2020 Movie Log: April

3rd: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban – Alfonso Cuarón (2004)
Another Harry Potter re-watch. Hopefully, I’ll get back to watching new movies soon. This is by far the best movie in the series. I think it’s the only one that’s shot in really exciting or creative ways. I think the story is still a little too long to make a perfect film. But as far as adaptations go, this one’s the best.
2/2018: A- | 4/2020: A-
Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban – Alfonso Cuarón (2004)

4th: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire – Mike Newell (2005)
Man, this is a pretty rough movie. There are some redeeming qualities for sure. The duel with Voldemort is great. I think the dragon challenge is pretty phenomenal. But there’s a lot to be desired. I think it’d be my pick if the film series got one do-over. I think a lot of it stems from how much information this book has to pack. Even aside from narrative shortcomings, there’s a lot of visual stuff that’s just not great. I think the biggest offender is the Dumbledore performance. It is distractingly bad in this movie.
2/2018:B- / B |4/2020: C / C+
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire – Mike Newell (2005)

A Brief Harry Potter Detour!

I wanted to see how my HP assessments would stack up. These are all my reviews of the series since I’ve kept this move log.

Full reviews can be found in the links here:
2018 Movie Log – February
2020 Movie Log: March
2018 Movie Log: November

Harry Potter and the Sorceror’s Stone – Chris Columbus (2001)
2018: C+
2020:
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets – Chris Columbus (2002)
2018: B-
2020: C+
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban – Alfonso Cuarón (2004)
2018: A-
2020: A-
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire – Mike Newell (2005)
2018: B- / B
2020: C / C+
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix – David Yates (2007)
2018: B
2020: B-
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince – David Yates (2009)
2018: A-
2020: A-
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One – David Yates (2010)
2018: B / B+
2020: B
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two – David Yates (2011)
2018: B+
2020: B / B+
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them – David Yates (2016)
2018: B-
2018: B
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald – David Yates (2018)
2018: D

6th: Middle of Nowhere – Ava DuVernay (2012)
Watched at home. This was my first jump back into “serious” film watching (sorry HPs). There were so many things about Middle of Nowhere that I liked. I thought the cast and the performances were excellent. Especially the performances by Emayatzy Corinealdi and Lorraine Toussaint. This is the type of setting and film I’m really drawn to. I loved how DuVernay focuses on the tangible details of Ruby’s life. Her taking the bus, waiting at security, working third shift. It doesn’t surprise me to learn that DuVernay started out as a documentarian. She has a real knack at capturing special, human moments in everyday activities. I also especially liked the ending. It was such a nice call back to that one conversation prior. It really summed up the movie. You get the sense that maybe it was the seed for this whole movie. It was that good. So overall, lots and lots of good things. Unfortunately, there was one major problem with the movie that kept it from working for me. I just don’t buy Ruby and Derek’s relationship at all. She is so much better than him in every way. He shows no redemptive qualities throughout the whole movie. You never get any sense of “oh, this is why she’s staying with him.” The movie is supposed to show the push and pull Ruby is feeling in her situation. Yet, watching it, it’s so obvious that she should and will leave him. I understand that there are a lot of good women in shitty relationships. And maybe this movie’s trying to explore that. But still, I think I just need a little more from Derek for it to be compelling. He’s such a dickhead. It really doesn’t work.
Grade: B-
Middle of Nowhere – Ava DuVernay (2012)

7th: River of Grass – Kelly Reichardt (1994)
Watched at home. This was my first Reichardt film! It was really different from what I was expecting. I’m wondering now if she’s a genre-hopping director. I’m going to watch her subsequent films so I’ll find out soon! This one was a real goofy, downtrodden, dark comedy. It reminded me a lot of the Coens or perhaps of Mike Leigh. The filmmaking is really captivating, even if it is low-budget. I liked the montage of record sleeves, or the way Reichardt pans through different rooms the characters stay in. I found the movie to be a little slow. It seems more like a template or prototype for things to come later. We’ll see if I’m right about that too.
Garde: B
River of Grass – Kelly Reichardt (1994)

8th: Wendy & Lucy – Kelly Reichardt (2008)
Watched at home. This is exactly the type of movie I want…with one exception. I love how focused Reichardt is on the super nitty-gritty of life. The opening ten minutes of the film are so beautiful and slow. I love the logic of the plot too. Wendy gets to Oregon, has to get her car fixed, has to find her dog, etc. There aren’t major twists and turns. Instead, Reichardt hones in on the challenges that each situation presents. She’s making a critical examination of society, but not necessarily a critique…I don’t know if that makes sense. What I mean is that I don’t think Reichardt is making a an overtly political movie. I am sure that she has strong feelings about the justice system, the economy, and the other issues that arise in Wendy and Lucy. That’s obvious. But I think Reichardt’s intention isn’t to use her characters to examine these issues. It’s the other way around. She’s using the challenges of the modern world to reveal this character. So what’s the one thing? I have a tough time with pet movies. Not because I don’t love pets. I just think that they’re so sympathetic, it almost feels unfair. It is brutal to watch when Lucy is gone. It’s supposed to be. Still, something feels vaguely exploitative about being so attached to this dog. It’s a beautiful story, but one I’m almost a bit wary of.
Grade: B / B+
Wendy & Lucy – Kelly Reichardt (2008)

10th: Old Joy – Kelly Reichardt (2006)
Watched at home. This is the one that clicked for me. It’s an almost perfect distillation of the types of films I love most. It’s a perfect model of the types of films I’d like to make. This film is remarkably well-made. Reichardt leaves so much space in the film. Between the characters, in the scenery, in what they say. I know it’s in fact based on a short story, but it really feels like one in the best way. The film is this snapshot from which we can guess at, but not definitively know, these two characters’ entire lives. And I love what the film is about. It’s one of the truest movies I’ve seen. I’m not quite these characters’ age, but already I’ve had friendships that have started to thin. It’s not really a breaking but more of a growing apart. Your lives are moving in two different directions. Will Oldham’s speech about taking physics classes but knowing more than the teacher was so painfully funny. It just feels remarkably real. This film is really one of the most impressive documents of life I’ve seen. I’m torn. I really love everything about Reichardt’s approach. I think it’s an extraordinarily well-executed movie. And I still feel that maybe the movie is a hair too thin. I wouldn’t dream of changing it in any way. But it’s maybe just a bit slow, even for me. I’m going to keep thinking about it.
Grade: A-

11th: It’s Complicated – Nancy Meyers (2009)
Watched at home with Gioia. I believe I have seen both The Parent Trap and What Women Want but I don’t remember them. So this, in essence, is my first time watching Nancy Meyers. Her style is clear. The characters all live in lavish houses. They’re professionally very successful. They’re beautiful. And Meyers really has a knack for comedy. I was surprised at how slapstick this movie was. The characters around Meryl Streep are really hamming it up. Especially John Krasinski and Steve Martin. Alec Baldwin is doing some sort of bit that I can’t even begin to explain. But it works! It’s fun. It’s funny. It’s really pleasant to be in this world. How Meyers gets there is probably the hurdle to clear. The plot is convoluted. The characters contradict themselves to do whatever serves the plot or joke in the moment. These aren’t real people. And this isn’t real life. But that’s kind of Meyers’ bag. She leans really hard into this being a movie and not real life. I liked it.
Grade: B
It’s Complicated – Nancy Meyers (2009)

12th: The Holiday – Nancy Meyers (2006)
Round two! Watched this morning with Gioia. I’m surprised that I think I like It’s Complicated more. I think this is more of the cult classic. This movie’s a lot of fun. It’s so outlandish. But it’s great to be in England and in L.A. Kate Winslet and Jude Law really steal the movie. Everything in their stories is so over the top and cliched and it’s impossible not to root for them. It’s tougher for me to get on board with Cameron Diaz or Jack Black. The other two are just out of their league. I am baffled at how sad and alone Meyers tries to make Kate Winslet. It’s just hard to buy. But yeah, I liked it. It was really fun to watch. It’s also at least 30 minutes too long.
Grade: B
Holiday, The – Nancy Meyers (2006)

12th: You’ve Got Mail – Nora Ephron (1998)
My first Nora Ephron movie! Watched with Gioia. This is one of her favorites. It’s not hard to see why. The characters are so full of life. Both Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks bring a sense of wonder to the film. They are delighted and charmed by the magic in the world. They especially love New York. Ephron really captures the magic of the city. I’m obviously not the person to ask, but I believe when people say this is a great New York movie. You’ve Got Mail is really interesting in how wrapped up in technology it is. I don’t think it’s aged one way or the other. It’s just an all-encompassing aspect of it. This movie depends so fully on AOL and instant messenger which just aren’t part of life anymore. Of course, this movie also seems really prescient in how encompassing online messaging and dating have become. So the issue for me isn’t really the time, setting, or premise of the movie. In fact, those are all things I like. It’s fun to re-live the 90s a bit. The only thing that doesn’t really work for me is how tangled the plot is. I wouldn’t say it’s absurd or convoluted, it’s just very present. I think to get to the ending (which is great), you have to go through this weird dance where Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan have to shift from enemies into friends. It’s just a weird stage and buildup to the climax which I think kills the movie’s momentum a bit. Besides that, pretty solid.
Grade: B
You’ve Got Mail – Nora Ephron (1998)

13th: Sleepless in Seattle – Nora Ephron (1993)
The Nancy Meyers / Nora Ephron marathon continues. Watched with Gioia. This one was the most disappointing one so far. Not because it was bad. In fact, I think it was about as good as any of the others. Perhaps even the best. But I assumed this one would be great. It’s a classic. I think there are some really nice parts. Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan are phenomenal. They both are really funny. I think the sad parts work really well. The radio call with Tom Hanks is moving. You really hope these characters find each other. What doesn’t work for me, at all, is the kid. I found him to be so fucking annoying. I literally just couldn’t stand him. Besides that, the main thing that frustrates me with these movies is how illogical they are at times. I get the sense that Ephron has these big sweeping endings so firmly in mind that she often has to ignore how life works to get there. For instance, when Tom Hanks discovers his kid is on the airplane, why doesn’t he call ahead for them to hold him at the airport? It makes no sense. But we have to have it so Tom Hanks can chase him and he and Meg Ryan can, against all odds, end up on top of the Empire State Building together. Ay ay ay.
Grade: B
Sleepless in Seattle – Nora Ephron (1993)

14th: Julie & Julia – Nora Ephron (2009)
Watched at home with Gioia. This is by far my favorite Ephron movie to date. It’s delightful. Meryl Streep and Stanley Tucci, in particular, are so much fun. It’s very charming. Amy Adams is quite good as well. Her storyline becomes the one you end up caring about the most (we already know that Julia Child succeeds). But she’s really able to carry it in an impressive way. She’s essentially competing for screen time with Meryl Streep and she holds her own. I am impressed by a lot of the minor storytelling decisions Ephron makes in this movie. It really set it apart for me. They give these characters an extra layer of life that you don’t always see in movies like this. Amy Adam’s job is one example. It doesn’t add much to the story, but it really makes her character feel like a unique person. Or at least someone that everybody can identify with. The same thing goes for the brief moment that suggests Julia and Paul can’t have children. I really loved that scene. The movie certainly didn’t have to have it. And I’m glad they didn’t linger over it beyond that. But it suggests at a larger life than what we see on the screen.
Grade: B+
Julie & Julia – Nora Ephron (2009)

15th: Meek’s Cutoff – Kelly Reichardt (2011)
Watched at home by myself. This is a type of movie I really struggle with. It’s so beautiful. It’s so thoughtfully made. The consideration that goes into every frame is remarkable. It’s also slow as fuck. Which is undoubtedly part of its appeal. Reichardt is intentionally making barriers to grasping the movie. There’s a reason why the dialogue is so muted and difficult to understand. There’s a reason that for much of this movie, there is no dialogue. She wants to reward the viewers who are willing to do the work. But it does take work. And I don’t mean to imply that the only decisions Reichardt makes are for the viewer outside of the film. I don’t think this movie is like an art experience by any means. The decisions she makes in dialogue and tone are to create a very specific tension within the movie. Meek’s Cutoff is about anticipation and faith. We know these settlers are lost, but not how far gone. They come across an Indian. Is he dangerous? Will he lead them to water? We don’t know. We’re in the same situation as them. That is the central tension Reichardt is trying to create. And she does! It works extraordinarily well. Does that mean I love watching every second of it? Ehhhhh.
Grade: B
Meek’s Cutoff – Kelly Reichardt (2011)

16th: The Intern – Nancy Meyers (2015)
Watched at home with Gioia. I had just finished A Little Life. I needed something as comforting as possible. This was a good choice! I think it is simultaneously the best and worst Nancy Meyers movie I have seen. Why the best? It’s really charming. Robert De Niro and Anne Hathaway are delightful. It’s funny. It’s really cute. It’s just a lot of fun to watch. Why the worst? I am convinced that Nancy Meyers has not met a real person before. The characters, besides the two leads, are so cartoonish. Like when De Niro gets a massage and gets an erection. I don’t think his two coworkers would point it out and be chummy with him about it (fist bump!). These things continually take me out of the movie. Especially Anders Holm as Anne Hathaway’s husband. It’s a really bad casting choice. The plot too is so laughably convoluted at times. Meyers seems to explain every cause and effect that would lead to something happening. Anne Hathaway’s driver is drinking on the job? They have to break into her mom’s house to delete an email? Ben has to come to San Francisco with her because of Xyz. Whatever, I liked it.
Grade: B
Intern, The – Nancy Meyers (2015)

17th: Lost in Translation – Sofia Coppola (2003)
Watched at home with Gioia. This had been toward the top of my list for a while. A film that I hadn’t seen, but that I was already counting on loving when I finally watched it. And I did. I loved it. I’m not even sure how this film works. It’s so understated. There’s very little dialogue. The awkward pauses and foreign dialogue say more than what we can understand in the movie. There’s not a ton of plot or exposition. The entire movie is about mood. More specifically, it’s about the tension between Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson. But Coppola zeroes in on this tension so expertly. It starts out, I think, as this weird sexual tension. You don’t really want the two characters to have sex. There’s the age difference, they’re both married. It would feel bad I think. But they have such chemistry. Their friendship feels so genuine. When Bill Murray’s character sleeps with the lounge singer (a more appropriate choice as Scarlett Johansson’s character points out) it feels bad. You realize that the tension between the two characters, at this point in the film, has transformed into a romantic tension. They feel right for each other. Not for a fling, but to be in love. And what’s crazy is that Coppola never forgets that they still shouldn’t wind up together. If they did, it’d probably end badly in two months. That’s, I think, why Bill Murray’s character doesn’t act on his feelings. But his feelings are still real. In this specific time and place, the two characters feel perfect for each other. I’ve just never seen a movie so masterfully explore a setting like this. Everything Coppola does works. The shots, the music, the montages. It’s brilliant.
Grade: A
Lost in Translation – Sofia Coppola (2003)

17th: History of the Eagles – Alison Ellwood (2013)
I finally watched this with Gioia. There’s nothing more I can add. It’s far and away the best music doc ever. I think the most interesting part is that some of that is intentional. There’s all the hallmarks of a great rock doc: drugs, women, concert footage, hits, fighting. And then there’s all the extra stuff. The second part of this doc is so petty and so unintentionally hilarious. Having to hear them explain the second part of their career where they make albums about Iraq and Spetemeber 11th is wild. Watching them claim they’ve achieved piece in the band while the documentary throws shot after shot at Don Felder is even better.
Grade: A

18th: Obvious Child – Gillian Robespierre (2014)
Watched at home. There really aren’t any aspects I dislike about the movie. I like Jenny Slate. She’s really charming in this. She and Jake Lacy have quite a bit of chemistry. It feels like an authentic start of a relationship. Their scenes together were my favorite parts of the film in fact. Unfortunately, taken as a whole, this barely felt like a movie to me. Not the subject. It’s a compelling story and I think a worthwhile plot. I loved the moment between Jenny Slate and her mom when she tells her about the pregnancy. But there’s just not a whole lot else happening in this movie. It opens and closes with Jenny Slate doing stand up. Which is fine, but really just feels like filler. I felt like I just needed one more component in this movie. Whether that would have been more interesting cinematography or another storyline, I don’t know. But this felt especially thin to me.
Grade: C+
Obvious Child – Gillian Robespierre (2014)

19th: Something’s Gotta Give – Nancy Meyers (2003)
Watched at home. This movie was pretty brutal. It’s so long. I don’t think it’s particularly funny or moving. I think the redeeming quality would be the cast and their performances. And it is interesting to see Keanu, and Diane Keaton, and Jack Nicholson interact. But still, it’s not enough for this movie to work.
Grade: C-
Something’s Gotta Give – Nancy Meyers (2003)

21st: Madeline’s Madeline – Josephine Decker (2018)
Watched at home. This is one of the most experimental films I’ve seen in a while. I think something I was particularly drawn to is that while it is quite experimental, there is still a narrative. In the first half of the film, there are a lot of visual tricks and strange images that I think are meant to highlight Madeline’s mental illness. These scenes explore part of why Madeline is such a good actor. How she can fully sink into the roles that she performs. And they really work! One of the themes of this film is how the theater director is essentially exploiting Madeline’s mental illness for her production. The ending of the film uses a similar trick. The climax is essentially an experimental theater piece. It’s Madeline mastering the art form to express herself and her exploitation back to Evangeline. It’s really clever. The acting in the film is phenomenal. Especially Helena Howard and Molly Parker. The film probably doesn’t come close to working without Howard’s performance. The thematic details that Decker intersperses in the film really elevate it as well. Madeline has a black father and a white mother. When she meets Evangeline’s family. She realizes that Evangeline’s daughter will be like her. Evangeline is white, her husband is black. These things are never stated. I actually wouldn’t say the film ever foregrounds race in the film. But of course, it’s there. A lot of what this film is doing is digging at the subconscious. I’d love to watch it again. I think it’s probably a movie that only gets better than more times you watch it.
Grade: B+ / A-
Madeline’s Madeline – Josephine Decker (2018)

21st: Near Dark – Kathryn Bigelow (1987)
Watched at home with Gioia. I thought it was alright. As Gioia said, sometimes it’s hard to tell why something is on the Criterion Channel. Near Dark is essentially just a low-budget, pulpy vampire story. I think there are some things that work really well. I love the Texas scenery. The score is really good. I think, aside from it hinging on blood transfusions, the plot isn’t bad. I also think there are a lot of silly things. After all, it’s about a coven of Vampires. There’s one thing that really stands out. It’s my guess for why this is on the Criterion Channel. The explosions are out of control. It’s clear to see Bigelow already has a talent for them. They’re pretty great, even when some of the other effects are pretty rough.
Grade: C+ / B-
Near Dark – Kathryn Bigelow (1987)

22nd: Ghost World – Terry Zwigoff (2001)
Watched at home with Gioia. I hated this movie. I hated it so much that it’s beyond the movie not working, or even whether or not the movie is good. If it were one of those issues, I wouldn’t have reacted so strongly. So let’s investigate. From what I can find Ghost World is beloved. It was nominated for a bunch of awards. It’s part of the Criterion Collection. It features a bunch of great actors. So there’s something there that’s working, just not for me. My best guess is that it’s the tone and approach of the film. I would classify this film as “post-ironic.” Everything in the movie is hyper-cool. Enid and Rebecca literally make fun of everything and everyone. Moreover, the movie is saturated with all these mock impressions of small-town consumerism. I think for a lot of people, that social commentary is funny. It’s probably something they can really identify with. And hey, I grew up in a small-ish town. I think chains are depressing too. But it’s so over the top in this movie. I just found it relentlessly grating and pretentious. I felt like the chance of having a genuine reaction to anything in the film is completely nullified by its tone. It makes fun of everything to the point that there’s no room for emotion. I will say that I found one of the jokes super funny. Not the Blockbuster 8 1/2 joke. That felt pretentious and mean. But the bar bluegrass band was hilarious. I also quite liked the performances in the movie. I don’t know what else to really say. This one just wasn’t for me.
Grade: D
Ghost World – Terry Zwigoff (2001)

24th: The Birdcage – Mike Nichols (1996)
Watched at home with Gioia. It’s one of the funniest movies I’ve ever seen. It’s also one of the warmest films I’ve seen. It’s a really impressive feat. There’s so much comedy in it and yet it’s never done at the main characters’ expense. Armand, and especially Albert, are wildly funny and eccentric to be sure. But we’re with them the whole time. We’re on their side. And for as much comedy as there is, it’s always clear that Armand and Albert are a genuine, loving couple. I suppose the movie does make fun of the Keeley’s and Republicans in general. But I can certainly live with that. This movie came out almost 25 years ago and for the most part, I think it holds up really well. I actually don’t find there to be anything problematic within the film. I think that’s a testament to Mike Nichols and the care he must have had when making the movie. I really think the only issue with the movie would be in the actors who portray these characters. If this were to be re-made, I think hopefully the cast would be made of actors who identify with the characters they’re playing. Having a gay actor in Robin Williams’ place, for example. And while that’s an impressive issue, I think it’s really hard to knock The Birdcage considering when it was made. I loved it.
Grade: A
Birdcage, The – Mike Nichols (1996)

25th: Monty Python’s Life of Brian – Terry Jones (1979)
Watched at home with Gioia. I don’t know what I was expecting, but this wasn’t it. It is undoubtedly one of the stupidest movies I’ve ever seen. It is so fucking silly. For the first half of the movie I really couldn’t decide how I felt about it. It was almost exhausting to watch. And then something turned the second half for me. The style and sense of humor just broke me. I was cackling at parts. It wasn’t any less stupid, but it was really funny. Aside from that, the only thing I’ll say is I loved how they filmed scenes of the masses. It’s so cacophonous. Just delightful.
Grade: B

30th: Good Boys – Gene Stupnitsky (2019)
Watched at home. This was one that I had secretly been wanting to watch. Almost like a guilty pleasure movie, I guess. Not because I’m that embarrassed to watch it, but I just suspected it would be a broad studio comedy. Which is exactly what it is and which, in this case, I think is a good thing. This is a type of movie that’s not made much anymore. There are a lot of similarities to Booksmart. It’s about naive students breaking bad for one night. Both are heavily indebted to Superbad. Both feature the same Run the Jewels song in the same way: as a hardcore rap song used to ironically score these innocent misadventures. Honestly, I think Good Boys and Booksmart work out to be about the same in my critical assessment. In terms of plot and story, both are outrageous. Whether or not either movie works depends on what you think of the jokes. And the thing I appreciated most about Good Boys is how much they just went for it. It’s pretty fucking funny. I kind of can’t believe how funny I found it. I will say I was impressed with the story’s end. I thought the idea of friends growing apart was surprisingly well-done. So it’s not like this movie is bad without the jokes. But it wouldn’t be very good without them either.
Grade: B / B+
Good Boys – Gene Stupnitsky (2019)