The Movie Jar Series: Week 4

Casino: 

It is no secret that Martin Scorsese is my all-time favorite director. While I’ve seen many of his films, I didn’t watch “Casino” until I pulled it from my movie jar! I am so glad I selected it, because now “Casino” ranks in my top three favorite Scorsese films. This 1995 film stars the one the only, Mr. Robert DeNiro, alongside Sharon Stone and Joe Pesci. It is about the inner operations of corrupt casinos in 1970s Las Vegas. DeNiro stars as Sam “Ace” Rothstein, a bookie running the mob-owned Tangiers casino. Ace’s best friend, Nicky Santoro (Pesci), joins his side, hired by the mob to look out for him. Ace proves to be dynamite at running the casino, benefitting the mobsters who are skimming money off of the successes of the operation. Nicky is a loose cannon, which puts Ace’s position in constant jeopardy. Sharon Stone plays Ginger McKenna, a Las Vegas hustler and social climber who conditionally marries Sam for his money. Tensions rise as Sam grows deeper in love with his unattainable wife, and as Nicky seeks higher gains across town in the mafia world.

In true Scorsese fashion, this movie is over-the-top, gritty, and intense. Many of this iconic director’s trademarks are evident in this film. We see violence, greed, corruption, glamor, betrayal, and more. De Niro and Scorsese’s partnership proves to be highly effective yet again. De Niro narrates the entire film as well- in many of Scorsese’s films, the protagonist of the film also narrates to the audience. Excessive profanity, another signature trademark, is also evident in “Casino”.  Another quintessentially Scorsese feature is fantastic old-school music. Scorsese favors classic rock, namely the Rolling Stones. “Casino” is full of great songs that certainly add to the ambience of the film. From “Nights in White Satin” by the Moody Blues, “Go Your Own Way” by Fleetwood Mac, and “Gimme Shelter” by the Rolling Stones, there is no shortage of classic seventies tunes in this film. 

“Casino” may be a three-hour feature, but let me tell you- those three hours will fly by. Between the fully-fleshed character development and the compelling plotline, you’ll never wish this movie was any shorter. I felt truly immersed in the glitz and glam of a 1970s high-end casino. The set design is flawless. Scorsese is known for pulling out the stops when it comes to set design. His films are designed to completely immerse viewers into the universes he’s created. Las Vegas is as much of a character in “Casino” as any other. The color scheme is full of hues of deep red, shiny gold, forest greens, and fluorescent yellows. I can assure you could freeze any frame in the film and a passerby could guess that this was 1970s Vegas. Perhaps my favorite component of the entire film is the costumes. Namely, the costumes worn by Sharon Stone throughout the film. Her character, Ginger, represents just how wealthy Ace is. She trapses around Las Vegas in lavish furs and head-to-toe jewels slipping lofty tips into people’s pockets. Ginger’s outfits are also reflective of her state of being throughout the film. When we meet her, she’s the woman on top, tossing poker chips in a gorgeous sequin dress. By the end of the film, her appearance is noticeably more disheveled, trading her gowns for more sporty, beige attire. The attention to detail of this film is transportive. 

De Niro and Pesci always give incredible performances. But in my opinion, Sharon Stone really stole the show in “Casino”. Her performance as Ginger is absolutely captivating. She effortlessly depicts Ginger and her vastly dimensional persona. We meet Ginger as an uber-confident hustler. She utilizes her sexuality to get what she wants in life. Once she gets involved with Ace, we get a glimpse into the complexities of her life. This gorgeous, materialistic woman breaks down throughout the film, unraveling to reveal her true nature as a damaged woman. She is initially content with the extravagant gifts from her husband. Ginger receives more furs, jewelry, and clothing than any one woman could ever use. As her relationship with Ace becomes more fragmented, she becomes more dependent on pills and alcohol, sending her in a downward spiral. Sharon Stone brought such depth to this character. Ginger can be utterly glamorous and in complete control of everyone around her. She can also be on the verge of a mental breakdown, throwing tantrums and jeopardizing her familys’  happiness. 

Over all, “Casino” has quickly become one of my favorite films of all time. I find myself constantly thinking about it. From the set design and costumes, and score, to the insane plot and fascinating characters, I’m hooked. I will always recommend “Casino”, whether you’re looking for a glimpse into the life of the wealthy or into the underbelly of a corrupt organization. There’s no shortage of entertainment in this Scorsese hit. 

Shadow of a Doubt: 

“Shadow of a Doubt” is a 1943 noir psychological thriller directed by Alfred Hitchcock. I was excited to pull this title from my jar and expand my Hitchcock viewings. It is about a teenage girl named Charlie, who’s living with her family in Santa Rosa, California. She lives a completely average life (which in her mind is quite dull). This all changes when her uncle, also named Charlie, comes to pay the family a visit one day. No one has heard from enigmatic Uncle Charlie in years. Young Charlie quickly comes to idolize her Uncle Charlie, seeking his approval and company. As time passes, however, his behaviors become more suspicious, and young Charlie questions his motives. His niece slowly notices that Charlie is wanted for murder. She takes it upon herself to get to the bottom of this mystery. 

Uncle Charlie is a classic psychopath. He is charming, good-looking, and knows just what to say to win over someone’s trust. Young Charlie is up against quite a villain. However, she is a very observant young woman and is just the right person to take down Uncle Charlie. “Shadow of a Doubt” is a satisfying thriller, giving the audience hints here and there, while still keeping them guessing. It definitely felt like a classic noir film. The conflicting relationship between young Charlie and her uncle is what really draws the audience into this movie. It is an understated film, which serves to its advantage. There is something far more sinister about an eerie estranged relative than there would be about a classic horror movie. Joseph Cotton, who played uncle Charlie, did not over-act his character, which was key. His understated performance as the villain allows the audience to be shocked at every twist and turn, no matter how subtle. “Shadow of a Doubt” may not give you nightmares, but its eerie premise is enough to keep you on your toes. I would certainly recommend this film to anyone looking to dip a toe into the Hitchcock pool. 

Chariots of Fire: 

1981 Best Picture winner, “Chariots of Fire” is known for its iconic score. Quite frankly, I was entirely unfamiliar with this movie aside from its theme. “Chariots of Fire” is based on a true story. It is about two runners training for the Olympics in the United Kingdom in the 1920s. Moreso, however, It serves as commentary on the class and religion-based divides prominent during that time. Eric Liddell (Ian Charleson) is a devout Scottish Christian competing against Harold Abrahams (Ben Cross), a Jewish man facing severe prejudices. Eric is desperate to win the race to serve as a testament to his committed faith, and Harold is driven to win to prove that Jews are not inferior. Even though I generally find films touching on these subjects quite compelling, “Chariots of Fire” didn’t draw me in. It doesn’t help that I’m not super keen on the subject of running. Honestly, the fact that this movie was made forty years ago was pretty evident. It simply felt dated! While I can see that this is technically an important and quality film, I was bored. 

This is the kind of movie that I can envision enjoying the year it came out, but it didn’t hold up in 2020. It felt quite stuffy, with forced dialogue and a slow-paced, anticlimactic plot. I’m glad I got around to watching “Chariots of Fire” but I won’t be likely to rewatch or strongly recommend this film. I can certainly see how this film was successful in the eighties. It is an uplifting story about patriotism and overcoming prejudices. It is fairly understated, with no major actors cast and minimal effects. Over all, I think if the themes of this movie interest you, and you’re willing to watch a movie that is clearly decades old, you just might enjoy “Chariots of Fire”. Just not for me! Stay tuned to see what I think of my next selections next week. 

The Movie Jar Series: Week 3

 Silkwood: 

“Silkwood” is a 1983 movie starring Meryl Streep, Kurt Russell, and Cher. It is based on a true story about Karen Silkwood, a woman who worked in a nuclear power plant and ultimately became a union labor activist. Nora Ephron was the screenwriter of this film, launching her ever-successful collaborative relationship with Meryl Streep. "Silkwood" paints the picture of corporate greed, a concept that is far too familiar to many to this day. 

Karen works in a plant that makes fuel rods for nuclear reactors, and this job threatens her with exposure to radiation. She becomes aware of the lack of safety precautions implemented by upper management. Employees are asked to work overtime, falsify reports, and brush off incidences of potential exposure to radiation. Karen joins a union and works tirelessly, lobbying for protection of herself and her coworkers. Complications arise throughout the remainder of the film, painting Karen's life as a portrait of someone suffering due to the selfishness of others. 

Stylistically, the film certainly felt dated. That being said, the storyline is very important, drawing light to issues prominent in modern society as well. I personally enjoyed watching "Silkwood". Like always, Meryl Streep's performance was transformative. This was also Cher's first serious acting role, playing Dolly, Karen's roommate. They are truly a dynamic duo. Kurt Russell, who was known for his action roles leading up to this point, also delivered in his performance as Karen's boyfriend. The performances of these three actors really added to the emotional weight of the story. "Silkwood" is an important film, telling the story of many Middle America blue collar workers. The fact that it is based on a true story makes the film all the more compelling and emotional. It is a fascinating glance into the early years of Meryl Streep's untouchable acting career. Although I think some may potentially be bored by this film, due to its datedness and its not-so-cheery subject matter, it is an important film nonetheless. 

 Sleeper:

I know what you're thinking- is she really still watching Woody Allen movies? I can write a whole separate post about Woody Allen's career, discussing whether or not his films should still even be watched based on the highly questionable nature of his personal life, but I will save that for another time. While Allen is a highly controversial figure in Hollywood, to say the least, no one can deny that his movies have had a significant impact on the movie landscape. When I was younger, I received DVDs of many of his movies as a gift. I still have some of them tucked away, and as I was flipping through my books analyzing the greatest movies ever made, I couldn't help but notice there were several noteworthy films of his that I've never seen. Therefore, a handful of his titles ended up in my movie jar, thus will be mentioned in my posts. Feel free to skip over my commentary if you've chosen to hop off the Woody Allen bandwagon. 

"Sleeper" is the fourth film written and directed by Woody Allen. It also launched the start of his partnership with the illustrious Diane Keaton (ah, we have a theme this week- the origins of iconic film duos). In "Sleeper"Allen stars as Miles, a man who has been frozen for the past 200 years. He finds himself in a society in which the government keeps a close eye on the public. Previously, Miles was a carefree Greenwich Village progressive who owned a health food shop. He has trouble accepting his new fate into a society with a big-brother government. This film serves as a social commentary on the government in the year 1973, when the film came out. This is the first Woody Allen movie to have a plot with a true beginning, middle, and end as opposed to a string of sketches. After Miles wakes up 200 years in the future, he is forced to flee when the police are on the hunt for him. He ends up joining a revolution, working to combat the oppressive government. 

It was fascinating watching this film four decades after its release. While many of the references are outdated and very questionable by today's standards, it is interesting to see how the year 2173 was crafted through a 1973 lens. The early 70s visions of futuristic architecture were very clever, and people sure do wear a lot of white. 

"Sleeper" is chock-full of one liners and slapstick comedy, making it in my opinion one of Allen's funniest films. It is highly quotable and most of the jokes pack a punch. Keaton and Allen really have great comedic chemistry, and there was no shortage of it in this film. It was a short, inventive, and entertaining film that is very intriguing to watch decades after its release. "Sleeper" is great if you're in the mood for a quick film with a little bit of science fiction and a whole lot of laughs. 

The Kid: 

Believe it or not, "The Kid" is the first Charlie Chaplin film I've ever seen. I don't know why it's taken me 24 years on this planet to finally get to a Chaplin film, but I finally did it! "The Kid" is a 1921 silent film starring the one, the only, Charlie Chaplin. This was his first full-length picture. It tells the story of his famous character, the Tramp, who finds an abandoned baby in the street and decides to raise him on his own. This movie really took me by surprise. Considering it is nearly 100 years old, I expected it to be a little dull with age. I suppose it's unfair, but I did expect to find it boring for some reason. I was so pleasantly surprised! "The Kid" should be mandatory viewing. It was equal parts hysterical and heartfelt. Being that this movie is just over an hour long, I don't want to give away too many plot points. It explores the trials and tribulations of the Tramp raising his adorable little boy. The two are a hilarious pair and will steal your heart. After viewing, it is clear how "The Kid" is a fundamental building block for both comedic and dramatic films to come. This movie is so short that I would highly encourage everyone to give this classic a whirl. 

The Movie Jar Series: Week 2

In A Valley of Violence: 

Starting off week two, I watched “In A Valley of Violence”. This is an indie-western movie starring Ethan Hawke. I have quite honestly never heard of this film nor ever heard a soul speak of it. However, it was on HBO and had pretty stellar reviews, so into the jar it went. This film, released in 2016 by the popular independent production company, A24, tells the story of a drifter and his beloved dog traveling through the old west. It essentially takes a comedic approach to a classic telling of a new cowboys’ unwanted arrival in an old western town. The protagonist, Paul (Hawke), and his dog Abbie find themselves passing through the small town of Denton en route to Mexico. The motives of their journey are kept relatively vague, though it is revealed that Paul is escaping his past, which includes a wife and child. This nearly abandoned town is run by a father and son duo. The son, Gilly, seems to call the shots of everyone in town. His father is the sheriff, who strives to keep the peace of Denton (played masterfully by John Travolta). Paul and Gilly quickly become enemies, raising tension between Paul and the citizens of Denton. 

I was most impressed by Hawke and Travolta’s performances in this film. Ethan Hawke is a very gifted actor, and does a tremendous job in this role. Paul is a fairly closed-off character, but Hawke’s mannerisms allow viewers to get to know him just ever so slightly more than his dialogue lets on. Also, the dynamic between Hawke and the dog in this film is remarkable. You’ll be rooting for the savvy dog, Abbie, throughout the movie. She is astoundingly attentive and loyal, and is sure to steal viewers’ hearts. 

Perhaps the greatest surprise in this film is John Travolta’s performance as the town sheriff. In recent years, Travolta has taken an intentional step out of the spotlight that shone upon him many decades earlier. I don’t know about you, but ever since he played the mother in “Hairspray” I haven’t been able to think of him in the same regard as I once did as an actor. I was shocked to find that his performance as the sheriff absolutely blew me away. His character is portrayed as the true leader of the town, a man who proudly defends Denton’s honor. The character ultimately doesn’t take himself too seriously, and as the violence heats up, so does the comedy. This strange phenomenon, the link between comedy and violence, is difficult to summarize. Basically, “In A Valley of Violence” pokes fun at the classic tropes of a spaghetti western. As the tropes present themselves, witty dialogue counteracting the action is quick to follow. 

If you think you’d appreciate an original mix of violence and comedy amidst a western backdrop, you’re sure to enjoy “In A Valley of Violence”. More than anything, it is reminiscent of a Cohen brothers movie, namely “O Brother Where Art Thou?” (another true modern classic). This movie was very unique, and I thoroughly enjoyed the experience. 

Yanks: 

“Yanks” is a classic example of a movie that’s been sitting on my shelf for years, unwatched- and now I know that’s with good reason. It is the definition of an exactly okay movie. This 1979 film is a war romance, starring Richard Gere. We follow multiple characters as they fall in love during World War II in England. As the title would suggest, Gere plays an American soldier, Matt, stationed in a small town in England. In the leading storyline, he falls for Jean, an engaged daughter of a shopkeeper. We also follow the story of an affair between a commanding officer and a married Englishwoman (played by Vanessa Redgrave). This storyline was secondary, and was given such little attention that it was nearly impossible to get invested in their relationship. 

This film explores the trials and tribulations of relationships during the war. I appreciated the fact that it shined light to the impact of war beyond the battlefield. It reminds audiences of the effects of war on civilians on the homefront in addition to soldiers. I can imagine this storyline would draw in an appreciative audience, but to me it felt a little color-by-numbers. Okay, I thought it was a bit of a snooze-fest. It was a schmaltzy romance, and I can get on board with that from time to time. But this 70s movie felt quite dated, not holding up in modern day. I found the storylines derivative and painfully predictable. Of course, a young Richard Gere makes for a more pleasant viewing experience. He may be a 1970s heartthrob, but he did not shine in this role, making a dull character even duller. Over all, if you’re in the mood for a sappy WWII melodrama and a young Richard Gere, you probably won’t hate this movie. I just believe there are so many better films out there, that this one isn’t particularly worth two hours of your time. 

Oldboy:

Next up, I watched “Oldboy”, a South Korean film from 2003. It is a neo-noir action film centered around the theme of revenge. It is about Oh Dae-su, a man who was imprisoned in a room for 15 years without knowing why. Once he is released, he embarks on a revenge mission towards his captor. This sounds like the plot of any old action film, but “Oldboy” is truly one of a kind. While it can surely be classified as an action film, it also encompasses mystery and romance. Everything is kicked up a notch in this gory, fast-paced action flick. It is reminiscent of a Tarantino movie, as it is very violent, has a humorous twist, and revolves around a revenge mission. It is not for the faint of heart, as it certainly pushes the envelope in terms of gore and graphic scenes. 

In addition to dialing up the brutality, “Oldboy” also dives deeper into human psychology than many action films generally do. From the get-go, I developed a sense of what it would be like to be trapped in a small room for a decade and a half. The viewer follows Oh-Dae-su’s descent into madness. His time spent in captivity has clearly taken a toll. This sense of a characters’ state of mind is maintained throughout the film. 

“Oldboy” is full of continuous twists and is sure to keep viewers on their toes.. Every time I thought I had a sense of where the film was going, it would take a turn.  As for my personal opinion on the film, I was certainly glad to watch this after years of intending to. It is highly entertaining and unlike anything I’ve seen before. That being said, it is so outlandish and gruesome that it will likely be many years before I have any sort of urge to rewatch “Oldboy”. I’d recommend it to fans of films such as “Inglorious Basterds” and “Parasite”. If you’re not one for intense violence, I would steer clear from “Oldboy”. 

Out of Sight:  

“Out of Sight” is a crime/romance film from 1998 starring George Clooney and Jennifer Lopez. As a longtime fan of both JLo and Mr. Clooney, I was intrigued by this concept. Clooney plays Jack Foley, a seasoned bank robber who finds himself in prison after a failed robbery. Jennifer Lopez plays Karen Sisco, a deputy federal marshal who catches Jack attempting to break free from prison. These two develop quite the complicated relationship. Although Jack is a felon on the run, and Karen is a cop trying to get him back in jail, the two are attracted towards one another. 

This movie has “blockbuster” written all over it. I can see it now- the year is 1998, and a trailer pops up on your TV for “Out of Sight”. It has Jennifer Lopez. It has George Clooney. There’s a romance, there’s action, there’s crime. What more is there to want? I bet theaters were packed.  It definitely felt dated over 20 years later, but it is certainly still an entertaining movie. Honestly, this is not the kind of movie I get particularly invested in. The plot was fairly predictable. It was a fun watch, but I wouldn’t go out of my way to recommend it.

Introducing the Movie Jar Series

I’ve had this little problem over the past fews years, where whenever I peruse through movies, I find myself saying “seen it, seen it, seen it”. Don’t get me wrong, I love rewatching movies. But I also know that there are so many good movies out there that I just haven’t seen yet, for one reason or another. I thought up a fun new way to get myself outside of my movie comfort zone. I decided to create a “movie jar”. Essentially, I filled a mason jar with tons of movie titles that I haven’t yet seen. Whenever I feel I am in a movie rut, I will select a movie from my jar. I consulted some of my books on great classic movies I haven’t yet seen, and also included titles of some movies I’ve had in my collection for years that just haven’t gotten around to watching yet! I’ll be writing weekly accounts of my viewings! Please enjoy my commentary on the first weeks' lineup:

Die Hard:

“Die Hard” is one of those films I’ve heard about over and over and over for as long as I can remember. Yet, I’d never seen it up until this point and had no interest in doing so. I didn’t know much about the movie going into it. I knew it was an action movie starring Bruce Willis, but that’s about it. I expected to watch it, not like it, and move on. But let me tell ya- “Die Hard” has become a modern classic for a reason! I had so much fun watching this movie. It’s action-packed, has smart dialogue, and is genuinely funny.

Essentially this film revolves around our main character, John McClane (Willis), a New York cop visiting his estranged wife in Los Angeles for Christmas. He heads to her work headquarters to join her at a holiday party, only to find out the CEO of the company is being held hostage by terrorists. McClane tasks himself with saving the day, attempting to single-handedly take down these criminals.  “Die Hard” feels like a high-stakes game of cat and mouse, pitting a New York cop against a European super villain. Throughout the entirety of the film, the banter between these two characters is so entertaining. I am generally not one for action movies, but the constant motion of “Die Hard” captured my attention throughout its entirety. I felt I truly got a sense of the characters beyond their immediate motivations. This allowed me as a viewer to become more invested in what happens to the characters, which I find can be hard to come by in an action flick. 

Considering this film was made in the eighties, it held up surprisingly well. While some of the dialogue is certainly dated, the action sequences are pretty top-notch. It is the perfect blend of humor and high-intensity. “Die Hard” craftily flips between violent action sequences in elevator shafts and characters attempting to out-wit one another. Despite being decades-old, this movie still felt like a fresh take on an action movie. Even if you’re not an action movie junkie, “Die Hard” is definitely worth a watch. As McClane would say, yippee-kay-yay. 

Top Hat: 

“Top Hat” is the type of movie that I was so excited to select from my movie jar. It is a musical from the 1930s starring Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire. Believe it or not, I’d never watched a movie starring these two highly popular dancing movie stars before. Rogers and Astaire dominated the silver screen in the days of Old Hollywood. I think a lot of people assume that old movies don’t hold up, that they would feel incredibly old-fashioned and practically unwatchable. In fact, I can’t think of many people my age who would watch a movie made before the year 1980. I am guilty of having seen very few films dated quite this far back, but I’ve certainly been looking to expand my viewings. I was so excited to immerse myself in an old black-and-white musical film full of dance sequences and elaborate costumes. 

The plot of “Top Hat” essentially revolves around countless mix-ups and misunderstandings. It is reminiscent of a Shakespeare play, revolving around the consequences of misunderstandings, mistaken identities, and foiled plans. “Top Hat” pioneers many romantic comedy tropes used in films to this day. The plot centers around Jerry Travers (Astaire), a musical star who falls head-over-heels for Dale Tremont (Rogers). He tirelessly tries to win her over, and many mix-ups occur along the way. Dance numbers are sprinkled throughout the entirety of the film, enhancing its charm. It is a very sweet movie. The storyline may be deemed a little predictable by modern standards, but it is clear to me that “Top Hat” holds its own as a remarkable screwball comedy. This movie lives on as a classic more so for its stunning dance numbers than clever storyline, but the plot is nevertheless amusing. This is the type of film that initially drew me to the movie jar project, pushing me to watch older classic films that have withstood the test of time. Hats off to you, Fred and Ginger.

Clouds of Sils Maria: 

My next pick was the film “Clouds of Sils Maria”. I’d heard positive things about this film since it came out in 2014, and finally it was my turn to form an opinion. This is a classic arthouse-indie type movie, starring Juliette Binoche and Kristen Stewart. The plot centers around an aging actress, Maria Enders (Binoche), who agrees to reprise the role that launched her career decades earlier. In the original film, Maria plays Sigrid, a woman who seduces her older boss, Helena. Seeing as many years have passed, she is now preparing to play Helena, the older woman. Maria has difficulties accepting herself as the elder character, longing to remain young and uninhibited like Sigrid. It explores the “art-imitating-life” trope as Enders experiences an eerily similar situation with her assistant, Valentine (Stewart). The two run lines together, and the lines between fiction and reality begin to blur. 

My overall consensus of this movie, off the bat, was that it was a well-done movie that I simply wasn’t a big fan of. I personally simply found “Clouds of Sils Maria” too pretentious. “Clouds of Sils Maria” is largely dialogue-based, and relies heavily on its script. In my opinion, this only revved up the already pretentious undertones of this film.  I thought Binoche and Stewart excelled in their roles (though I do think Stewart should branch out from her ever-brooding characters). The most striking part of the film was the cinematography. The setting greatly helped, as it was filmed in the Swiss Alps, which made for an absolute gorgeous backdrop. The script was clever and fairly original. However, about midway through the film, the parallels between the leads and the characters they run lines for are too obviously spelled out for viewers. It was fascinating enough to watch the events unfold, but I doubt this will be a movie I long to rewatch. If you’re a huge Kristen Stewart fan who loves a plot-within-a-plot type storyline, I’m sure you’d love this film. Just go into it prepared to roll your eyes if you aren’t one for actors dramatically talking about acting. I’m glad I crossed it off my list, but will not be revisiting “Clouds of Sils Maria”. 

Never Let Me Go:

“Never Let Me Go” is a sci-fi romance film based on the book by Kazuo Ishiguro. Now, I am not generally one to watch movies based on books without having read the book first. However, I tried to read this book and just could not get into it. That should have been a red flag towards how I’d feel about the movie! I desperately wanted to like this movie. It has a stellar cast, starring Carey Mulligan (who is in my opinion the most underrated actress), Kiera Knightley (who can do no wrong), and Andrew Garfield (adorable, and talented). The three play Cathy (Mulligan), Ruth (Knightley), and Tommy (Garfield), three adults reflecting back on their time together in Hailsham, their boarding school. It quickly becomes evident that this is no ordinary boarding school. Some sinister secrets lurk among the three, and we slowly figure out what was really going on at this school. Now, knowing how immensely beloved this film and book are, I do not want to spoil the mysteries of “Never Let Me Go”. Just prepare yourself for some truly out-of-this-world twists. 

Even as I’m writing this review, I am thinking to myself, “Now this sounds like a great movie! Sign me up!”. For some reason, I just did not connect to this movie. I think ultimately it tried to be too many things at once. It was spooky, it was dystopian, it was a romance, it was tragic. To me, this made it hard to fully like the film. It’s like the kid who plays on every sports team in high school- it’s hard to be the football captain when you have 12 other practices to attend. I think the film ultimately tried to serve as a commentary on the foolishness of societal hierarchy, but the message becomes muddled in the ever-twisty plotline. If you’re a fan of dystopian storylines, I think you’d get on with “Never Let Me Go” just fine. It’s certainly a movie like no other, making it highly favorable or disfavorable depending on your own personal preference. It is another film I’m glad I selected from the jar, as it brought me out of my comfort zone, but it simply wasn’t for me. If Keira, Carey, and Andrew ever want to collaborate again, however, count me in.

I'm baaaaaack! I apologize for my far-too-long hiatus, but thanks to the current state of the world, there's never been a better time to write about some movies again. If you are coming to this blog from the future, the year is 2020, and currently the entire world is on shutdown due to the coronavirus. No, this is not a science fiction movie gone wrong, this has become our daily reality. This means most of us are stuck at home with more time on our hands than usual. Of course, in my case, this means I have more time to watch some movies! But before I can dive into reviews of my more recent viewings, I have to make up for lost time. 

My notoriously favorite day of the year occurred a few months ago... Oscar day! I know, I know, old news. Why am I bringing that up now? Well, life got crazy, and as tradition has it, I simply need to post a blog reviewing the Best Picture Academy Award noms at the very least. As time has gone by, the award show picks have held less weight for me over the years, but I will always adore Oscar day. In this post I want to provide quick write-ups on some of this years' nominations. Let the commentary commence!

Parasite:

Ah, Parasite. This film was an absolute joy, in the oddest way. I went into this movie completely blind to its plot- everyone that I discussed it with prior to seeing it simply said, "you just gotta see it". So I did! And now I get it... It's one of those films that is so bizarre and well-done that it encompasses your mind for days on end. I would describe "Parasite" as a psychological thriller/satire/comedy/horror movie. See what I mean when I say it's one of a kind? Usually a film that takes on such a task suffers from poor execution. "Parasite," however, was right on the money. This unique film provides social commentary on the wealth discrepancy in South Korea. We meet the Park family, a very wealthy family living in a beautiful, modern home designed by a renowned Korean architect. In juxtaposition, we meet the Kim family. They live in a decrepit basement and scheme their way into unreliable sources of income. This deceitful, conniving crew worms their way into the lives of the Parks, lying their way into jobs within their house. I watched in awe and amazement as the Parks craft elaborate schemes. "Parasite" hosts so many layers that it is nearly impossible to review this film without dissecting its every twist and turn. The scenes are masterfully crafted. It's well-paced and very very clever. It's one of those movies that never doubts its audience's intelligence. All at once, every scene is clever, funny, disturbing, quixotic, and profound. The film is playful yet always centers around the social gap between the rich and the poor. It is unusual, yet masterfully done. I am very glad that the Academy has paid it due credit with six wins, including Best Picture. This movie certainly marches to the beat of its own drum, and I commend it for that!

Joker:

I have mixed feelings about "Joker". As a whole, I thought it was really well done and Joaquin Phoenix's acting was extraordinary. I suppose I just don't understand the need to reintroduce this character in a new light yet again. This is now the fourth reinterpretation of this character in a major film. I don't think any Joker movie can hold a candle to "The Dark Knight" starring Heath Ledger. I find it a little disrespectful to recreate this role after Heath Ledger won a posthumous Oscar for his performance as the Joker. That performance is perhaps the most widely praised film performance of the decade. As for this version? Just because I think a film is well done does not mean I necessarily enjoy it. Todd Phillips, the director, created a new universe in "The Joker" that is reminiscent of early Scorsese 70s movies. Because of that, I thought the casting of Robert De Niro as a late-night talk show host immensely helped the film ("The King of Comedy", anyone? Honestly the undertones of this film are essentially the same to those of the "King of Comedy"). My thought is, just let Scorsese own that style that he crafted decades before. It doesn't need to be poorly reconstructed in a modern context. Phillips's "The Joker" serves more as a character study than as a classic comic book flick. Phoenix plays Arthur Fleck, a middle-aged man living with his mother who works as a clown-for-hire. His ultimate goal is to become a star as a stand-up comedian. It is clear from the get-go that Arthur struggles with his mental health. The first half of the film serves as an effective invitation into the twisted mind of this character. I really enjoyed this interpretation of the Joker's origin story- we see his steady descent into madness unfold before us. The second half, however, turns into complete anarchy. While I understand the praise of Phoenix's performance, I do not understand the high praise of the film as a whole. This may have been a unique interpretation of one of the world's favorite villains, but the bulk of "The Joker" is derivative and doesn't hold its own. Many performers have previously delivered great angles to this character, and one can never appropriately recreate the tone of a 70s Scorsese film (who can honestly prefer "The Joker" to the masterful and immense "Taxi Driver"? Night and day, my friends). 

The Irishman:

Scorsese, you know I love you dearly. But what can I say? I honestly thought “The Irishman” was a bit of a snooze-fest. Believe me, I wholeheartedly wanted to love this film. I love period crime films, I love Scorsese, I love this cast! It seemed to me to be a recipe for success. I know this film was critically acclaimed. I do appreciate that it was a movie of quality, but it just didn’t do it for me. With a whopping three-and-a-half hours of screen time, that is simply too much time to fill showing a bunch of old white guys covering up their gang-related crimes. This movie is based off of a true story, so I certainly understand that plot creativity was somewhat limited. I guess this particular storyline just wasn’t for me. In this film, we witness the story of Frank Sheeran’s involvement with a notorious crime family. He climbs up the ladder, eventually becoming a lead hitman. He comes to work for Jimmy Hoffa, a labor union leader involved in some questionable side hustles.. While Scorsese has showcased similar stories in the past, “The Irishman” is missing his signature panache and style. This movie comes off as dry and a little sleepy. To no one’s surprise, this movie received 10 oscar nominations. Ultimately, it didn’t take home many awards, which kind of pleased me. These guys have all certainly had their time in the spotlight- sometimes it’s nice to see some fresh faces gain recognition. 

Marriage Story:

I know, I’m beginning to sound like a curmudgeon. First, I don’t like the new Scorsese movie. Now I’m about to rag on a film starring the lovely and talented Adam Driver! Don’t worry, exciting rave reviews are to come. “Marriage Story” was written, directed, and produced by Noah Baumbach. In this movie, Adam Driver and Scarlett Johansson play a stage director and an actress going through a complicated divorce. Usually, I really enjoy a more understated plot in a movie that really allows viewers to connect to the characters. This is another movie that is absolutely raved about by critics and audiences alike. I am the odd man out in that it just didn’t do it for me. I thought the film felt like a stage play come to life. The script felt a little too forced and dramatic, and seemed unbalanced with the storyline. While I wasn’t the biggest fan of the script and plot, I truly did think the acting was phenomenal. Scarlett Johansson is pretty hit-or-miss for me, but she definitely steps up for her role. Adam Driver has one scene in particular (if you know, you know) that absolutely convinced me of his character’s emotional turmoil. He really commits to every role and the viewer can absolutely sense that. The true shining star of “Marriage Story” was the one, the only, Miss Laura Dern. She is forever one of my favorite actresses and kills her role as a divorce attorney in “Marriage Story”. I am so pleased that she won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. Dern as Nora, a powerhouse attorney, obliterates any other character in her scenes. She shows up to court with her stilettos and no-nonsense attitude. Her fierce character is lovely to watch in juxtaposition with the emotionally vulnerable main characters. All in all, this movie was not a personal favorite of mine, but Laura Dern can do no wrong. 

Little Women:

Another film with Laura Dern, hooray! "Little Women" was hands-down my absolute favorite movie of the year.  I am positively perplexed and disheartened that “:Little Women” did not earn more awards at this years’ Academy Awards. It is one of those movies that feels like coming home. While it is emotionally charged and has a fairly complex plot, it still feels like a cozy movie that viewers will return to time and time again. Let’s start off by talking about this absolutely stellar cast. When I first heard of the casting of this film, I couldn’t believe We’re talking Saoirse Ronan, Timothee Chalamet, Emma Watson, newcomer Florence Pough, Laura Dern, and the one and only Meryl Streep. For those of you unfamiliar with this classic story, It is a coming-of-age narrative about the four March sisters. Each young girl has her own unique personality. Saoirse Ronan plays Jo, a fiery and fiercely independent writer. Emma Watson plays Meg, a kind and responsible girl who values family above all else. Florence Pough plays Amy, an outspoken, mischievous artist. Eliza Scanlen plays Beth, a sweet, down-to-earth musician, The sisters are held together by the matriarch of the family, Marmee, played by Laura Dern. This is the story of their childhood amongst the backdrop of the Civil War. This is just the kind of movie I can find no flaws with. It is funny, emotional, and whip-smart. The cinematography, performances, costumes, and dialogue were all outstanding. This film was directed by Greta Gerwig, and it is clear that she was truly dedicated to every detail of this film. I could gush and rave about “Little Women” forever, but if you want a feel-good, inspiring film, definitely give it a watch. 

Ford v. Ferrari:

“Ford v. Ferrari” was probably the least buzzed about film this award season, and with good reason. This movie, based on a true story, is about the competition between a racecar driver and an automotive designer. In short, the Ford Motor Company begins developing race car drivers in order to improve their image with young drivers. They attempt to partner with Ferrari, and when that goes belly-up, Ford hires a race car driver to help them with their endeavor. They want to beat Ferrari in the 1966 24 hours of Le Mans race. Given that I have exactly no interest in cars, I was not especially looking forward to this one. Its runtime was 2 ½ hours, which was just a little too long for my taste. For what it was, it was a quality film. I think if anyone has interest in the history of cars or racing, they would greatly appreciate this movie and learn a lot. I may not have been on the edge of my seat, but it was still a well-done film. “Ford v. Ferrari” stars Christain Bale and Matt Damon, and they certainly deliver in their roles- namely Bale. Not my favorite subject matter, but a good movie nonetheless. 

1917:

WOW. In my opinion, “1917” was the single most impressive film of this awards season. If I’m being 100% transparent, this was my pick to win Best Picture over “Parasite”. This World War I drama follows the story of two soldiers tasked with crossing enemy territory to deliver a vital message that will save 1,600 lives. The entire film is edited to appear as one continuous take, a feat never done to this standard before. To me, this movie encompasses all of the classic elements of a war movie that critics are known to love, but also so much more. Since this film appears as one take, the audience becomes more intimately involved with the lead protagonist. It feels as if you are in the trenches with lance corporals Schofield and Blake, smelling the horrid smells, hearing horrific cries. The sense of following this plot in real time had me on the edge of my seat from start to finish. This is one of the few movies that allow you to feel as if you are living the lives of these characters. Between the fluid cinematography, stressful plot, and stellar acting, it would be near impossible not to feel completely immersed in this film. Even if you are not one for war movies, I would still wholeheartedly recommend 1917. It is the most empathetic war movie I have ever seen. I was in tears by the end of the film, which truly indicates how supremely emotional and immersive this movie is. I felt the anxiety, pain, hope, and fear of these soldiers. I got insight into just how young and innocent these boys were- a concept often left out of war films. It absolutely blew me away and I will recommend it time and time again.  

Jojo Rabbit:

When I first heard that a satirical Hitler film was nominated for Best Picture, I was genuinely confused. “Jojo Rabbit” was definitely at the bottom of my watch-list this awards season. But each year I try to watch every film nominated for Best Picture, so I gave “Jojo Rabbit” its shot. A satirical Hitler film? What would that entail? Essentially, this movie is about a young boy named Jojo, who is in training to be a Hitler youth in Nazi Germany. Little does he know, his own mother is hiding a young Jewish girl in their house. Also, Jojo has an imaginary friend- who happens to be Hitler. This imaginary friend is an over-the-top caricature of Hitler. Jojo becomes conflicted when he develops a love-hate relationship with Elsa, the girl hidden in his house, while worshipping Hitler. It is difficult to explain this movie, as it is so outlandish that you truly have to see it firsthand. It was fairly funny and the writing was smart. SImply put, this was just not my cup of tea. It was not as horrifically cringe-worthy as I initially anticipated, but still, this one was not for me. 

Once Upon A Time in Hollywood…

I've already written a blog on this one, but let me briefly remind you that I LOVED THIS ONE. I am not surprised that Leo didn't ultimately take home best actor for this one, but Brad deserved his best actor award! 

That’s all, folks! I have some exciting new ideas for this blog, so be sure to stay tuned! I hope you’re enjoying some extra movie watching in these very strange times.

Summer Flicks 2019

Last year around this time, I wrote a round-up of summer movies from 2018. I briefly ranted about my overall disdain for summertime movies. I must say, I've changed my tune about summer releases. Seeing that I've been living the life of a full-fledged New Yorker this summer, I've adored the outlet of film to escape from the summer heat. While not always stellar, summer movies tend to have a ~fun factor~ that tends to dissipate around award season. Take a gander at my thoughts on some of the releases from summer 2019!

Rocketman:

I've been anticipating the release of "Rocketman" since it was initially teased about a year ago. As a long-time Elton John fan and huge biopic enthusiast, I jumped at the chance to see "Rocketman". I must say, while I appreciate the quality of the film and understand its success, I did not find it to be a personal favorite of mine. It is less biopic and more fantasy, retelling select moments on Elton John's life in random order through song. As an extremely type-A individual, I always appreciate biographical films that not only honor the truth of an individual's life, but follow a chronological order. I find this to be crucial in movies depicting the story of a key figure's life - that way, if a viewer is unfamiliar with the subject matter, they are able to be properly informed of the facts.

Going into the film, I didn't know very much about Elton John's personal life. The sequence of events in the film honestly left me a little confused. Once again, I understand that the intent of the film is to be a fantasy as opposed to a biopic, but it just wasn't my favorite genre.While I may have taken issue with the sequence and styling of the film, I must give credit where credit is due. Taron Egerton delivered an exceptional performance as legend Sir Elton John. His performance was raw and vulnerable, leaving viewers with a newfound appreciation for Elton John's struggles throughout his life. Egerton was able to not only invoke empathy from an audience, but also brilliantly showcase Elton John's flamboyant persona. He carried the weight of this film on his back and delivered.

What I disliked about "Rocketman" is what many appreciated most. The fact that this fantastical biopic wrote its own rules truly allowed the genre of a biographical film to be redefined and open to interpretation. Another aspect of this film that I took issue with was how it handled the topic of addiction and recovery. As with many films about addiction, the film danced around the harrowing moments that are hand in hand with this topic. Instead of being grounded in a sense of reality, these moments in the film seemed to grasp for pity from the audience. The tone of this matter in the film quickly leapt from "woe is me" to Elton John breaking out into "I'm Still Standing" after his recovery (the truth of the matter is he actually wrote this song while in the depths of his addiction). Granted, I understand that a film of this scope is essentially set up to have some let-downs. Overall I would consider it an enjoyable film. As someone who tends to put movies under a microscope, especially biopics, I know I was not an average moviegoer. Once again, my highest praises go to Taron Egerton, masterfully taking on a difficult role.


Late Night:

"Late Night" is not the type of movie I would venture out to a theater to see. It's more of a "I'll wait until this pops up on Netflix" type of movie to me. That being said, one of the major perks of living in New York City is having access to many exciting film screenings. I was actually able to attend this movie for free thanks to the creator and star herself, Mindy Kaling! She bought out a theater in LA and New York to allow for audience members to catch her movie for free. If that's not great PR, I don't know what is. For anyone unfamiliar with this film, "Late Night" depicts Emma Thompson as a late night talk show host, Katherine Newbury. She is a bitter and, frankly, cantankerous middle aged British woman who works with an all-male writing staff. Her ratings are circling the drain, and producers threaten to pull the plug until Katherine can bring life back into her show. In an act of desperation, Katherine hires Mindy Kaling's character, Molly Patel, onto her writing staff as a diversity hire. Molly has no actual experience in comedy, but Katherine is desperate to keep her show on air. The film follows suit as one would expect a romantic comedy to play out, whilst tackling major issues such as workplace sexism and discrimination against minorities.

"Late Night" may have had a fairly predictable plot, however it depicted issues rarely displayed in film. This, plus its fast-paced and witty script, earned it major brownie points in my book. I've been a fan of Mindy Kaling's for many years now, and it is evident that she puts her heart into all of her work. This felt like so much more than a film cranked out in Hollywood's moviemaking factory, following point A to point B in linear fashion. This film has heart, which sadly is a lacking quality in many modern films. This is the type of film that progresses Hollywood forward, rather than pull it back in time. I can imagine young girls (anyone, truly) watching this and thinking "that's me". "Late Night" is an optimistic film that says anything is possible with some hard work and dedication. It is certainly movies with something for everyone.


Yesterday:

As you may have guessed by my review of "Rocketman," I certainly tend to gravitate towards musical films. I am a major Beatles fan, so "Yesterday" was another film that I was eager to see this summer. Let me be frank- I thoroughly disliked "Yesterday". I thought it was campy and borderline disrespectful to perhaps the greatest band to ever exist. Once again, I am a harsher critic than most, and do appreciate that many viewers would enjoy this film. I just wasn't one of them!

"Yesterday" tells the story of singer-songwriter Jack Malik, played by Himesh Patel. Jack lives in England and is struggling to make it in the music business. One day, he wakes up and everyone in the world seems to have forgotten who The Beatles were, except for him. He takes it upon himself to reintroduce the world to The Beatles and performs the songs as his own. Once I initially heard of this plot, I knew I would likely either hate the movie or love it. Ultimately, it could have been a great SNL sketch! I really wanted to love this movie, but I found the protagonist to be very unlikeable. He lies to the world, and as his fame grows, he gets incredibly cocky. In addition to the main storyline, the film also depicts Jack's relationship with his friend and manager, Ellie, played by Lily James. This "will-they-won't-they" storyline didn't do the film any favors, in my opinion. Since I didn't have any empathy for the main character, I found it difficult to root for their relationship to work out in the end. It felt as if the writers forcefully slapped in a romantic storyline. Perhaps one of the oddest parts of the film is the addition of Ed Sheeran playing himself. Essentially, this character is designed to launch Jack into stardom and help him and "his songs" gain recognition. I found this sudden partnership to feel very forced and not genuine in the least.

Sure, if you view this film as a lighthearted rom-com, you may get a lot out of it. In reality though, it undertook the massive task of reimagining the world without The Beatles. It is designed to be a love letter to the band, demonstrating how half a century later, their music is still universal and widely loved. Too much of the film didn't add up in order to make this objective credible. For example, one of Jack's main hits is "Back in the USSR". His audiences go absolutely wild for this song. In reality, I highly doubt audiences would embrace this song decades after the Soviet Union disintegrated. This film felt incomplete to me. It skated from one plot point to the next, just barely grazing the depths of each character. It didn't feel authentic in the least. The only way a movie with this plot would work was if it felt credible, as if it really could happen. As a viewer, I didn't feel invited into their world- this definitely is something that allows great films to stand out to me. "Yesterday" didn't hit the mark. Moments are funny and clever, but that is not enough to make a film great, or even good. It was lacking and ultimately left me disappointed.


Midsommar:

Ah, "Midsommar". There are only a handful of movies I've ever contemplated leaving the theater during (I'm looking at you, 'Mother!") and this makes the list. The writer and director of"Midsommar," Ari Aster, also wrote and directed last year's horror film "Hereditary". For the most part, I really enjoyed "Hereditary," so I expected to feel similarly about his new endeavor. Nope. This film was BANANAS. I honestly don't think I've ever seen a more off-putting, unusual film in my life.

This movie centered around Dani, a young woman grieving over an unthinkable family tragedy, who decides to embark on a trip to Sweden with her anthropology-student boyfriend. The entire film is centered around their relationship, and the plot alters as the dynamic between the two shifts. The couple, along with a few friends, go to a small town in Sweden to observe a midsummer ritual at a commune. The scene at which they arrive appears picturesque, with beautiful women in traditional outfits dancing through open spaces. Quickly into the groups' visit, dark things begin happening on the commune. Astor constructs his films as modern allegories, but to me "Midsommar" depicted pointless scenes of gore and brutality. I wouldn't describe this film as scary, I would say it is unsetting. I don't think of myself as one easily deterred by gore, but I was squirming in my seat for two hours straight.

The characters take many doses of hallucinogenics, making it hard for viewers to discern fact from fiction within their world. That being said, it is very evident that this midsummer ritual consists of a series of bizarre acts. I would honestly hate to subject readers to the details of these events, but I will say that one of the rituals involves a pair of elders plummeting to their deaths while a group watches from below without batting an eye. As the film continues, characters begin disappearing one by one. The audience quickly becomes aware of their unfortunate fates. In my opinion, there was not a lot to gain from scene after scene of brutality. I know that this film was generally well-received, however it just wasn't my cup of tea. I would recommend this film to lovers of films such as "Us' and "Hereditary" - to all others, especially those with weak stomachs, steer clear!


The Farewell:

Of all of the films I've seen this summer, "The Farewell" was by far the most meaningful. Awkwafina, who viewers may remember from her role in last year's "Crazy Rich Asians," plays Billi, a third generation Chinese immigrant trying to find her footing in New York City. She has a very strong relationship with grandmother, who is in China. Despite their distance, Billi is sure to regularly contact her grandmother, referred to as Nai Nai, to maintain their relationship. Her grandmother serves as a sense of warmth and compassion in her life. Billi's parents are often abrasive and critical, regularly reminding her of the sacrifices they've made for her. Billi soon discovers that her beloved grandmother has cancer. Traditionally in Chinese culture, families do not inform their elders of their illnesses. Therefore, Billi's grandmother is unaware of her cancer diagnosis. This is done in order for the younger family members to take on the burden of the elder, after all they have done for their family. They want Nai Nai to enjoy the rest of her life unburdened. While this is widely viewed in China as an act of respect, Billi is horrified by this discovery. She views this secrecy as unethical- after all, this practice is illegal in the United States.

While news of Nai Nai's diagnosis spreads among the family, family memebers quickly orchestrate a wedding between Billi's cousin and his girlfriend in an effort to bring the family together in China. Billi's parents didn't want her attending the trip in fear of their daughter unleashing this secret diagnosis to Nai Nai. Billi buys her own ticket to China, knowing she must see her grandmother at this time. Once Billi arrives in China, the audience is exposed to what in can feel like being a traveler in your birthplace. Billi quickly realizes how unfamiliar she is with a place that once was her home. I won't spoil what happens by the end of the film, but I can assure you that this film masterfully tells a heartbreaking story while weaving clever hits of comedy throughout. As was frequently noted last year with the release of "Crazy Rich Asians," very few films depict the life of Asian Americans. "The Farewell" brought a new light to what families like Billi's may experience. I learned a lot from watching this film, and believe that many can relate to the story told in "The Farewell". It is an important film, and am glad I caught it in theaters! 


Once Upon a Time in Hollywood:

My favorite film of the summer, by far, was Tarantino's latest, "Once Upon A Time In Hollywood". It is no secret to most that I am a huge fan of Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, and Margot Robbie, so I was excited to see how this dream team would act together. "Once Upon A Time In Hollywood" is truly Tarantino's love letter to Hollywood in the 1960s. At its core, this movie is ultimately a buddy movie about Rick Dalton, played by DiCaprio, who is a washed-up Western television actor and his stunt double Cliff Booth, played by Brad Pitt. Rick frantically questions what's next for him in his career, desperate to remain on top in Hollywood. Meanwhile, his buddy Cliff has a more zen approach to life. Working from one odd job to the next, Cliff's greatest joy in life is coming home at the end of the day to his loyal dog. Throughout the course of the film, we see Rick and Cliff doing their best to succeed in "the biz" while stumbling upon other influential figures of the time (such as Bruce Lee). Rick is encouraged by a top dog in the business (played by none other than Al Pacino) to make Spaghetti Westerns in Italy. Rick ponders over his next big career move, and it quickly becomes evident that he has some pretty well-known neighbors. He lives next door to director Roman Polanski and his wife, Sharon Tate (played by Margot Robbie). While the audience is exposed to parts of Tate's career, she is largely absent from most of the film. Many were quick to critique this decision, and I personally feel as if much of her story was left untold. However I think this strategy deliberately captures her allusive image in Hollywood. This allows the audience to frequently question how the film will handle Tate's real-life tragic fate. Things get even more interesting as Cliff finds himself led to Spahn Movie Ranch by a hippie girl he's infatuated with. After getting a glimpse into the Manson family, the audience anxiously braces themselves for what they believe will soon appear on screen.

In true Tarantino fashion, the ending of the film certainly takes a wild turn. Once the audience sees a pregnant Sharon Tate on the screen, everyone braces for what is to come. I won't spoil the ending, but let's just say Tarantino does what he does best. The twist ending was certainly polarizing for viewers, but I found it to be creative and exactly fit for the film.

One aspect of the film that I adored most was the authenticity of the sets, costumes, props, and so on to evoke the spirit of Hollywood in the 1960s. This film was like stepping into a time machine. Tarantino included several scenes where we see Cliff driving Rick around town, it is evident that the attention to detail is impeccable. From the radio ads in the car, to the billboards on the streets, it truly felt like the 1960s. With every turn of the head, there is a nod to old-school Hollywood. This attention to detail, plus a whirlwind plot guided by the incredible acting of the leads, certainly made "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" a standout for me. DiCaprio never lets me down. I genuinely cannot picture any other actor delivering in the role of Rick Dalton. That being said, Brad Pitt's performance may have even been better. He portrays this cool, nonchalant attitude throughout the film that is so believable. The duo really excelled in their scenes together. Their chemistry as great friends in the film was palpable. Tarantino's ninth film is bold, and was certainly an enjoyable, stand-out movie of the summer.


Blinded By The Light:

After being let down by not one, but two music-centric films this summer, I went into "Blinded By The Light" with low expectations. This feel-good film is based on a true story. The movie follows Javed, a young Pakistani boy living in 1980s-Margaret-Thatcher-ruled England. His family faces the harsh realities many families like his experienced during this time. Neighbors participate in racist acts. Javed's father is laid off of his factory job due to the job crisis at that time. Javed has a very traditional Pakistani family, meaning his father serves as the head of the household, and his wife and children follow his rules. Javed's outlet from his everyday stressors is writing poetry. This is something he mainly does in private, as his traditional father would not see writing as a worthy profession. Javed's world is turned upside down when a classmate introduces him to Bruce Springsteen's music.

This movie hit every mark that was lacking in "Yesterday". The audience saw how deeply Springsteen's music spoke to Javed, as if each song was written just for him. This music empowers him to follow his dreams and go after what he wants, regardless of what his family may think. Javed quickly befriends Roops, the classmate that gave him Springsteen's tapes. He woos the girl of his dreams, Eliza, with the help of "The Boss". The trio dance through the streets of their small town to "Born to Run".

While the heart of the film is happy and upbeat, it also brilliantly and realistically captures life of Middle Eastern immigrants in England in the 1980s. This family, among many others, experiences harsh racism and protests. The entire nation is affected by a national unemployment crisis. This film authentically demonstrates how music can be an outlet unlike any other in times of turmoil. "Born to Run" is a timeless coming-of-age film that will strongly resonate with audiences for a multitude of reasons. Unlike "Yesterday," this film effectively captures the power of music and nostalgia. Even if you're not a huge Springsteen fan, "Blinded By The Light" can serve as a great pick-me-up, reminding us all that there is light in even the darkest tunnels- sometimes you just have to know where to look.