2019 Movie Log: November

1st: Gangs of New York – Martin Scorsese (2002)
Watched at home. I really didn’t like the first half of the movie. I even considered just dropping out. Which was surprising. I thought the performances were terrific. Daniel Day-Lewis, Leonardo DiCaprio, and even Cameron Diaz are good. The tone and the story just seemed so silly to me. It’s noticeable right from the start. Scorsese begins in the crypts of the church in this cool dream-like opening in which the Dead Rabbits get ready for battle. And then they come outside and we get a really cool overhead of the American Natives as they emerge from their hideout. It’s brilliant! But then the actual fight is so hyper-stylized and just peculiar. It’s shot in fast-motion with these bizarre music queues. It almost reminded me of that modern Joan of Arc film. I think as you sink into the film it gets better. The tension of DiCaprio being undercover in Bill’s camp is excellent. It feels like a total precursor to The Departed. But then the movie falters again at the end. It feels so overstuffed. I understand that it’s supposed to be chaotic and cacophonous. Scorsese wants to show that these conflicts are happening everywhere, not just in the five points. But to include all the dead African-Americans and abolitionists here seems a little disingenuous considering the movie isn’t ever really about those issues. It felt like the right instinct in the wrong movie. I don’t know? I talked to Gioia about it after and she thought the movie is supposed to be campy. Which would explain a lot. But if it is, shouldn’t it be more fun? I realize I am griping a lot. That’s really because of the high expectation I had going in. It’s a 3-hour movie directed by Martin Scorsese. It has Daniel Day-Lewis and Leonardo DiCaprio. It features Liam Neeson, John C. Reilly, and Cameron Diaz in supporting roles. It has writing credits by Steve Zaillian and Kenneth Lonergan. This is a movie I’d love for Scorsese to try again. As for now, it’s just ok.
Grade: C+
Gangs of New York – Martin Scorsese (2002)

2nd: The Lighthouse – Robert Eggers (2019)
Watched at the Logan with Gioia. It is a filthy movie. Just absolutely disgusting. One thing I’ve really been thinking about is how the movie seems to thread this line between reality and surrealism. There are a lot of visions and flashbacks in the film. It feels kind of odd considering how grounded in history the film is. Not that these things can’t work together. In fact, I think that’s kind of the magic of this movie. But it’s strange seeing a really granular, detailed, historically accurate account of the operation of a lighthouse against visions of mermaids and Robert Pattinson’s past. In a lot of ways, this movie feels like a perversion of reality. One of the more interesting components to me was the sexual tension that exists. I think it’s natural to wonder about it from the outset. These two character are actually stranded on an island. And Eggers shows us the reality of the situation in completely unglamorous terms. We see the two characters masturbating at different times throughout the film. But what I think is really interesting, is that Eggers perverts this tension. We soon have Willem Defoe ejaculating down the stairs, inadvertently on Robert Pattinson. We have the two almost kiss in a drunken stupor. At the end, Pattinson drags Defoe into a pit like a dog. We’re made to wonder if there’s a sexual domination happening and whether it’s been happening through the entire film. I liked the way Eggers staged a lot of the mayhem in the movie. We see pretty normal scenes of the work on the island. It makes it that much more dynamic when the film turns in the last act. We get these same scenes but now the wheelbarrow is filled with rain and liquor. It’s totally maddening. On one hand, this is a film that I’m sure has layers and would be great for a rewatch. I didn’t totally pick up the flashbacks of the blond man that kept appearing. I presume he’s the man Pattinson killed and stole his identity. On the other hand, I really don’t have much interest in seeing this film for a while. It is a lot.
Grade: B+
The Lighthouse – Robert Eggers (2019)

3rd: Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith – George Lucas (2005)
Watched at home with Alice. This is supposedly “the good one.” Meant as either the least bad prequel movie or the “you know what it’s actually kind of good” prequel. It is definitely not the latter. I haven’t watched the first two prequels in a while, but if this is the “better one” it’s only in the sense that the other two movies are abominable. In fact, watching this movie, I was thinking that it’s kind of crazy that the prequel movies in general are this bad. They should (and could) be so much better. There’s so much story, plot, anticipation. The world and design of Star Wars literally begs to be explored. It just seems like all of Lucas’s instincts in executing it are wrong. His worst instinct his obsession with CGI. While the scope of this movie is impressive, it just doesn’t look like anything. It renders the whole film emotionless. I don’t feel any drama watching the Jedi battling General Grievous. It’s the same thing in the showdown between Darth Sidious and Yoda. It just looks awful. You can’t even really comprehend the mechanics of it. I think the battle between Obi-Wan and Anakin is pretty sweet and definitely redeems the film a bit. But it’s still so operatic and over the top. Aside from CGI, the real issue for Lucas is tone. I don’t necessarily even think the story of this film is bad. In fact, in some sense it’s already been vetted. We kind of know what has to happen. But Lucas lacks any nuance with his telling. An emperor becoming a tyrant is interesting. A prodigy being seduced by power is interesting. The way that love can corrupt and pervert is interesting. But these themes are handled so bluntly it’s hard to watch. We know Emperor Palpatine’s true identity from the first prequel. That none of the characters have figured it out by this movie is ridiculous. Likewise, a better film would position Anakin’s turn to the dark side as a result of the innumerable flaws of the Jedi. That’s the type of idea that makes The Last Jedi so good! Instead, Lucas just makes Anakin a whiny brat. It’s hard to have any sympathy for him or to understand the push and pull of his situation. The same is true with his and Padme’s relationship. If this is the crutch you’re putting his series-defining decision on, the relationship has to work. Like the rest of the film, it doesn’t.
Grade: D
Star Wars Episode III – George Lucas (2005)

4th: Green Room – Jeremy Saulnier (2015)
Watched at home with Gioia. This is one of the most intense movies I can ever remember seeing. It is relentlessly gripping. I’m kind of blown away. Everything in the film is so methodical, tense, and well thought out. I really don’t think this film took any shortcuts or liberties which, given the premise, seems almost impossible. I loved how much this movie felt like a true, albeit nightmarish, experience. I really believe that this situation could happen. I think the way Saulnier inverts some horror tropes adds to the suspension of disbelief. For a while it seems like this movie could have a “final girl” sort of vibe. Alia Shawkat is a recognizable actress and carries most of the screen time at the beginning. The film feels set up for her to survive. And we get pretty close! She’s one of three members left and then she just dies. It’s intentionally de-stylized. The same goes with the other band members earlier. Their deaths feel inevitable and tragic. And because it’s in a horror movie, it feels almost more shocking. I think the more one digs into the movie and script, the more rewarding it’ll be. For instance, the opening scene is the band waking up in a field. They fell asleep at the wheel and fortunately glided safely to a stop. While being killed at a Neo-Nazi bar is certainly far more unlikely, it’s a similar outcome to what could have happened in the opening. Moreover, it’s something that could happen to anyone. I thought the mechanics of the incident and the way this bar and gang operates were similarly nuanced. Saulnier has all the answers but doesn’t give them to us. We know only as much as would be revealed if we were a fly on the wall. It’s great filmmaking! I even think the character development of the band is pretty good. We get a feel for how each member operates. I really am in awe of this movie. I can’t say I’ll watch it again anytime soon. It’s way too intense for that. But I’m excited to see whatever Saulnier does next.
Grade: A-
Green Room – Jeremy Saulnier (2015)

5th: Snowpiercer – Bong Joon-ho (2013)
Watched at home with Gioia. Stylistically and thematically this is not my type of movie. I just have a hard time sinking my teeth into sci-fi. Especially in a dystopian setting. There are so many conceits you have to make. I understand all the analogs and metaphors this film is trying to make. I understand that our society already has massive class inequality. It’s just hard for me to buy into how a self-sustaining train would actually operate. Let alone that it could function as a grand design for balance and natural selection. What does this all mean? I’m not sure. I would just say that broadly, the heavy metaphorical stuff and especially the many twists at the end of the movie, don’t work for me. Something just doesn’t click. But I did like this movie! I think Bong Joon-ho is terrific. I loved the design of the train, the action sequences, the energetic and frazzled camera movements. There are some heavy-handed moments. The cigarette and the lighter are really worked over by the characters. Likewise, the low point of the movie comes down to an expository speech given by Chris Evans. It includes a lot of information the audience could probably guess at. I think what I wished is that this movie would have been much simpler. Just a straight train revolution/heist. Still, I think the big swings this movie takes mostly work. And given the subject matter and plot, that seems immensely difficult to do.
Grade: B-
Snowpiercer – Bong Joon Ho (2013)

6th: American Psycho – Mary Harron (2000)
Watched at home. What a strange movie. Perhaps even more culturally than as an actual film. The closest analog I can think of is American Beauty. Another film portraying the perils of privilege. Both of these films feel distinctly pre-9/11. I think it’s a combination of being fairly modern while also being completely occupied with American privilege and wealth. For American Beauty, this becomes fairly problematic. Or at the least, inconsequential. We follow a man through his mid-life crisis as he obsesses over a young girl. Creepy! Okay back to this movie. It’s fine. At the very least, Harron is interested in some thoughtful questions about privilege, men, and violence. This type of movie and character is framed way better than say, Joker. Christian Bale is unbelievable in his role. It’s a remarkable performance that dominates the movie. I wonder if that also works against it in some parts. By centering so completely on Bale, it’s hard to shift to genuine horror. Characters like his secretary or the sex worker are more compelling to follow since they’re the obvious avatars for the audience. The more natural move would be to follow them through this horror. But instead, we follow Bale as he tries to kill them. It’s a hard thing to reconcile. What the film struggles with the most, at least to me, is having a coherent vision of what it wants to be. Take the end for instance. It is unclear if a) Bale’s character is having delusions instead of being a murderer or b) if everyone else is just ignoring that he is a murderer. These both present interesting commentaries on society. But they’re completely different ones. Is this movie about the reckless abandon of wall street or its cold-bloodedness? I don’t know. I’m kind of shocked this film has become such a cult movie. It struck me as almost completely average.
Grade: C+ / B-
American Psycho – Mary Harron (2000)

7th: Rosemary’s Baby – Roman Polanski (1968)
Watched at home with Gioia. I had never seen it before. So many things hit you right away. Mia Farrow is stunning. It’s hard to take your eyes off of her. From the start, you’re completely on her side. She gives such an endearing performance throughout the film. She truly looks and sounds like she’s dying as she gets sick. In the final act, her paranoia is infectious. The movie is truly terrifying because of it. The plot is so smartly laid out. I love that Rosemary is completely right the entire time. That these people really are Satanists and they really are after her and her baby. A lot of similar-minded films try to focus the tension on the dynamic between paranoia and horror. I love that in this film there’s definitely a monster. We believe Rosemary is right. The tension comes from whether or not she’ll be able to escape. It’s what makes the scene with the doctor that much more wrenching. For a second I really believed he would help her. That he calls the husband and the other doctor makes total sense but it didn’t even cross my mind. I think the movie is overly long at some points. You could probably lose 10-15 minutes while Rosemary is pregnant. Still, every aspect from the acting to the design is done so well, it’s not the worst problem to have to spend more time in this movie.
Grade: A-
Rosemary’s Baby – Roman Polanski (1968)

9th: Zombieland – Ruben Fleischer (2009)
Watched at home with Gioia. It’s pretty good! It’s really fun. I think the cast is all dynamic. The jokes are funny. The general vibe and tone of the movie is perfect. I do struggle in movies in which the protagonist is so inept when it comes to girls. This movie definitely pushes right up against that limit. Some of Jesse Eisenberg’s desperation is hard to watch. Ultimately I think they make enough jokes at his expense that it’s not unbearable. While there are other emotions in the film, for the most part, it knows it’s silly and dumb. I wish I had caught the sequel while it was still in theaters.
Grade: B+
Zombieland – Ruben Fleischer (2009)

9th: I Love You, Man – John Hamburg (2009)
Watched at home with Gioia. Kind of a perfect double feature with Zombieland. It’s the ten-year anniversary of both movies. Both are signaling a type of movie that wasn’t really made back in 2009, and definitely isn’t made anymore. They are high concept, big-to-moderate budget, studio comedies. Both have pretty standard scripts and just kind of plug in the comedy. I’ve watched this one, in particular, I don’t even know how many times. One of the things I’m always amazed at is how broad, yet perfect the script is. It’s like the most standard, formulaic plot ever. Yet all the nuances and comedy work so well. It’s a great movie. I just think that it works across the board. One of my takeaways this time was how good the cast is. It’s amazing they have J.K. Simmons, Andy Samberg, Aziz Ansari, and Jon Favreau all in small roles. It really elevates this movie. The best part of the movie is how awkward it is. I just can’t believe how far they lean into it. It’s so funny.
Grade: A
I Love You, Man – John Hamburg (2009)

10th: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre – Tobe Hooper (1974)
Watched at home with Gioia. I had suggested Rounders. She said that this one might be more fun. I’ll post back when I see Rounders, but I didn’t find this one particularly fun. It’s really one of the scariest movies I’ve ever seen. It’s flat out gnarly. I did like it though. The way Leatherface just appears out of nowhere is terrifying. Most of this movie is honestly just chase scenes and it’s gripping. It’s really, really compelling. I think the way the movie looks, and the odd way the characters run all adds to it. Every aspect of the movie, even on a super low budget, is so well designed. Another thing that works particularly well about this movie is that they don’t explain any of it. There’s not any attempt to explain what the family is doing or how they work. And the movie does a good job of getting out. It literally ends just as the girl escapes. No follow up or anything. It’s exceedingly simple but perfectly done.
Grade: A
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre – Tobe Hooper (1974)

11th: The Thing – John Carpenter (1982)
Watched at home with Gioia. It’s so good! Both Bryce and Mike had told me to watch it for the practical effects. They’re really something. Everything looks so terrifying and gross. To be honest, a lot of it does look silly. Which may sound at odds with the fact that I think it looks so good. But I really don’t think that’s a knock on what the film is trying to do. The “thing” is almost comically grotesque. Especially the way characters’ heads emerge from the thing as it assimilates them. It’s completely horrifying as a monster. What really blows me away about this movie is just the story. It’s so good! The fact that none of these people know who’s a “thing” and who’s not is brilliant. It’s truly one of the best alien/horror premises I’ve ever seen. It’s so gripping right from the beginning. I knew in the opening that there’s a reason that this guy is trying to shoot the dog. I knew that he didn’t actually just go mad. But I still couldn’t get myself to get on board with it. It’s a cute dog! So then when the dog transforms into “the thing” it’s terrifying! You understand the danger. And it changes the whole complexion of the movie. For the rest of it, you don’t mind seeing people killed and burned because you know that they’re not really people. It’s quite an accomplishment. My favorite part of the movie is when “the thing” emerges from the blood test. It’s one of the best jump scares I can ever remember seeing. It’s really crazy to me that this movie was ever not well-received. Even if you ignore the look of the movie (which is good), it’s still a great story.
Grade: B+ / A-
The Thing – John Carpenter (1982)

12th: The Irishman – Martin Scorsese (2019)
Watched at the Landmark with Wills and Matthew. I’m not even sure where to start. I’m guessing this will be more like a running list of all my thoughts. I guess it kind of already is. Whoops! But the movie is too big and sprawling to really break down in any meaningful way. Especially after one viewing.

My main takeaway is that I was gripped the entire time. All 220 minutes of it. Which in itself is a feat. The movie is that compelling. It operates in the same way Goodfellas does. Scorsese is so good at bringing you into a world and just having you soak it all in. It’s so delightful. It’s really funny. The acting is phenomenal. It features great performances while at the same time winking at the fact that these people are all in this movie. Pacino is Pacino, De Nero is De Nero.

One of the more surprising things about this movie (to me) was that it wasn’t overly violent. In fact, while there were instances of violence, I would say this movie is more meditative than anything else. The movie does revolve around mob activity. And now that I’m saying it, I realize that Scorsese introduces most characters with an insert line about how they died. But to be fair, he also doesn’t show us most of these deaths. For the most part, the movie is Italian guys arguing over insults. It’s the threat of violence more than the actual instance of violence itself that prevails. That’s really interesting! This movie isn’t Heat, for instance. It’s far more interested in the politics of the mob than its actions.

Scorsese uses Frank Sheeran as the framing device for the film. As he meets Jimmy Hoffa, we realize the film will document Hoffa’s disappearance. In one sense, we begin to understand why we’re listening to Sheeran’s narration. On its surface, the movie seems to be a clear cut portrayal of what happened. There aren’t any narrative tricks. No character has a psychotic break. There isn’t a question of madness (or even dementia as the characters age). But this movie, by its nature, is framed through the lens of one man. Which calls his whole account into question. After Hoffa is killed, Sheeran recounts what happened to all the conspirators. He remarks how Hoffa’s son was an unknowing participant and got ten months for it. Yet, just before, Scorsese shows us a clip of Hoffa’s son helping to dispose of his father’s body. Now, it is possible that after Hoffa was killed, his son was forcefully roped into helping dispose of the body. What’s more likely is that this is a reflection of how Sheeran sees himself. He believes that he, like Hoffa’s son, was an unwilling participant. Even if Scorsese shows us that this isn’t true.

As The Irishman wraps up, it centers itself on this question: How and why are we getting this account? In Goodfellas, our narration is framed through Henry Hill’s testimony. There is a reason he is telling us all of this information. Here, Sheeran’s reluctance to speak is what sets up the whole movie. Sheeran wins over Russell because he refused to rat about who he was hustling beef for. At the end of the film, at a nursing home, Sheeran still refuses to speak to the FBI. They remind him that everyone he knew, everyone we’ve met in this story, has died. He’s not protecting anybody by holding on to this information. As Sheeran laments about his estranged daughter Peggy to her sister, she asks pointedly what he did. He can’t even answer her.

There’s a suggestion at the end of the film that this has been a confession to a priest. Even if this is true, Sheeran doesn’t feel remorse about it. He goes through the motions of prayer but can’t come up with anything personal. What does this all mean? The movie sets up Peggy to be the figure for her father’s possible redemption. She’s seen through him the entire movie. She knows from the moment Hoffa disappeared that her father did it. But Sheeran can’t speak to her anymore. She won’t let him. There’s not any confrontation. Peggy, like Sheeran’s fellow teamsters and mobsters, has left him behind. In essence, this seems like a summation of the film.

For all of Sheeran’s actions, there’s been almost no personal consequence. The film breezes past his jail sentence. More importantly, unlike most major figures we meet, Sheeran is never killed. He never has to pay the capital price for his actions. And after all, that had been his role. He’s the guy who paints houses. He’s the killer. The film frames the end of his life as a purgatory. He’s left to wait by himself while everything of importance to him is gone. That we don’t know who the narration is for is Scorsese’s point. This is the guy who killed Jimmy Hoffa, and now the people around him don’t even know who that is. He entered this world by refusing to talk. Because he held on to that belief, he can’t come out of it. Whatever other life he could have had. One with his Peggy and his family, for instance, is gone. That’s the consequence for him.
Grade: A-
The Irishman – Martin Scorsese (2019)

15th: The Martian – Ridley Scott (2015)
Watched at home with Gioia. She made the comment that it feels like a true story even though it’s obviously not. I totally agree. The storytelling is really something. It totally latches on to that feeling of “based on a true story” even if it isn’t. This really may be one of the best movies of the decade. It’s 2 and a half hours that just fly by. It’s so fun! I don’t know that there’s a ton to study or pick out of the movie. I think it’s just an extraordinarily well-done popcorn movie. I don’t mean to knock it in any way by saying that. It reminds me of something like The Shawshank Redemption in which by the end you’re totally moved and inspired. Matt Damon is incredible in this movie. Really everyone is. But Damon’s the perfect person for this role. He’s smart and cocky. Even though he’s in a dire situation, he has a swagger to him. I’m glad this movie doesn’t waste time giving Damon a false moment of despair or anything. The audience already realizes the stakes and odds against him. If I could change one thing, the Ares III spaceship doesn’t look great. I hate the way Jessica Chastain and others swim through the gravity-free ship. But that’s a minor bone to pick. Otherwise, this movie is just great.
Grade: A-
The Martian – Ridley Scott (2015)

16th: Rounders – John Dahl (1998)
Watched at home with Gioia. I liked it! It’s totally the type of movie they don’t make anymore. The story and the stakes are really rooted in this small story. The story never takes us to Vegas or anywhere flashy. Like Turturro’s character, it’s content with just grinding it out and getting by. The cast is great. I can’t believe they have Damon, Edward Norton, John Turturro, and John Malkovich all in it. I think some of the storylines are a little uneven. The conflict with law school or the professor’s speech about becoming a Rabbi just feels very manufactured. It’s clear that they’re in there because this is a movie. Same with Damon’s girlfriend. Or how he keeps refusing to play poker again until, obviously, he does. Still, this is a movie after all, and even if those things are very obvious, they still get the job done. I think the acting is really what elevates this. All the characters, and especially the narration, just sell this world.
Grade: B
Rounders – John Dahl (1998)

16th: The Talented Mr. Ripley – Anthony Minghella (1998)
Watched at home with Gioia. It’s a weird one! The first half of the movie is completely different from the second half. It does very much feel like a novel in that so many things happen. I think overall, the movie works pretty well. It’s mainly due to the actors and the setting. Why wouldn’t I want to watch a movie with Matt Damon, Jude Law, Phillip Seymour-Hoffman, and Gwyneth Paltrow in 1950s Italy? It’s outstanding. I have to emphasize that Jude Law looks unbelievable in this movie. He is obscenely, comically handsome. Which is totally necessary for the role too. We’re supposed to be infatuated by him. This movie is not particularly subtle, but it hinges on moments that are. I think it must be really complicated to set up Ripley’s homosexuality, his love for Dickie, and his impulse for violence all in the first half of the movie. And that’s all while the characters are supposed to be having a grand time. It’s a lot of things to balance. But this movie does it. I’m curious if there was any backlash to this portrayal of a gay character. Especially in the fact that he’s a serial killer. I didn’t find it to be especially problematic but it reminded me of the controversy surrounding Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs to some extent. This movie is pretty long. Towards the end, it feels like things are happening just because they happened in the source material. I mean, I really don’t understand why Dickie wouldn’t book it when he’s getting framed for murder. He has a totally different identity. I also find it hard to believe that Dickie’s father would let him off the hook so completely.
Grade: B
The Talented Mr. Ripley – A. Minghella (1999)

16th: Rogue One: A Star Wars Story – Gareth Edwards (2016)
Watched at home. It’s really, really good. It might be the best non-OG Star Wars movie. It starts out a little slow. The movie has you latch onto these characters before you really have a reason to. We have an attachment to Jyn because we see her separated from her family by the Empire. But after that, she’s totally ambivalent about what’s happening. She’s not interested in the rebellion. Cassian and K2SO are her captors at first. However, once Galen is killed, this movie is on a roll. We have our team now. We’ve always known the importance of the mission. This is a prequel after all. But now we have more reason to root for our team. They’re people that have had to give up everything, even what they believe in, to do this. I think it works doubly for the movie that the Rebellion doesn’t sanction the plan. Jyn and Cassian become true rebels. The last 45 minutes of this movie are glorious. It’s flat out incredible. Each of our characters gets a heroic moment. They do something that the rebellion needs, and then they get killed. They’re making the ultimate sacrifice. My favorite moment is the blind man walking out to turn the switch. It takes your breath away. It’s during this sequence when we realize that none of these characters will survive. Especially not Jyn or Cassian. It’s gutting. But it’s what was required of them. The ending sequence with Vader chopping through Rebel soldiers is magnificent. What a stunning moment. I love it.
Grade: A-
Star Wars Rogue One – Gareth Edwards (2016)

17th: The Matrix – The Wachowskis (1999)
Watched at home with Gioia. I had, shamefully, never seen it before. My biggest takeaway is how well the story works. It’s so rooted in sci-fi and everything else, I don’t know, I guess I expected there to be some holes. But everything is pretty well set up and explained. I think the thing that sets this movie apart is actually the dialogue. So much of it has to be expository but it feels like the characters are giving you just enough information in a natural way. I think things kind of fall off at the end. I don’t really buy that Trinity falls in love with Neo. Or that the solution to everything is that Neo just figures out he’s really good at Kung-Fu. Still, it was pretty fun. I definitely get why it was such a huge sensation.
Grade: B
The Matrix – The Wachowskis (1999)

17th: Gattaca – Andrew Niccol (1997)
Watched at home with Gioia. A long-awaited movie for me. It’s great! It’s such a cool story and premise. I especially love how low-budget the movie is. It reminds me of something like Green Room in which its financial constraints become its biggest asset. The reason it works so well here is that it forces the movie to root itself in human conflict. Even though the film is set in a dystopian future at a space program, the conflict all comes from the characters. It’s about whether or not Vincent can keep his ruse up. Whether his pure dedication is enough to overcome all the odds, genetic and otherwise, against him. The script is really outstanding. I love how small the scope of the movie is. Particularly, that Vincent is never in space. The first act is an explanation of this society and his situation. The second act is the murder investigation, and the final act is whether he can make it on this mission. The twists work really well. That the investigator is Vincent’s brother is brilliant. It ties everything together. If I had a bone to pick, I think the climax of the film being a swim race is a little silly. But I don’t know how else the movie would revolve itself. The cast is fantastic. I don’t know if they just lucked out, or spent all their money on it. But Ethan Hawke, Uma Thurman, and Jude Law are all fantastic. Same with Alan Arkin. It was cool too to see Gore Vidal and Dean Norris too. Ethan Hawke is really, really good in this movie. I don’t know if he’s ever been better. He has to convey so much emotion in tight spots. He’s technically undercover the whole movie. I think this movie is an all-timer for me. I was really blown away.
Grade: A- / A
Gattaca – Andrew Niccol (1997)

20th: Who’s That Knocking At My Door – Martin Scorsese (1967)
Watched at home. It’s so fascinating. I can’t start anywhere else but with Harvey Keitel. He’s obviously done pretty well for himself. Still, I almost lament the fact that he didn’t arrive sooner. He’s so charming. He’s got this boyish wonder to him. It’s almost like Christian Slater. I really was just hypnotized by him. The other major thing I noticed is that Scorsese almost arrives fully as himself. The opening is gang violence set to pop music. This film is really made by the music he sets it to. J.R. and the girl’s love story is mostly told through music. At the midpoint, we get this crazy scene in which J.R. has sex with a woman set to “The End” by the Doors. The movie is all about sexual repression and how it manifests itself in harmful ways. The end is about a man coming to grips with Oedipal urges. It’s so perfect. It’s almost too on the nose.

The movie obviously hinges on a pretty complicated subject. The girl reveals that she was raped and J.R. can’t handle it. He has pretty much the worst reaction you can have. He puts all of the blame on the girl and leaves her. Now, through the first half of the film, I was really suspect of the portrayal of this relationship. Their falling in love hinges upon J.R.’s ability to charm the girl while mansplaining movies to her. It seemed kind of weak at the time. But! I think it’s kind of perfect for what Scorsese is poking at. J.R. isn’t just charming. His charm is a mask for the shitty person he really is. So if these scenes feel vaguely nice but pretty empty, it kind of adds into the movie.

After the girl reveals she was raped, I had a hard time watching. We see J.R. just go on a bender with his gang. It’s supposed to be uncomfortable, but Scorsese needs to show him having a good time. It’s just hard to watch. Later, when he arrives at her apartment, I was baffled by how she could be so gracious to him. Obviously, he blows it, and Scorsese ends the movie with him being in the wrong.

I liked this movie quite a bit. Certainly a lot more than I expected to. It’s pretty slow, and there’s not a whole lot in terms of story. Scorsese really uses music and montages to stretch the movie to 90 minutes. Still, it has a distinct voice and is saying something. In his own words, it’s “Cinema,” even if it lacks the polish of his later films, or say a Marvel movie.
Grade: B+
Who’s That Knocking at My Door – Martin Scorsese (1967)

21st: The Hurt Locker – Kathryn Bigelow (2009)
Watched at home. I think it works really well as a film. I obviously can’t comment on its veracity or accuracy depicting 2004 Iraq. It looks amazing though. The movie starts with a really tense sequence in which the unit attempts to disassemble a bomb. It ends with this massive and pretty stunning explosion. In a lot of ways, it illustrates the tension of the whole movie. You have these really grand and deadly explosions contrasted with shaky camera work. The movie is about the push and pull of war. Of its addictive and deadly nature. Of its glamorous and unglamorous sides. Throughout the movie you get a really complicated picture of all three characters in the unit. James (Jeremy Renner) is rash and dangerous. He’s also the best. Later, in a shootout, he proves to be encouraging and caring of Owen. Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) seems like the perfect soldier through the first act. He’s calm and in control. He wants to operate by protocol. He lashes out at James for putting them at risk. Over the next act though, we see that he’s as unnerved as anybody. He makes a comment to Owen about killing James. Later, when they’re fighting he holds a knife to his throat. The climax of the movie is him confessing that he’s afraid to die, that he hates it. Owen is probably the closest we get to an audience avatar. At least for me. He’s terrified and despondent about the war. He keeps his cool for the most part in the field, but at the base, he’s a wreck. For him, the movie ends with him cussing James out. He forgives Sanborn but not James. What does it all add up to? I think a fairly compelling portrait of what war does to people. Of the human cost of sending troops to battle. That it’s all grey and unpleasant. If I have an issue with this movie, it’s that it doesn’t really move me. I find all three characters to be fairly unsympathetic. For the most part, this movie just feels like a bummer, even if it’s really well made. I’m kind of shocked it won best picture.
Grade: B- / B
The Hurt Locker – Kathryn Bigelow (2009)

22nd: Booksmart – Olivia Wilde (2019)
Watched at home with Gioia. It’s very funny. Most of the jokes really work. The cast is incredible. Beanie Feldstein and Kaitlyn Dever in particular really carry the movie. But as a movie, I think it barely works. Everything that happens is so outlandish, it was hard for me to take any stakes of the movie seriously. Which is fine when the movie is just trying to be funny. Because it really succeeds at that. But any time the movie tries to work in anything deeper, I think it gets shaky.  Take for instance the relationship between Molly and Amy. The low point of the movie is supposed to be their fight at the party. It’s hard to believe it would happen. It’s only in here because this is a movie and there has to be a low point. I think that’s the main issue with Booksmart as a movie. So many of the plot points feel telegraphed. We know how it’ll play out as soon as it’s hinted at. I felt that way as soon as they got Jessica Williams’ character’s phone. The same thing with the charging cord in the uber. Luckily, these jokes are so funny and enjoyable, they still work. But it feels not as surprising or as delightful as it could have been. Overall, I liked this movie but it was certainly below the high expectations I had for it.
Grade: B / B-
Booksmart – Olivia Wilde (2019)

23rd: Spring breakers – Harmony Korine (2012)
Watched at home with Gioia. It is a deeply uncomfortable movie. I was really surprised. I guess I thought it was supposed to be fun. Especially after seeing something like Beach Bum. This movie is zero fun and unlike Beach Bum, this movie seemed to have a real message and purpose to it. I was fairly surprised. I definitely like what Korine is getting at more than the movie itself. Korine, to me, seems like someone interested in documenting life. To show what existence feels like for different people. Now, his subjects happen to be bums and trash humpers, but still. I found this movie to be in line with his others in that it’s an exploration of a certain type of person and lifestyle. It may seem exploitative on its surface, but I think Korine’s response would be that this all happens. Moreover, his portrayal of this lifestyle isn’t fun at all. It’s completely unsexy (a feat considering how much nudity is involved). Gioia made a really good observation that he’s exploring something interesting with race in the film. The girls are all white, and we learn from Alien that he’s the only white boy who’s actually from there. In other words, Spring Break could be seen as a white invasion of a Black community. And this plays out in the film. Selena Gomez’s character is having a magical time during spring break. When the only thing that changes is the race of the people around her, she wants to go home. What’s more, the movie ends in a shootout in which the girls massacre the gang and entourage of Alien’s rival, all of whom are Black. I do think these things make the movie worth it. It’s kind of an interesting use of an exploitation film. Does it mean I’ll watch it again? Absolutely not.
Grade: B- / B
Spring Breakers – Harmony Korine (2012)

27th: Stockholm – Robert Budreau (2018)
Watched on my flight from Chicago to Boston! I liked it a lot. I’m a bit surprised by the mediocre reviews. I think the movie is pretty well done, really fun, and trying to do something interesting. The source material for the film is a bank heist in which the hostages became sympathetic toward their captors. You know, Stockholm Syndrome. This movie does a really good job of making you root for Ethan Hawke and Mark Strong’s characters. And you shouldn’t. They’re clearly in the wrong. But I think their performances are so charismatic it’s hard not to root for them. They’re charming but kind of bumbling. They’re good, but not masterminds by any means. Meanwhile, Noomi Rapace is so endearing. I don’t think the movie works without her performance. You need her to be able to buy into the premise. She has to effectively portray someone who’s shifting allegiance to her captors because of this event. Lastly, I have to mention the gospel era Dylan soundtrack. Fantastic.
Grade: B+

29th: The Witches – Nicolas Roeg (1990)
Watched at home with Gioia. To be fair, we only got to watch the first half of this movie. But I’ve seen it before so I’m counting it here anyway. It’s so fun, weird, and delightful. It makes a lot of sense that Roeg directed it. The thing I was most impressed by was its pacing. All of the set up is in the first act of the film. It’s a little slow, but not bad. They’re laying a lot of groundwork. Everything from the witches, to the mice, to the boy’s parents dying. What I think really works is that when the second act starts, we’re just in it. There’s not a close call with the witches or anything. The convention starts, they find the boy, and he becomes a mouse. It’s a thrilling sequence.

29th: Knives Out – Rian Johnson (2019)
Watched at the Nickelodeon with Gioia. It’s up there for my favorite movie of the year. I thought it was so, so good. I haven’t even seen that many whodunnits and this still felt like such an amazing inversion of those tropes. I think the most impressive part of the movie was that it was able to have social themes and a strong message in it. And it felt effortless (I’m sure it was not). I don’t mean to knock other films, but I think movies like Black Panther, Captain Marvel, or even Johnson’s last film The Last Jedi, aren’t able to integrate their social messages as well as this movie does. Obviously, there is a lot more pressure on those movies to do so. But I was really blown away by this one. Daniel Craig and Ana de Armas steal the movie. They’re so good in it. I really just think this was one of my favorite movie experiences in a while. It was so fun.
Grade: A

30th: Where’d You Go, Bernadette – Richard Linklater (2019)
Another in-flight movie! This movie’s not bad. I think we are taking Linklater for granted. I think we’re taking Cate Blanchette and Billy Crudup for granted. And the performance from Emma Nelson is wonderful. Do I understand why most people didn’t think the movie worked? Sure. It’s uneven at best. And it’s a slow start. The narrative feels shaped by a book (which it is). Still, the acts of the film feel a bit disjointed. You wait most of the movie for Bernadette to disappear. But it’s a balancing act. You need to spend time with her to understand how and why she would disappear. But once she does, it’s the best part of the movie. I think the Kristen Wiig part is a little too much. They have to set up the tension with her and resolve it really quickly. But I loved the sentiment of the movie. Linklater is really such a humanist filmmaker. I think he can’t make a movie without showing the best sides of everybody. I find it totally endearing. And I think it makes the ending work really well. I was moved.
Grade: B