Reviews

This was a pleasant surprise. "Dídi" is a wonderful little indie film, and more than delivers on the potential of its coming of age premise; breaking new ground for the genre by finding unique ways to develop its characters.

The film offers an honest and touching look inside the life of a young Taiwanese-American as he navigates the awkward turbulences and heartbreaks of adolescence (some familiar/relatable, and others not). As the film progresses, its young central character, Chris, strains to discover himself and find his place in the world. We watch as he grows up and is forced to learn many of life's universal lessons, all while charting his own unique course through youth.

It's a familiar premise, but Sean Wang does something new and special with it, straying from the formula and imbuing the whole thing with subtle touches of realism, many of which I've never seen captured quite the same way in film before (HBO's Euphoria has a few moments which are comparable, but they're far more sensationalized than anything here). I really appreciated these novelties, as well as the film's frequently experimental approach/style, as they helped make things feel consistently fresh and new. Also, the fact that the timeline of Chris' childhood happens to line up almost exactly with my own made the whole thing especially enjoyable. They captured growing up in the 2000s perfectly.

I could definitely see this becoming a breakout hit, and to be honest, it may be the best film I've seen at a Sundance premiere (admittedly a limited selection, but I am from Utah, so I try to make it to the festival every few years). In any event, I'm looking forward to watching this again once it gets a wide release to see how it holds up on second viewing.

I thought it was strange the way American Fiction seemed to arrive out of nowhere just in time to snatch up 5 Oscar noms, but after seeing it I've got to admit the praise it's been receiving is well-deserved. The film is terrific, and frequently astonishes with how much it's able to accomplish. It's hard to fathom that it's the director's first effort.

To start, the storylines explored here are surprisingly multi-layered and really make you think about the current state of race relations in America. It tackles mature themes in a way that's both impressively assured and thoroughly captivating, and right away I found myself invested in the plight of the characters. What's perhaps most unexpected of all though is just how refreshingly original and laugh-out-loud hilarious the film is. I honestly can't remember the last time a movie had me laughing this much in the theater.

The script is exceptionally clever, boasting thought-provoking dialogue that's consistently whip-smart and engaging, and it's all brought to life in spectacular fashion by a distinguished cast more than up to the task. Jeffrey Wright in particular offers some truly incredible character work, deftly capturing the complex, nuanced emotions of the jaded and cynical (but genius) protagonist, Thelonious "Monk" Ellison. Wright absolutely murders the role, marking a clear highpoint for his career thus far, and leaving no doubt we'll be seeing a lot more of him in the future.

The last thing I'll say is that I'm glad I went to see this knowing very little about the story. It's the kind of film you excitedly rush to tell your friends about after you see it, a genuine crowd-pleaser you won't forget.

Rating: 9/10.

Evidently the jinx of the "sophomore slump" held no claim over Emerald Fennell, Britain's new filmmaking auteur and cinematic wunderkind. In only her second movie, the popular writer-director has already soared past expectations, delivering a film which not only far surpasses the success of her debut Promising Young Woman (which was excellent), but which succeeds so well in all its ambitions that it just might belong in the conversation for genre classic. It certainly ranks quite high among my personal favorites for films of its kind.

In my opinion, Saltburn is a masterpiece. A purely singular, cinematic tour-de-force, with an abundance of style, all put to use in service of a story that is both attractive and engrossing, while never ceasing to be entertaining. It's the kind of film that sears itself in your memory with its brazenness-to say nothing of the level of prurience that permeates some of the more salacious/depraved bits. I know that sounds like it could be a negative, but believe me, it definitely works in this film's favor; keeping the tone both erotically charged as well as deeply unsettling. In fact, the whole film is astoundingly well-balanced, maintaining a sly confidence in itself which makes it all the more entrancing despite (because of?) it taking things to such extremes. Occasionally you might feel like recoiling, but you'll remain unable to look away.

Since the film only released wide several weeks ago, I'll refrain from saying much about plot specifics in this review (nothing beyond superficial comparison anyway), as I'd hate to spoil anyone from having the same incredible experience I had going in blind. This is an opportunity that hopefully most people will be afforded, owing to the stellar marketing for the film which somehow managed to build intrigue without revealing hardly anything about the story (take note studio heads, this is how it should be done!). It's an especially blessed achievement in this case, as this is a film with a deviously good script and it'd be a shame to miss out on its myriad surprises.

Additionally, with Saltburn, Emerald Fennell has not only gifted us fans of crime/mystery stories with a modern genre masterpiece, she has also given us the best Ripley movie without Tom Ripley. Indeed, the film evokes a superlative, verging on definitive, homage to the famous amoral hedonist with a knack for escaping consequences, and I would honestly be shocked to find out Fennell wasn't a Highsmith fan. At times this script feels almost like a re-imagining of The Talented Mr. Ripley for the millennial generation; albeit one cleverly tailored to the sensibilities and sexual fluidity of the Euphoria crowd. The use of hyper-stylized cinematography, as well as the film's decidedly "in vogue" choice of music, also evoke the style of that series to a degree. That said, Jacob Elordi playing against type as the rich aristocrat Felix Catton (ostensibly a spoiled playboy, but whose surprising sensitive side may reveal him to be an actual decent person) subverts those expectations in the best way.

Whatever the reality behind her inspiration, this film is in no way a mere imitation of another work. Instead, Fennell more than proves her mettle as a writer/director capable of executing her unique ideas with extreme precision. Frankly, she couldn't seem more at home in the genre, and despite a concept that on the surface may appear to be aiming at mere homage, Fennell spares no time proving that notion false; taking a deceptively original approach to a tried and true theme, and running with it to intoxicating effect.

Saltburn is an utterly enthralling mystery, with an impressively sustained blend of familiarity and unpredictability. The script is brimming with witty dialogue, wickedly dark humor, compelling social commentary on class division, and no shortage of clever twists. All in all, this makes for a fiercely captivating affair from start to finish. So much so, in fact, that when the many disparate threads finally start to come together in the final act, the result is harrowing and nothing short of extraordinary!

This is filmmaking of the highest order from someone who is quickly becoming one of the most interesting artists working today. If it wasn't such a crowded year I would say Fennell was a shoe-in for another best original screenplay nom. Although then again, when considering the uncomfortable nature of certain moments in the film, it may be a stretch to think the academy is ready to vote for something this far out. I hope they're not all too close-minded to recognize Fennell's talent though, and this at least ends up getting some (well-deserved) awards attention. In any case, if she's able to keep up the momentum then her work will soon be impossible to ignore, no matter how dark/insane she decides to go with her next project. Personally, I'd love to see her re-team with Keoghan/Mulligan and try her hand at a full-on horror flick!

Anyways, beyond the film's critical reception, what perhaps will be most interesting is seeing the overall response it gets from general audiences. I'd imagine they won't be expecting just how shocking certain aspects of the story are, and all those forming their expectations based on her first film (like I did) are likely to be caught off guard by a handful of these scenes (if not outright turned off). The film never felt in any way exploitative or pretentious to me though. On the contrary, I felt like the balance and tone that it struck were basically flawless. Even if a small number of viewers do find it too offensive, that will probably just add to the allure of the film. Ultimately, the purity of conviction shown by the creative team in taking things as far as they did clearly panned out.

Suffice it to say, I've never seen anything quite like this film, and I was completely blown away. In fact, for me, it rather handily beats out Oppenheimer, Beau is Afraid, and Killers of the Flower Moon as the best of the year, and I'd go so far as to call it a film destined to be discussed, analyzed, argued over, and admired by cinephiles of every kind for years to come.

Finally, I'd be remiss not to mention the film's true Oscar potential, and that's Barry Keoghan. His raw performance as the socially awkward, yet smart and deeply enigmatic loner Oliver Quick is so brilliantly nuanced, mysterious, and disturbing that I can all but guarantee it will "make your blood run cold." Barry is absolutely the underdog to look out for come award season, and this film proves, decisively, that he was the perfect choice to take up the mantle of the Joker.

Rating: 9.5/10

.....

Edited to add - I can't believe I forgot to praise the incredible use of "Murder on the Dance Floor" in one of the film's final montages. I've been waiting forever for someone to re-tap the potential of the song, and its use here might be the best of any hit since The Pixies' "Where is my Mind?" swelled up at the end of Fight Club.

Imagine a Roland Emmerich disaster flick (only good), with a script that's had some actual care put into it, and you'll be halfway to understanding what a huge achievement has been realized here. All for a meager $15 million budget no less! Godzilla Minus One is far and away the best Gojira film I've seen, bar none, and sets an impressive new standard for the Kaiju/Disaster sub-genres (while in many ways transcending them).

The monster-verse producers certainly have their work cut out for them if they hope to remain even remotely competitive going forward. Regardless, I doubt I'll be paying them much attention anyways. Indeed, now that my latent Gojira fandom has finally been rekindled (for the first time since I was 12), I'd much rather check out more of the classic Japanese entries instead.

After all, if I learned one thing from G-1 it's that Godzilla is inherently, and should always be, a purely Japanese tale at its core. With the story's roots/themes so intrinsically tied to that country's history and cultural sentiments, the filmmakers there clearly know better than anyone how to capture the essence of the idea, as well as explore its numerous metaphorical undertones in compelling and poignant ways. In the end, this makes for one hell of a monster flick that genuinely has something worthwhile to say.

Best of all, judging by the financial success of G-1 so far, a followup seems all but guaranteed; and though I'm honestly not sure if you can even make a Godzilla film better than this, I still can't wait to see them try!

"The mass extinction we feared has already begun!"

Rating: 8/10.

Of all the fake trailers in 2007's Grindhouse (Tarantino and Rodriguez's double-feature and love letter to the B-grade shock films of the 70s), Eli Roth's mock teaser for his holiday horror concept, Thanksgiving, is easily the best. Naturally, as an unabashed mega-fan of all things horror (especially 80-90s slashers), this is one that I've been awaiting anxiously for quite some time.

Roth is a filmmaker whom I've always had respect for. At a minimum, I've appreciated--or else taken a guilty pleasure in--all the films of his I've seen, and I deeply admire his passion for horror and cinema. He's always stood out to me as having a distinguished voice, and the potential to become one of the foremost horror directors of his generation (akin to how Wes Craven and John Carpenter were regarded back in the day). However, despite all the initial promise which Roth showed in his debut Cabin Fever, and the reasonable success of Hostel I-II (of which I'm a fierce defender), his career never took off like I expected, and it seems he's been given fewer and fewer chances as a result.

In my opinion, this lack of mainstream success can be attributed to his penchant (perhaps plain compulsion) for pushing the gore in his films to the absolute limits. While I may personally appreciate this as a horror fan, it's obviously a choice that's tended to turn off a size-able percentage of lay audiences-the crowd quick to dismiss all such material as "trash" or "torture porn." Still, for years I've been hearing rumors of a feature-length version of Eli Roth's Grindhouse trailer being in the works, and that it was apparently a long-standing passion project of his (the movie he'd dreamed about making since first discovering slasher films as a kid).

The project always seemed like it was right on the verge of starting production. However, something would invariably arise to stop it from going forward. Still, I remained intrigued by how the film would turn out-if it ever did get made. It seemed like the ideal vehicle for Roth to showcase his (decidedly bloody) skills, as well as the deviously macabre sense of fun that's become his trademark. Indeed, the original fake trailer-basically just a short film satirizing the various slasher tropes popularized during the genre's 70-80s heyday-is arguably the best and most well-received work in Roth's whole oeuvre. Needless to say, when I found out earlier this year that the project had finally been green-lit (with the production already well on its way and a fitting holiday release set for the middle of November), it immediately shot up to become one of my most anticipated films of the year. I was confident Roth would deliver something genuinely special, and finally establish himself as a veritable horror auteur.

Well, lo and behold, with his 8th film (and first in five years), Roth has outdone himself. His feature-length version of Thanksgiving is a masterclass in horror, all but guaranteed to become another holiday staple á la Halloween (1978). It's a superlative celebration of the classic slasher genre, boasting everything horror fans could possibly want and then some. To start, it has an exceedingly clever script that's brimming with pastiche (like the way Tarantino celebrates his favorite films and genres in his movies), as well as a variety of homages/references to the classic slasher franchises (i.e. Halloween, Scream, Final Destination, My Bloody Valentine, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Happy Birthday To Me, etc.), while carving out a new style all its own.

What's more, Roth also finds fun ways to celebrate his own filmography, such as drawing illusions to Hostel (i.e. The table-setting scene that has everyone tied to their chairs), or by including moments reminiscent of the disaster sequences in Aftershock, or the airplane crash in Green Inferno (once again someone's head is graphically perforated by a flying wooden projectile lol). Such bursts of chaotic carnage are incorporated in surprisingly smart and effective ways. The greatest example of this being the film's stellar opening scene, which sees the town's annual Black Friday sale take a sudden horrifying turn, setting the tone right upfront.

During this scene, Roth shines a light on some of the more absurd aspects of consumer behavior, and the selfish competitiveness that it can generate. He also is able build a palpable sense of tension and intrigue simultaneously. When the pin finally drops, everything quickly devolves into a bloody catastrophe, serving up one hell of a payoff. What's more, the opening also sets the stage perfectly for the whodunit component of the film, providing a clear and compelling motive workable for any of the potential suspects present at the store; as well as establishing a set of recognizable (and arguably deserving) victims to be stalked by the killer-whose identity reveal marks another highpoint.

As soon as the movie gets going, it's obvious Roth is in his element and must have really enjoyed making it. His energy is infectious, and when it comes time to unleash his signature gore, he holds nothing back. I'm not kidding when I say that a handful of the scenes here (one involving a table saw!) give Terrifier 2 a run for its money as far as the level of grisly violence and gore on screen. It's not as over the top as that movie though, which in some ways actually makes it more disturbing. Indeed, in Thanksgiving, Roth has skillfully concocted some of the most shocking, brutal, and straight-up gruesome kills that I have ever seen in a slasher, while somehow keeping the proceedings fun and never too mean spirited. Furthermore, the film functions so effectively as a crowdpleaser, that the occasional gratuitousness of the violence works in its favor, making for an awesome time at the movies. Between this, Scream 5-6, last year's X, and Terrifier 2, the slasher genre seems in the midst of an epic resurgence. Personally, I couldn't be more here for it!

In short, Thanksgiving has all the staples of a horror classic, and is easily the best, most entertaining, and altogether accomplished film of Roth's career. Seeing it opening night in theaters was incredible. It honestly felt like I was witnessing something groundbreaking happening in the horror genre (much like I imagine it must have been for those who saw Scream when it first came to theaters way back in 1996). If all is right in the world, this will be the smash hit that Eli Roth deserves, and before too long we'll be treated to a whole new slasher franchise. The potential is truly off the charts. Bring on Thanksgiving Part II!

Rating: 8.5/10.

As a giant fan of zombie cinema, I'll be the first to admit that most recent genre entries have been terrible. I'd chalk this up to how the focus has shifted away from the more thought provoking themes explored in the classics like Dawn of the Dead (1978), and instead been placed almost entirely on the gore and other superficial "jump-scare" type horror elements. That said, I'm happy to report that this streak has now been broken, and with entertaining style. Army of the Dead is a super fun movie, and pretty good. Sure the film has its flaws. Tonally it's all over the place, and it's poorly paced/edited (every scene plays out much too long). There are a plethora of plot holes and major contrivances (such as the questionable logic surrounding the necessity of the heist itself XD), the concept is much better than the execution, and it squanders a bit too much of its potential to be a truly great movie. However, Zack Snyder's heart is in the right place, and overall Army does deliver the hectic and gory fun that the trailer promises, toying with just enough political/social commentary and broader ideas to satiate most reasonable and patient zombie cinephiles. IMO the film also manages to thread the needle between genres like Romero used to do; working efficiently both as an action vehicle and horror/heist hybrid, and the opening sequence is enough to put a grin on even the most cynical viewer's face, as it's hilariously over-the-top and ludicrous in the most delightful way. Perhaps best of all, however, is the way the movie actually manages to feel like a thematic continuation of Romero's classic original trilogy. In fact, between this and his highly enjoyable, although still far inferior, 2004 remake of Dawn, Snyder is really building a case for himself as arguably the most compelling and qualified successor to the throne of zombie filmmaking (certainly the one most inclined anyway). Sure there isn't that much competition. Who at all aside from Danny Boyle and Edgar Wright? And while admittedly these may be far better filmmakers, they don't seem to share the same passion/devotion that Snyder does for the genre. So Zack may still have a lot too prove, but after experiencing the sheer fun and energy of this film (flaws notwithstanding), I'm definitely excited to see him keep trying!

To start, while Army of the Dead boasts many of the hallmarks of the George Romero classics, including fun social commentary, class conflict, and a diverse set of mostly no-name actors and a kick-ass black dude who (SPOILER) outlasts most everyone else, it still boasts a relatively original concept. It even introduces several elements I'd never seen before in the genre, such as the zombie tiger prominent in the marketing. The closest comparison I can think to make is that it in many ways evokes James Cameron's Aliens (in fact, if I'm being totally honest it might borrow a little too much from Aliens). Both are sequels that build upon the original (in this case I'd call 2004's Dawn the original, even if it's perhaps only connected in spirit), but then forge their own paths by broadening the scope and upping the anti. The films also share many similar themes, such as utilitarian government corruption, selfishness and cowardice leading to losses, frequent double-crossing, and constantly shifting power dynamics which converge to elevate premises built around interspecies conflict and survival (oh, and there's even a small moment in the new film's opening that plays with the idea that the zombies may be of alien origin XD). Of course it goes without saying that Aliens pulls this stuff off better on all accounts. Also interesting though, is that rather than falling back on a deadly virus, voodoo, or witchcraft as the explanation for the outbreak, Snyder's film instead keeps the nature of the threat more ambiguous (apart from the aforementioned first scene). This approach to the undead is a good example of the how it provides a refreshingly ambitious spin on the genre. By daring to make the zombies more mysterious, intelligent, organized, and even hierarchical (and not simply slow and mindless), Snyder is able to generate an ominous tone around the creatures once it's made clear that they're not just your typical run-of-the-mill zombies. While obviously a gamble, it was a worthwhile one, as it shifts the style and pacing of the film to something more akin to a serious war flick, with higher stakes and somewhat realistic strategizing (such as hostage taking, stealth, negotiation, etc.). Better still, by tackling the genre from this untapped angle, and establishing such an elaborate, "lived-in" post-apocalyptic setting, the writers also free themselves up to go in all sorts of new creative directions in the future. This level of promise is what excites me most about the film and any potential follow-ups, and I really hope they capitalize on its (likely) success by continuing to take risks and go all out for future installments. The execution could of course be improved, but I think that if they aim for this than it might just have the potential to become a Bond-esque series, and get remade/reimagined anew every decade. It's high time the Zombie genre was given some new life, and I'll be supporting Snyder so long as he's trying new things.

Ultimately, Army clearly stands out as the first action/horror film in awhile which isn't afraid to take some risks and at least aim for originality. Zack Snyder must have some sort of green card in Hollywood also, because the budget feels enormous for a concept so bloated and experimental (which is awesome!). It all mostly comes together and pays off too, resulting in a satisfyingly engaging, frequently surprising, and ever kinetic thrill-ride, filled with an ample amount of fun twists and turns (even if more often than not these are predictable or don't totally make sense). I have little doubt that Army of the Dead will do wonders regardless, and as far as re-popularizing the more serious zombie flick (which we nearly lost due to garbage like The Walking Dead), I have high hopes that it'll come out a winner. So congrats Mr. Snyder! Despite never really being all that impressed by your DC movies, you've certainly earned my fandom with this one, and I'm now eagerly awaiting what other surprises you've got for us. Bring on Army of the Dead Parts 2 & 3!

TLDR - Don't miss this one. It's not perfect, but it's easily the most innovative and fun zombie film in ages, and though it doesn't fully live up to its potential, it's still a blast and absolutely deserves its own series. 7.3/10.

The Russo's reach exceeds their grasp with this one, but thanks to a tour-de-force showing from Tom Holland (and a very good supporting cast), Cherry still manages to dazzle in enough scenes to warrant a strong recommendation. IMO this is destined for cult status. There's just nothing else quite like it. 7/10.

After waiting all year in excitement to see one of my favorite books come to life, I found this series pilot to be a frustratingly mixed bag. Fortunately, it did get much better towards the end, so I'm still holding out hope. To start, the opening was incredibly lame, and it was followed by several more weak scenes and some really spotty directing. The acting from one of the dudes bullying Harold was unbelievably bad. However, Teague quickly won me over as Harold. He's definitely got some acting chops, which is great since his arc is my favorite from the book. It's too early to say with Fran, but at the very least Young seems much better cast than Ringwald.

Marsden does a commendable job as well, and I liked his take on Stu much more than I expected to based off the trailers. His storyline was actually very well handled for the most part, albeit too rushed. In fact, that was my biggest issue with the whole episode. The structure and pacing were horrendous! It was constantly jumping all over the place, to the point where it frequently made it unclear when each scene was happening. Whoever decided to scramble the chronology should be smacked! Also, why not slow it down and let some of the moments breathe a little? The breakneck pace prevented the story from establishing tension and stakes. The best part of King's book was the opening chapters with the steady spread of the disease and seeing the characters react to it without knowing who would live and what would happen to them. That suspense is now completely absent, and for no apparent reason.

It's so frustrating, cause there are individual scenes of brilliance throughout. I really hope the show finds it's footing and corrects the pacing issues, as it's definitely got potential. For now I'd give it a 7/10. Looking forward to next week.

Damn was there not a lot in the way of closure. Every storyline was left very open ended (except for maybe Kat's), so there is definitely much to speculate about.

It's going to be a long wait for S2. I have faith that the payoff will be worth it though. I love this series, and this was a powerful and moving end to season 1 regardless.

Sam Levinson has really captured something great and meaningful with Euphoria: Unrepressed realism. It's this achievement that heightens all the true and relatable moments hidden within every scene.

I honestly was able to identify constant parallels from my own life in all the varying storylines and characters which were further developed in this episode. Maybe I didn't have many of these same experiences, but there are subtle nuances to each character's behavior, as well as a seriously commendable attention to detail, which are thoroughly manifest in the show's writing quality and general production level.

While watching this phenomenal episode, it suddenly dawned on me just how genuine and relatable these stories actually are. Rue falling in love so unreservedly and hopelessly because it's her first time, and Jules' merging uncertainty as to whether she might be making a mistake by letting Rue get so attached to her, were perhaps the most remarkable examples to me. That said, every one of the storylines this week had moments of real life captured expertly in the writing, acting, and camerawork, and don't even get me started on the soundtrack. It's far and away the best I've ever heard, and it's able to evoke so much emotion from each scene that it somehow pulls off a whole extra layer of poignancy.

The entire show is meticulously crafted, from the heartfelt narration by Zendaya, to the constantly riveting and unflinching approach to the subject matter, and the result is such a raw and grounded story that it's made me recognize how trite so many other shows are in their attempts at depicting the complex realities of true human connection, anxiety, love, heartache, and adolescent depression. Euphoria succeeds tremendously on that account. It's fresh, original, exciting, and it's changing television as a medium in my mind. I think it will become a huge hit, and I'm totally on board for wherever they take it. Can't wait for next Sunday!

Okay, so overall I'd say the new Pet Sematary was... serviceable. There were some parts of it I really liked. The themes of death and grief are again explored really well, (perhaps better this time around actually) and the acting and effects are definitely much better (as you would expect). However, the movie felt strangely inert and disaffecting to me; like it lost its soul somewhere on the drawing room floor.

It seemed very perfunctory in that it jumped back and forth between being a shot for shot remake of the original that wasn't very compelling at all, to a sort of obviously telegraphed series of deviations where it would present the same set up to a memorable scene from the original (often in an almost overbearing kind of way) and then be like "gotcha" and switch things up with a quick smile and wink. The reliability of this formula actually grew annoying because it made the movie very predictable despite the changes (not to mention that these misdirections don't work at all anyway if you've seen any of the marketing).

The film was also much too fast paced, and would hardly give you time to sit and think about what the characters were saying or what was happening before hurrying on to the next thing. John Lithgow was surprisingly underused as well, and his part was poorly written. Being the great actor he is he's able to salvage it somewhat. Still, it's a shame because Jud in the book is a very interesting and likeable character, and his portrayal by Fred Gwyne in the original movie is iconic.

All that said, the movie still manages to be emotionally devastating, and the tragedy hits you hard. It's different enough that I'd definitely say it's worth seeing, and, oddly, the parts I enjoyed most and found to be the creepiest had to do with the changes they made and the new stuff they added.

Before it devolves into a slightly smarter than average slasher/gorefest, the final third of the movie has some very disturbing and unsettling stuff that you just don't see in mainstream horror movies like this. It has to do with the conversations between (SPOILER) Louis and Ellie after she comes back, and it seriously goes to some messed up places. The young actress who plays Ellie does a fantastic job. Also, the new ending is very different and it's actually a bit bonkers haha.

I probably lowered expectations a little too much by now, but I think most fans will enjoy it. In my opinion, it's about as good as 2017's It (except much darker), and it compliments the original movie well. They both succeed and fail in different ways, and neither really comes close to capturing the greatness of the book. I still think that I liked the original more because it takes it's time and tells King's story more fully.

Overall Rating: 7.3/10.

Well this was a massive letdown. I'll do my best to avoid any spoilers, but I need to vent a bit haha. Us was such an infuriating movie for me. It was one of my most anticipated films of the year, and I wanted so badly to love it, but it was so frustrating and dissapointing I couldn't believe it. It definitely was not all that it should have been. The setup in the first third was amazing, and even afterwards there were bits of brilliance sprinkled throughout as well as a lot of genuinely funny sequences and lines (Peele's talent is undeniable, and his roots in comedy are easy to recognize). However, (mild spoilers) from the moment the tethered sat down with the family in the living room, and Lupita Nyongo's doppleganger started talking in that stupid af voice, the movie took a sharp turn for the nonsensical and stupid from which it was never really able to recover. The ending was all kinds of bad and seemed determined to make no sense whatsoever. The twist was obvious from the first scene (which maybe was intentional but probably not) and was actually super poorly handled and then beat over our heads. In fact, at times it honestly felt like Peele thought the audience was stupid.

That said, I'll give some credit where it's due, this film is much more interesting than most typical mainstream horror films we get these days. It's also far more ambitious and undeniably original (though it still does fall back on cliches now and then). Peele is exploring some very clever ideas, but unfortunately they are never paid off in any satisfying way. It seems to be trying to say something about class warfare and the United States, as well as the mistake of not pursuing one's dreams, but the messages/takeaways never become even remotely clear. They're quickly abandoned in any case for what turns into a mostly rudimentary survival thriller (with much better than average comedy). It utterly fails at being either a horror film or a sci-fi film, as it's not scary and the sci-fi elements are laughably contrived and mishandled. With that said, even though the film isn't as accomplished as it should be, it still might have worked, or at least been more effective, if Peele had either explained more to the audience or made things much more ambiguous. As it stands, the plausibility of the several of the key reveals that shape the foundation of the story don't hold up for a second, and as a result the whole movie ends up failing in a big way because you can no longer take the premise seriously. Even worse, the few throwaway lines that do attempt to explain away some of these issues feel like afterthoughts, and instead of providing compelling answers they really only make things more confusing and less believable. This really hurts the film because we are expected to just accept them and move on but they're much too distracting and ultimately ruin an otherwise engaging and exceptionally well crafted movie.

All in all, Us was a major let down and I can't say that I enjoyed it. However, while Peele's reach clearly exceeded his grasp on this one, I'll still be first in line for his next movie because I honestly really liked Get Out (seriously, Get Out was amazing, borderline flawless. I can't believe he immediately went on to make this).

Even with the flaws of Us, Peele continues to show a ton of promise as a horror filmmaker, and since horror is my favorite genre and I admittedly think he's a chill guy and have been a big fan of his since his Comedy Central days, I'm being honest when I say I would actually love to see him succeed at making solid horror movies for decades.

Maybe he really could be this generation's Hitchcock. Time will tell. Unfortunately, the chance of that may be diminished by the perplexing and overwhelmingly positive response to this movie, as it seems to have a seriously bad case of the emperor's new clothes going on. I'm hoping the hype dies down around this film and people start seeing it for what it is, a well intentioned misfire littered with pacing and structural issues and a bunch of underdeveloped ideas that have no payoff. Though with the tidal wave of praise and positive validation Us is recieving, I worry Peele won't feel the need to course correct at all and won't learn from any of his mistakes. Let's hope this isn't the case and his next film is a return to form.

6.5/10

(Get Out was an easy 9/10 for me).

Under The Silver Lake is an immensely rewarding and clever little noir that's intriguing and breaks new ground for the genre. Indeed, on top of having a seriously wacked out premise/concept, one which effectively lends itself to delicious wierdness at evey turn, what's perhaps most exciting of all about Mitchell's sophmore effort is that it actually manages to be accesible enough to keep you watching, in spite of its mounting absurdity. Mitchell expertly maintains a constant aura of peculiar intrigue, while simultaneous relaying a story that's growing increasingly off-the-wall random and zany by the moment. It's the perfect blend of nioristic hard-boiled sluething and reefer fuled paraniod conspiratory existential absurdist madness.

Yes, it's a trip. No, you have not seen anything quite like it before. While comparisons to The Big Lebowski, The Player, Inherent Vice, and Mulholland Drive are inevitable (because clearly they all explore some similar themes), in this case these comparisons are indeed earned. In my opinion, Under The Silver Lake is every bit as good as these classics, and I hope it ultimately achieves the level of recognition it deserves. Don't miss out on this one! It's a refreshingly successful genre game-changer, that doesn't in any way disappoint. I honestly can't wait to see what Mitchell does next, and I hope that this is profitable enough that he will be able to keep all creative control of his future projects.

I'm a huge fan of Gillian Flynn and really enjoyed her debut novel Sharp Objects (though not quite as much as her other two books). That being said, I think this story works better as a mini-series. Sharp Objects the novel is captivatingly erie and atmospheric, achieving the southern gothic style perfectly. The disturbing mystery at its center is unraveled in an increasingly unsettling fashion, which I loved, though the ending gets just a little too unhinged to be entirely believable IMO (this is pretty much the only real criticism I have of the book).

Now on to the show. Based solely off the pilot episode it appears to be a very close adaptation, and, as I said, I think it will be the rare exception to the rule where the film/show surpasses its source material. The novel itself isn't very long. A seven part mini-series almost by necessity will have to expand on the story and flesh out more of the characters. That looks to be exactly what they've done but with the added benefit of superb directorial style and unique music and sound design that really lend a feeling of vitality and unease to the experience.

Jean-Marc Vallee skillfully blends the flashbacks into the story in a super creative and compelling way, adding to the mystery with transitions that put you in a trance and create a constant dreamlike feeling. This technique is particularly good for immersion, as it helps the audience relate to Camille. It evokes the feeling that these memories are flooding back to her as she is forced to return to her hometown and uncover past demons, the likes of which appear destined to further haunt her. In the first episode it seems they are barely scratching the surface of the mystery, and the impression is given that much more startling revelations await just around the corner. The pacing is remarkably restrained and does a terrific job keeping you intrigued despite not being in a hurry to provide answers. The masterful direction gives it exactly what it needs to really resonate in a truly haunting way. To top it all off Amy Adams' performance is phenomenal and I'd consider it easily on par with her best work.

I'm glad to say that Sharp Objects does a great job continuing the recent tradition of excellent mini-series from HBO a la The Night Of, Big Little Lies, etc, and I can even see this reaching the level of True Detective's stellar first season if it continues in the same vain as this terrific premiere. Go and watch it if you haven't and ignore all the complainers saying it's too slow. It is slow but in the best kind of way.

Despite loving Chad Kultgen's novel, I viewed this movie with low expectations due to the overall negative reviews. To my surprise I was blown away! Jason Reitman has transferred the book perfectly to the screen, and in many ways improved upon the source material. There are changes made from the book, such as aging up all the younger characters, and cutting nearly all of Brooke and Danny's storyline. The amount of sexuality is also greatly reduced in the film, something which I felt Kultgen often included to unnecessary extents in his novel. By making these changes Reitman is able to generate characters and scenarios that are much more believable than those in the novel, resulting in a very powerful, brutally honest film, with strong resonating themes about sexual frustration and the desire for intimacy in today's modern electronic age. The casting here is inspired and the movie is full of terrific performances. Ansel Elgort is a revelation as Tim Mooney, Dean Norris from "Breaking Bad" fame, gives a heartbreaking performance as a single parent trying to connect with his football quitting, video game addicted son, and Adam Sandler is great in one of his few dramatic roles. In my opinion "Men, Women & Children" is a profound topical film that should be revered alongside such classics as "The Graduate" and "American Beauty". I hope it can eventually gain the praise and recognition it deserves.