2nd: Bull Durham – Ron Shelton (1988)
I wish I could write more eloquently about this film. To sum it all up, I think it’s just about perfect. The balance Shelton pulls off between sex, baseball, and story is absolutely remarkable.
Grade: A-
3rd: Happy Together – Wong Kar-wai (1997)
Nobody is as good at creating a world as Wong Kar-wai. For that reason, it took me a while to really sink into this film. But once I did, it was fabulous. I particularly loved seeing my guy Chang Chen in another film. Will definitely be rewatching this.
Grade: B+
3rd: Ocean’s Thirteen – Steven Soderbergh (2007)
Is this film series not actually very good? In retrospect, this film makes me appreciate Ocean’s Twelve more. To be clear, I had a good time. Maybe that’s all that matters?
Grade: C-
5th: Children of Men – Alfonso Cuarón (2006)
A really impressive film. In all honesty, I am not generally a fan of this genre of film nor the tone Cuarón uses in telling this story. And yet, I think the performances and filmmaking are so good, it totally compensates for it. I was really kind of blown away.
Grade: A-
9th: Prisoners – Denis Villeneuve (2013)
A film that felt specifically tailored to me. Literally said “fuck you” when those snakes came out. To be clear, I loved it. That being said, I feel like the ineptitude of this police department is (even for someone who believes police departments to be mostly inept) a stretch too far and one that keeps this film from being an all-time great next to, say, Zodiac.
Grade: B+
10th: Zero Dark Thirty – Kathryn Bigelow (2012)
First off, I honest to god did not realize the date when I watched this lol. Second, I don’t even know how to assess this as a “film.” Like if this were a fictional thriller, pretty good, not great? That all being said, this film is just way more fascinating as a historical document. The main thing that just floors me is how (needlessly) pro-Bush the film is. I don’t even mean that as a criticism just because I disagree with that narrative. I’m more surprised because usually political movies like this skew the other way, and I would guess that would be the case based on this release in 2012. But this film needles in all these pro-Bush narratives that really don’t have much to do with anything (multiple lines about how good the evidence was for WMDs in Iraq). Not to mention, the complete fabrication that we gathered the main piece of intel on Bin-Laden’s location via torture at Guantanamo. I also just can’t believe how many shots the film takes at Obama. 1. He’s not even in it. 2. His administration basically functions in the film as an obstacle the CIA has to overcome because they’re not “tough enough” on foreign policy. Which is like, not the critique I would have about his foreign policy in the middle-east. Anyways, I think a really fascinating double feature/ essay idea would be comparing this to The Social Network. Both are critically acclaimed movies from about the same time looking at very recent U.S. history. Both also play extremely fast and loose with historical accuracy. Looking 10 years back, it’s fascinating that Fincher at least seemed to anticipate the rotten core of Facebook wheras Bigelow’s narrative in Zero-Dark Thirty is like “We did it, Al Qaeda’s pretty much done now” which, uh, whoops! The last thing I’ll say is that this has to be one of the worst endings in a film I can remember. That the film concludes by having Jessica Chastain confirm that the dead target is Bin-Laden by looking at his bullet riddled face (which then triggers the confirmation to the president) is just amazing.
Grade: C
14th: Spencer – Pablo Larraín (2021)
Man, movies are really hard to make, and I genuinely don’t like ripping on them, especially when they’re made by capable people. I love Timothy Spall and Kristen Stewart. I also did, for the most part, like Larraín’s previous film. That being said, I thought this was pretty awful and would even wager was made with questionable intent. To me, it wreaks of a movie trying to do something edgy in order to feign the appearance of being profound. Whenever I struggle with a film, I try to parse the difference between whether the movie didn’t work for me vs. whether it was actually bad. Admittedly, Spencer is not a film for me. Sure, there are elements of the filmmaking that could appeal to me. One can certainly engage with the sets, costumes, performances (shout out again to my guy Timothy Spall), and cinematography. Fundamentally though, I believe they’re all built around a hollow center and thus cannot sustain the film. However, and I think this is the crux of my suspicion above, I don’t actually think this film is made for anybody. In fact, it seems intentionally designed to provoke without having a meaningful point of view of its own. And so, while that can make the film appear interesting for certain sequences or scenes, by the time Larraín reaches the end and attempts to elicit catharsis or larger meaning from it (something that did admittedly work for me in Jackie), it not only falls flat, but does so in a way that feels offensive to a viewer that earnestly tried to engage with the film.
Grade: D-
16th: Munich – Steven Spielberg (2005)
I hesitate to engage with the politics in this movie as I am woefully ignorant of the complexity involved in both this historical event and Israel’s history as a country in general. That being said, this movie is inherently political so here goes nothing. My general inclination is to compare this to the other historical/political thriller I recently watched, which was Zero Dark Thirty. And while clearing that bar may not be a firm indicator of success, I think it’s important to note that: 1. Munich, as a piece of filmmaking, is just a superior movie. Whether or not you agree with his messaging, Spielberg is far more nuanced and subtle than Bigelow in rendering a historical event as a piece of entertainment. To me, a central issue in Zero Dark Thirty (of which there were many) was that Bigelow’s broad, oversimplified storytelling could not overcome whatever disagreements you may have had with the film’s politics (which, to me, were ill-founded and badly disguised). 2. And again, with the enormous caveat that I know very little about the military operations of the Israeli government, Spielberg’s political messaging is far more nuanced and considered than Bigelow’s. Now, there may be some issues with the general positioning of making this movie and using Israeli assassins as your protagonist/POV characters. But at least the film’s central argument is that their operation was not heroic nor the “right” thing to do.
Grade: B+
17th: It Follows – David Robert Mitchell (2014)
I had been meaning to watch this film forever, only to realize when I fired it up that I was thinking of It Comes at Night. That being said, this is an original horror movie that is not only quite good but, I think, has occasional flashes of greatness. I particularly like the way in which Mitchell builds a stylized kind of alter-world which, frankly, is something that usually does not work for me (see my thoughts on Nicolas Winding Refn). For whatever reason, I buy into it here. And so, while I think there are some things that don’t quite add up in the film, it’s certainly unique and well-made enough to make up for them.
Grade: B+
25th: Benedetta – Paul Verhoeven (2021)
I will now be reading all the literature on / watching all the films by Paul Verhoeven. Made by almost any other director, I would have a lot of questions about this one. But, perhaps deferring to Verhoeven’s status as a filmmaker, perhaps deferring to my own repressed Catholic adolescent maturity, I’ll choose to ignore any doubts about how much I liked this.
Grade: B+
27th: Under the Silver Lake – David Robert Mitchell (2018)
Ah, methinks someone has read some Pynchon! What can I say? I really, really dug this. I’m not sure (yet) if it’s a great film, but Mitchell does a lot I really like (mainly casting Andrew Garfield and soundtracking Monster-era R.E.M. songs as classic hits). Hope it’s not sacrilege to say, but it really reminded me of The Long Goodbye or Inherent Vice without, to me, being derivative of those films. Most obvious mistake was having Sydney Sweeney as only the 20th billed role in the film but what can you do.
Grade: A-
28th: Shutter Island – Martin Scorsese (2010)
I feel like for every bad review I write, I qualify my critique by saying “movies are really hard to make!” Which is a sentiment that I really believe in and think it’s important to remember. Most people, even when a movie doesn’t work, didn’t set out to make it with bad intentions. Shutter Island, I think, is a good example of a movie that I don’t even think is bad, but is proof of how hard it is to get a film to work (even if you’re Martin Scorsese). In all honesty, I think there’s probably a good movie somewhere in here. I like the premise, I like DiCaprio and Ruffalo’s performances, I think some of the flashback sequences, especially at the war camp, are really chilling and quite effective. But, for whatever reason, there’s something that’s just tonally off about the film. It feels like, no matter how skilled Scorsese is as a filmmaker, he just can’t nail down the mood for this film.
Grade: C+
29th: Under the Skin – Jonathan Glazer (2013)
I feel a little negatively biased towards this film just because I have so frequently seen it listed as one of the best films of the decade or even 21st century. To be fair, there is always a bit of a disconnect for me when it comes to films that rely more heavily on visuals and aesthetics over character and narrative. Still, while I think the film does a lot of cool things and has a really intriguing premise, for me it does fall a bit flat in the second half. To be clear, I think it’s a solidly good film. Just not a great one.
Grade: B
Sam Writes Shit 
2 thoughts on “2022 Movie Log: September”