  Certain things could throw people off, of course.  If you don't like Meryl Streep, this movie will annoy you.  Your political leanings will definitely affect your enjoyment of the film, but hopefully most people will appreciate the story in-and-of itself as well as the artistry that went into it.  Above all, if you love John Williams, you should adjust your expectations and look forward more Spielberg's special bond with his other BFF, Mr. Kaminski.  While this isn't a Spielberg film that I plan to revisit often, it does help complete his body of work and cement his legacy as a director who regularly captures and standardizes Americana in the world of cinema.

Phantom Thread

Daniel Day-Lewis is Jordan Peterson possessed by Sheldon Cooper.  Obsessed with designing his 50's era high fashion dresses for regal, important people, the only person whom he can stand to have around him is his own sister.  He notices a waitress one day and asks her on a date that is inexplicably as sensual as possible, from beginning to...end.  Well, not until end.  The end turned very business-like.  I'll be honest, this first act of the movie made me feel very uncomfortable, because I couldn't understand the chemistry between the two characters and it came off as creepy.  The only reason why I could possibly imagine that Jordan Peterson possessed by Sheldon Cooper might have found the waitress worth noting is because she bears a passing resemblance to a younger Meryl Streep.  Day-Lewis and Streep have never shared the screen together, and with him retiring, I suppose that this is as close as you'll ever get to that.

The movie doesn't have much in way of plot.  Not a lot happens, and it moves slowly.  It progresses through a series of scenes that build up the drama and the tension between the characters.  Young Streep really likes Jordan Peterson possessed by Sheldon Cooper, but Jordan Peterson possessed by Sheldon Cooper hates it when she does anything that distracts him from designing dresses.  The drama comes from how she will go way out of her comfort zone for him, but he isn't willing to make any sacrifices for her.  Paul Thomas Anderson explores the odd, unconventional way in which this romance works, until it eventually takes on its final form.  I won't give away the ending, but obviously the relationship either works or it doesn't.

The main takeaways from this film include its cinematography, its music, and its performances, all the signs of a talented director.  Anderson never makes hit movies and has a niche audience of fans, but I understand their loyalty.  He only ever makes his passion projects and his directing and storytelling is almost the definition of what you expect from an Oscar winner.

The cinematography reminds me, incidentally, of another Oscar-nominated film — that actually has Streep in it.  The colors and lighting remind me a bit of The Post, and it's shot on film.  70mm film, just to be as fancy as possible.  Give me 70mm film over any special effect any day.  Like Spielberg, Anderson will never settle for a shot that doesn't challenge the viewer in some way, that doesn't uniquely frame the action in an engaging manner, while also keeping it subtle.

The music feels like what you get when you go to a piano concert with your grandmother.  At times I thought that this was older sheet music that predated film, because it sounded like it was designed specifically for a recital, and Anderson thought that it happened to work with his movie.  It doesn't sound like it works around the scene, and much like Hans Zimmer's score for Dunkirk, it moves the film along in a montage-like feel.  The Academy nominated it for an Oscar, and rightfully so.  It stands out on its own, with a fully realized identity, while also reflecting the peculiarity and stiffness of the setting.  This is definitely one of those scores that's worth buying, especially enthusiasts of piano, violin, and cello, and I would listen to it for recreation.  If I could play these instruments, I would even buy the sheet music.  It's almost as good as The Shape of Water — my opinion that the latter deserves the Oscar still stands.

Then, of course, there are the performances.  Daniel Day-Lewis didn't become unrecognizable in this movie as he has in others, but he still brings no outside persona with him that distracts from the performance.  His textbook-definition INTJ may belong to a simple archetype, but he manages to give him such a distinct, memorable persona that feels fully fleshed out, and you can tell that he method-acted his way into this character.  There aren't too many times when I can tell that someone method-acted, and that it paid off, but I can tell here, somehow.  You don't just flip a switch and become a character that feels this lived-in.

With that having been said, the fresher, more surprising performance comes from his co-star, Luxembourgian actress Vicky Krieps.  She rose to the occasion and held her own as a character who managed to be just as captivating as her male counterpart without having to be anywhere near as extreme.  In this movie, people rarely ever communicate what they're thinking, and Krieps manages to convey her character's state with just the right amount of clarity and just the right amount of mystery.  She did an amazing job.  Actually, this leads into a rant.

The Academy always nominating Meryl Streep is sexist.  They will nominate her when she's on auto-pilot.  It says that they don't think that there are really any good female performances out there that are worthy of acknowledging.  I would have just about anyone replace Streep who delivered an interesting performance.  I said Gal Gadot should have been nominated in her place because of how she managed to fill the boots of a worldwide cultural icon that many fans have strong opinions of, and satisfy almost everyone with her performance.  I still stand by that, and Gal Gadot is still my personal pick for Best Actress.  However, seeing this actress, Vicky Krieps, playing a Young Streep, it makes me realize just how prejudiced the Academy is against female talent, because Krieps delivers exactly the kind of performance that they like to reward, a performance of Streepian excellence, that's much fresher than anything Streep has done lately, and yet they hand it to Streep anyway because they don't really want to acknowledge the incredible depth of talent that's out there.  Way to go, Academy.

Lesley Manville also gathered some attention for her performance as Jordan Peterson possessed by Sheldon Cooper's sister, and while it stands as a respectable performance, it doesn't stand out as a respectable performance.

The sound editing deserves some mention as well, if however brief.  I noticed its genius at several points, but it did an astounding job of telling a crucial part of the story during the turning point where the characters reach their epiphany about what they will do with their relationship.

My overall impression: directed with the same meticulous attention to detail as its main character, Paul Thomas Anderson sews together a moody piece about a challenging love affair from a different time period, which should remind many viewers of Victorian romance novels.

Game Night

Best comedy I've seen in a while.  Re-watchable.  This movie doesn't  waste a single beat, and every single detail is relevant.  You never wonder, "Why did this have to happen?"  You know how Youtube a film critics watch a major blockbuster, and they think that a certain scene is pointless, or a certain character, or whatever?  Every part of the writing has a point in being there, some sort of payoff.  I had a lot of fun guessing what might have been going on the whole time, and I'm satisfied with all of their twists.

This movie makes me really want to set up a regular game night with friends, just like the characters.  Who are all great characters, I might add.  I'm very glad that I watched this.  Anyone who sees the trailer and thinks that it looks interesting will like it.

The Shape of Water

Guillermo del Toro is basically kind of a demented Jim Henson. He likes telling fairytales, and he even tells them in a very fairytale sort of manner with the dreamy way that he directs, but he also adds a sinister side that makes you wonder whether or not he's disturbed. Overall, I'd say that The Shape of Water is a bit more feel-good than his average fairytale. In a nutshell, it's basically Beauty and the Beast but with the Creature from the Black Lagoon, and it has the same positive feelings that come from that tale.

While the story isn't original, it's very well-edited. No scene lasts too long, and each segment of the story lingers for just the right amount of time before moving on to the next segment. Guillermo uses some clever editing techniques within each scene that makes them flow more and really relax the audience. In the third act, something happens that reminds me of last year's La La Land. Overall, he knows all of the tools that even most seasons pros don't always learn. He also understands his cinematography like few people do, giving his movie a deep, rich color pallet that doesn't call attention to itself (as a Wes Anderson production might), but will mesmerize most viewers without them understanding why. He uses some great long takes, and finds great ways of moving and framing his camera. The film score by Desplat swept me away to another plane of blissful existence. The production designs facilitate the flow and the color of the cinematography, and feel just detached from reality enough that this movie exists in its own world. The characters are written in just the right way to make a unique impression and also seamlessly blend in with the story. It helps that every single actor knocked it out of the park. Guillermo's been nominated for Best Director because of this film, and I think that he's the leading candidate for winning, because of how well he puts together all of these elements to serve a film with a solid, difficult-to-replicate identity. Fittingly, the end product is very fluid.

Throughout the movie, I got this nostalgic feel for some old movies from my childhood, and although I haven't seen it since I was around six years old, I have a vague memory of Babe: Pig in the City using similar cinematic language as this. Something also reminded me of Ratatouille, Edward Scissorhands, James and the Giant Peach, and Matilda, and a few other captivating children's films with that very particular atmosphere. However, take all of those and add a hard R rating. It covers themes of sexuality extensively, and of course delivers on some of those themes visually. I appreciate the artistry behind it, as does del Toro's base, but most people I know are not very comfortable with seeing too much of that onscreen. There's also some very disturbing gore. It doesn't reach Mel Gibson levels, but in some ways that makes it worse, because it's easier to imagine the pain that the characters go through. Anyone who has worked in an industrial environment might find themselves immediately familiar with the character who loses two fingers and has to get them sewn back on, only to develop a painful infection. My mother once had a fishhook caught in her eyelid and would take no pleasure in the scene where a character gets dragged across the ground when someone hooks a finger through a bullet-hole in his cheek. Also, there's swearing, but I think that this should be the least of anyone's concerns at this point. If you want something that has childlike creativity but also exists in a very adult world, this movie works quite well to that end.

One last thing that I should mention: the credits acknowledges the Triple Crown of OCD Directors for lending a helping hand in the filmmaking process: Cameron, Cuarón, and Iñárritu. Guillermo is in good company, and I personally think that this 2010's decade should continue in the trend of acknowledging the talents of the great and surreal Mexican directors who have proven to be some of the greatest dreamers of cinema.