The Woman in the Window (2021) REVIEW

I can’t remember exactly when I first heard about The Woman in the Window, the wannabe Hitchcockian thriller unceremoniously dumped on Netflix this week, but I think it was in the same breath as Steven Soderbergh’s trainwreck The Laundromat. See, it was early 2019 – Green Book had just pulled off its controversial triumph at the Academy Awards over Alfonso Cuarón’s more deserving domestic drama Roma. All of us disappointed awards season aficionados were getting back up off the ground, dusting ourselves off, and looking forward to the next year’s Oscars. And so, speculation began to take place around exactly which films would be in contention, come early 2020. Enter films like The Laundromat and Cats – films that seemed promising enough when all we had were the titles but turned out to be unequivocal critical disasters. One of the films that came up prominently in conversation was The Woman in the Window, and it was a promising one indeed. 

Adapted from a popular Gone Girl-esque crime novel by AJ Finn, Tracy Letts’ script had attracted Joe Wright, a director often considered a bit of an Oscars favourite thanks to the success of his period dramas Pride & Prejudice, Atonement and Darkest Hour, the lattermost of which finally won Gary Oldman an Academy Award. Add to that the truly impressive cast – Amy Adams, Gary Oldman, Anthony Mackie, Wyatt Russell, Bryan Tyree Henry, Jennifer Jason Leigh and Julianne Moore – the kind of pedigree that you only ever see assembled for prestige dramas. But it was really Adams’ leading status that garnered attention from Oscar pundits – over the past fifteen years she has earned a whopping six Academy Award nominations with not a single win, a streak that puts her second only to Glenn Close. Maybe, we all speculated, this film would be the role that finally landed her the Oscar that she’d been pining after for over a decade. Maybe this was the one we’d all been waiting for.

And then, over the course of 2019 and then into 2020, multiple problems befell the production. The test screenings were not well-recieved, and a new cut followed, with Tony Gilroy brought in to polish the script. The film was delayed, first to 2020, and then to 2021, missing two Oscar seasons and changing hands in the process as Fox (newly acquired by Disney) offloaded the movie onto Netflix, who I’d imagine accepted it with open arms. And, to make matters worse, both the author of the source material and the film’s high-profile producer, Scott Rudin, were each caught up in widely-publicised scandals. All of these issues coalesced into what seems like a trainwreck of a filmmaking experience, and ultimately led to the movie being quietly released on Netflix this past week, without any of the buzz or excitement that we’d imagined would accompany it, back in the COVID-free era of 2019.

I’m spending so much time on behind-the-scenes information because it’s juicy and compelling, which is more than I can say for this film that it spawned. While The Woman in the Window is not quite the disaster that its troubled production would lead you to believe, it still fails to deliver on most fronts. I’m left wondering how exactly it attracted such an all-star cast, as the vast majority of them are utterly wasted in the roles. Anthony Mackie is on screen for about five minutes in total, Jennifer Jason Leigh even less so. The movie flashes back to Julianne Moore a lot, but really she’s only in one scene. What’s more, all these big names give surprisingly lacklustre performances; Gary Oldman in particular is actually terrible here, something that I don’t say about him very often – although I have to conclude that the script to deserves to shoulder part of the blame for that one. Amy Adams and Wyatt Russell are at least alright, but they’re stuck with the blandest, least-zingy, most tell-don’t-show dialogue I’ve heard since… well, Amy Adams’ last Netflix film. Seriously, that woman needs to get herself a new agent, because her current role choices leave a lot to be desired.

Tracy Letts is probably most known for his theatre work, and this is the first film of his that hasn’t been adapted from one of his own plays. Unfortunately, some of the worst impulses from that art form carry over into the film, where they are far less suited. There is literally a bit where Adams steps away from the other characters, isolating herself in the frame, and delivers a monologue while staring into the middle distance. It’s painfully awkward, and even her considerable acting talent fails to salvage the forced, unsubtle writing. While we’re on the subject of Letts’ writing, he also treats us to what has got to be the worst climax in recent history, wherein the film abandons any pretence of being a serious thriller and devolves into something resembling a slasher movie, complete with the killer (whose identity will not be named in this review) disappearing and reappearing in ways that beggar belief and attacking the ‘final girl’ with various household appliances. If it sounds stupid and out-of-place, that’s because it is.

I will, however, reserve some praise for Joe Wright and his cinematographer, Bruno Delbonnel. No, the scenes aren’t quite as crisp and well-communicated as the ones in Hitchcock’s Rear Window, which this film was obviously inspired by/ripped off from, nor do we get as nuanced a feel of the setting’s geography, but I did genuinely enjoy the way the film looked. It is far more stylistically adventurous than you might initially be led to believe and most of this experimentation pays off (with the exception of things like the aforementioned play-like blocking). Colours, framing, the split-dioptre shots… it’s all far more competent than the rest of the film. Danny Elfman’s score also isn’t that bad – it’s a bit generic but it at least adds to the film rather than detracts from it.

Overall, The Woman in the Window is exactly as uninspiring as you might expect. It’s only actively terrible in a few scenes (the climax and whenever Oldman is on screen, for instance), but the film is so flat that it’s exceedingly hard to get invested in any of the film’s characters, many of whom are given so little screentime that the casting of such big stars honestly beggars belief. There are some solid moments of stylisation and even surrealism, but neither the visuals nor the considerable talent present in the cast are enough to save Tracy Letts’ dire script, which would have been far better suited to the stage and the screen. Given the production issues, the disappointment of the movie is kind of expected, but it’s still a shame that so much talent was wasted on this shallow, unsuccessful star vehicle.

Score: ⭐⭐

"Joker" Panic Throwback

The lack of moviegoing recently thanks to COVID-19 (I haven't been to a movie theatre since March, save for one trip in August to see Tenet) has left me reflecting on some of the more memorable of my cinema trips. One such trip was to see Joker which, as you may recall, was plagued by controversy in the lead up to its release as the media began to assert that it might inspire mentally ill people to follow in Joaquin Phoenix's footsteps and channel their disillusionment into violence against innocents.

With hindsight, it's easy to see that these fears were unfounded, but there was a solid second there where violence (over a Todd Phillips movie!) seemed inevitable. In the days immediately preceding the movie's opening, some rando on 4chan made a thinly veiled threat against Sydney's own Ritz Cinema, saying something along the lines of 'some of you are cool here, so stay away from Ritz Cinema Randwick tomorrow night'. I don't frequent the Ritz, but the warning certainly gave me cause for concern. I decided to put off my viewing for a couple of nights, for fear of getting my head blown off between kernels of popcorn (at least you'd be able to say that I died doing what I loved).

Luckily, no shooting or suicide bombing occurred at the Ritz (presumably the only thing that bombed were their ticket sales that night), so a few days later I decided to risk it for the proverbial biscuit. Tensions were high as I walked into my local theatre, as employees stood at the door to the cinema, checking IDs. This was odd as this particular cinema never checks anyone's tickets, not even for films with age-restricting ratings. It's a wonder that they don't go out of business from people sneaking into sessions they haven't paid for. Presumably, the cinema had heard about the threat against the Ritz and decided to up their security. I'm not sure what exactly was stopping a shooter from just... buying a ticket to the movie, but it's the thought that counts. 

Anyway, I passed the eyeball test for incels and got into the cinema. Things were tense from there, and not just because of the suspenseful events on screen. There was a slightly overweight guy in his late 30s sitting a few seats to the right of me who laughed at several of Arthur Fleck's jokes, even the ones that weren't really meant to be funny. He also had a backpack with him, and I half-expected him to pull out an assault rifle at some point and start shooting, which would be rather inconvenient for me given that I would probably be the first to go. 

Luckily, I managed to get through the screening without dying. I can only assume that the suspicious guy was nothing more than an overzealous DC Comics fanboy, rather than a crazed gun-toting maniac. Still, it was all a bit terrifying.

Gregory Peck Fights with a Gun or Something idk I Haven't Seen the Movie

I hadn't even heard of the 1950 film The Gunfighter until I learnt about its upcoming Criterion Collection release on October 20th, but my interest has certainly been piqued. Directed by Henry King, it's basically a brooding black-and-white Western starring Gregory Peck, who I know mostly from his excellent work 12 years later in To Kill a Mockingbird. The Criterion website describes it as such:

A key forerunner of the new breed of dark, brooding westerns that would cast a shadow over America’s frontier folklore, this subversive psychological saga sounds a death knell for the myth of the outlaw hero. In one of his most morally complex roles, Gregory Peck stars as Jimmy Ringo, an infamous gunslinger looking to hang up his holsters and start a new life, but whose reputation draws him inexorably into a cycle of violence and revenge from which he cannot escape. Directed with taut efficiency by the versatile studio-era craftsman Henry King, and shot in striking deep-focus style by master cinematographer Arthur C. Miller, The Gunfighter forgoes rough-and-tumble action in favor of an elegiac exploration of guilt and regret that speaks to the anxious soul of postwar America.

Henry King sounded familiar, so I Googled him. Unfortunately, my search for 'henry king' gave me results about Henry III who, while he was indeed a King of France from 1574 to 1589, was not the director of 1950's The Gunfighter starring Gregory Peck. I refined my search term and learnt that, while I'd vaguely heard of a couple of his other films, Gunfighter was his most famous and therefore I had no idea where the familiarity I had with him came from. He must just have one of those names, I guess. 

Anyway, it sounds like an interesting film. The Criterion Blu-Ray's special features don't sound amazing (good, but not enough to convince me to fork over the extra $30 or whatever). However, I failed to find a physical media alternative so I decided to have a trawl around on Just Watch looking for a streaming option. No such luck. I even looked on Amazon to see if there were any Blu-Rays from different regions that I could buy (I have a region-free player). Nope. 

So I guess it's Criterion or nothing. Or piracy, but we don't condone that sort of barbaric behaviour on Beyond the Popcorn, do we?

Double Take: Daybeds

What the f*ck is this?

No, really.

If I wanted to have a f*cking nap I'd just stay at home and lie down in bed for free, rather than paying twenty-six f*cking dollars for it!

Look, I understand the logic behind the idea - make the front row seats more comfortable (you no longer have to break your neck to look up at the screen as I did last year while watching Deadpool 2) and therefore charge more for them. It also recreates the experience, I guess, of watching a movie in bed.

The problem is - no way people aren't going to fall asleep during the movie.

Picture this - it's dark, you're snuggled up in a comfy bed, lying on your back, it's 9:00 at night and slowly, surely, you feel yourself becoming sleepier...and sleepier...

Imagine watching a slow-paced, dialogue-heavy (or lite) film this way. I think Alfonso Cuarón's Roma is a goddamn masterpiece, but I'd probably fall asleep if I watched it this way. Ditto for Schindler's List, or either Godfather*. This is not the fault of those films - they were made to be viewed while sitting upright in a dark cinema (or living room, in Roma's case) with no distractions, allowing you to be completely immersed in the worlds they are creating. There's a reason why I watch slow-paced films sitting upright. We all have busy, tiring lives, and I don't want that to affect my experience of watching a fantastic film.

These 'Daybeds' are also a completely transparent business venture. Event Cinemas is a chain that is clearly fighting to remain relevant and successful in a streaming world. Just months ago they introduced another stupid idea called Boutique, in which cinemas are decorated in random ways to, I don't know, make the audience feel more sophisticated? Seeing Zombieland: Double Tap in a cinema made up to look like it was constructed in the 1920s certainly doesn't help your immersion in any way.

I mean, if this keeps them in business then fine. We don't need to lose another cinema chain. But maybe, instead of having a go at expensive and ill-fated experiments, they should tailor their cinemas to suit the needs of a modern cinephile and produce an experience that Netflix-and-chill simply cannot compete with.

*I've yet to see Part III so I can't comment on it's pacing. For all I know, it might be a rollercoaster action movie that ends with a massive shootout and a car chase.

Ad Astra - A Thoughtful Sci-Fi Character Piece

In an age of big sci-fi blockbusters like the Marvel Cinematic Universe or Star Wars, auteur directors have frequently proven that there is still a dedicated market for smaller space films that match big ideas with unparalleled spectacle. The trend of the semi-realistic space movie can be seen all over the last few years - Alfonso Cuaron's 2013 thriller Gravity, Christopher Nolan's Interstellar in 2014, Damien Chazelle's First Man in 2018, even Ridley Scott's 2015 survival piece The Martian which, while certainly more mainstream and crowd-pleasing than the other films I've just mentioned, contains an air of scientific truth about it that, however nonsense it might be, managed to fool my non-scientific brain. Many have theorised that no idea is truly original; sometimes you have to take lots of preexisting ideas and put them together to create something original. 

In Ad Astra, director James Gray and his co-writer Ethan Gross (in his second ever feature film writing credit) have taken many elements of the films previously mentioned; the spectacle of Gravity, the big ideas of Interstellar, the character study of First Man, the loneliness glimpsed in The Martian, and paired them with even more elements from films that predate those ones; 2001: A Space Odyssey, even Alien. This process isn't restrictive to sci-fi; in fact, the film Ad Astra reminded me most of while watching it was Apocalypse Now, in both style and narrative.

So let's talk about the narrative. It's the 'near future' (classic sci-fi vagueness) and the human race has expanded out into the solar system, having set up airport-like terminals on the moon and Mars in a manner reminiscent of 2001. It is in this world that we meet Roy McBride (Brad Pitt), who is conducting a check of a (pretty awesome) space station that extends from the surface of the Earth into the atmosphere when a massive power surge almost kills him. To describe it anymore would be to do a disservice to the film's breathtaking opening scene. Back on Earth, he's informed that the U.S. Space Command believes that the surge had something to do with the work McBride's father, H. Clifford (Tommy Lee Jones), was doing before he disappeared several years before. SpaceComm concludes that Clifford is still alive and is conducting research around Neptune, so they decide to send Roy to investigate his father's project, and destroy it if necessary.

Although I just spent a whole paragraph explaining the premise, Ad Astra is not a very plot-driven film. It's more interested in exploring McBride's character, which it does through an always-subjective viewpoint and a lot of Apocalypse Now-esque voiceover. The voiceover has become a sticking point for some viewers but it didn't bother me that much. McBride is a very introverted and emotionally distant (we're told early on that his heart rate never rises above around 80 BPM, even in dangerous situations such as the opening scene) character, so voiceover was probably the way to go, allowing us to see his introspective side. I think it's realistic to be quiet on the outside but constantly cross-examining everything internally - it's something I can relate to. 

The film is very devoted to this character study, so much so that all the other people in the film seem more like set dressing. Kind of like Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, this is a movie that shuffles big names in and out of the story faster than you can say 'wonder how much they got paid for that?'. Donald Sutherland gets a handful of scenes. Liv Tyler gets a handful of lines. With so little support, it was up to the leading man to carry the film completely, and I'm happy to report that Brad Pitt was more than up to the task. While I wasn't as blown away by his performance as some others were (I'd still much prefer to see him win an Oscar for Cliff Booth than this role), he does do a very good job. 

As you can probably tell from the still above, all of the technical elements are brilliant. Hoyte van Hoytema's (that's a fun name to say) cinematography is absolutely breathtaking, capturing the emptiness of space with a diverse colour palette that changes as the film continues so that each sequence of events is almost colour-coded. Hoytema also shot Interstellar so he's no stranger to science fiction. Additionally, Max Richter's score is subtle and beautiful. Many audience members have taken issue with the film's slow pace but I thought it suited the story it was trying to tell. You definitely notice the slow-burn but it's far from boring. 

Gray does throw in a couple of action scenes - probably around three or four over the 124-minute runtime, though your mileage may vary. They were probably put into the script to make it more marketable for a studio, but most of them were so well-done that it didn't bother me, with the exception being one involving a baboon that felt completely out-of-place and the film spends the next scene bending over backwards to justify its existence. It really didn't add to the story and it's thematic relevance felt overly manufactured. You could say it's no different to Apocalypse Now's various side quests but it felt like way too much of a diversion from the plot for me.

The film does stumble a bit in the third act. It's a shame that, after taking a lot of inspiration from Apocalypse Now, it didn't take one more leaf out of Coppola's book and have an ambiguous ending, because it really is hard to wrap up a cerebral story like this. In the end, the climax feels very messy and illogical, with not enough conflict to be satisfying. Ultimately, it felt a bit lazy and in need of another draft. It also went around in circles in kind of a stupid way.

Ultimately, I can't stay mad at Ad Astra for the ending because I'd love to see more films like it; sci-fi with philosophical intentions, good acting, great cinematography and perhaps a slightly better script next time. The film is well worth your time on its own merits, and as an added bonus you get to be privy to the discussion surrounding it (the film was the Letterboxd Talking Point for a couple of weeks before Joker came along and stole its thunder). As far as the 'awards season sci-fi' film I was talking about before, Letterboxd tells me that there have been seven of them since 2013 and I've seen six. As far as my preferences, Ad Astra is better than Gravity and The Martian but not as good as Arrival, First Man or Blade Runner 2049. I've still yet to see Interstellar.

Score: ⭐⭐⭐⭐ (B+)

Reacting to The Guardian's Top 100 Films of the 21st Century List

The cover image for the list, which shows stills from Moonlight, The Handmaiden, There Will Be Blood and Under the Skin.

On the 13th of September, The Guardian published their Top 100 Best Films of the 21st Century list. I don't know why they're doing it now and not waiting until the end of 2019 when they'll have a couple of full decades to go on, but whatever, that's film criticism for you.

I thought we'd do something different today. I have not looked at any reactions to this list and I don't know any of the choices yet (aside from, presumably, the four pictured above). I thought I'd go through the list, reacting to it in writing. I won't make a comment about every single film, only the ones I've either seen or have something to say about. I'll be telling you whether I agree or disagree with their choices and you'll get to read my genuine, unfiltered reactions. I have high hopes for the list as I tend to trust The Guardian's film criticism, if only because they have one of my favourite film critics (and definitely my favourite living film critic) on there, Mark Kermode. No idea if he contributed to the list, but let's go!

#100: Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
It took me a second to work out what the hell the writer meant by saying '[it] knocks Kill Bill: Vol. 1 off the list.' Was it a reference to the Death List? What list? Then I realised that KB: V1 had been on this list and had been knocked off by OUATIH, at which point I formally decided that I am an idiot for that not being obvious. Anyway, OUATIH is fantastic (because of a busy schedule I sadly never got to review it on this blog) and I'm very happy with its inclusion, with the condition that Django and Inglourious Basterds are on the way.
#99: Bright Star
#98: The Dark Knight
The Dark Knight is my second favourite film of the 21st century thus far, my favourite Christopher Nolan film, and the only comic book film that I have ever awarded five stars. While I would have loved to see it place higher, I'm happy that it made the list at all as I feel many cinephiles tend to dismiss it at eleven years' distance.
#97: Fahrenheit 9/11
#96: Private Life
The first Netflix film to make an appearance, interesting.
#95: Call Me By Your Name
#94: Gladiator
First Best Picture winner on the list and probably the only Ridley Scott movie unless they throw us a curveball and put Alien: Covenant at number one.
#93: You, The Living
#92: The Hurt Locker
I'm looking at the unwatched Hurt Locker Blu-Ray on my shelf right now.
#91: Etre et Avoir
#90: Eden
#89: The Selfish Giant
#88: Gomorrah
#87: The Wind That Shakes the Barley
#86: No Country For Old Men
Finally, another film I've seen! I love the Coen Brothers but personally I don't love No Country as much as everyone else. I gave it four stars, so I still think of it as a very good film, but most people would award it five stars. I found certain scenes to be hugely tense but the space in between them to be, dare I say it, a little dull? I didn't really see the point of Tommy Lee Jones' character but I did love a lot of elements about the film, particularly Javier Bardem's performance. I should probably rewatch it at some point as I've only seen it once and apparently it's one of those movies that grows on you. Personally, I wouldn't put it above OUATIH or The Dark Knight but I guess it's mostly worthy of this list.
#85: Burning
I really wanted to see Burning but it took bloody forever to come to Australian cinemas and by the time it did I'd more or less forgotten about it. I'll seek it out on Blu-Ray at some point, I guess.
#84: Tropical Malady
#83: The Son's Room
#82: Stories We Tell
#81: Fish Tank
#80: Requiem For a Dream
#79: Persepolis
I hadn't heard of this film before today but looking at the image that they've put above it's entry makes me want to see it. It looks very strange.
#78: Ocean's Eleven
#77: Lost in Translation
I always forget Lost in Translation is a film from 2003. I always think of it as a Nineties movie for some reason. Maybe it's just because Bill Murray is in it.
#76: Ten
Should've put it at #10.
#75: Philomena
Sorry, I admit that was a bad joke.
#74: A Prophet
#73: Love & Friendship
#72: Waltz With Bashir
#71: Capernaum
#70: Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy
Last year, I watched about thirty minutes of Anchorman in class and guess what? It really wasn't that funny. My dad loves the film but I just don't get it. Maybe it just hasn't aged that well post-#MeToo since it's essentially a film where workplace sexual harassment is portrayed as comedic. I don't like to judge a film without finishing it but it sure as hell isn't better than The Dark Knight!
#69: Paddington 2
#68: Mr Turner
#67: Dogtooth
#66: Brokeback Mountain
#65: Happy As Lazzaro
#64: The Incredibles
The description of this pick says that  'The Guardian's Peter Bradshaw ranked The Incredibles as Pixar's best ever film...' I hope that's referring to another list because there are other Pixar films from the 21st century that I like more. That being said, I do love The Incredibles, and it's a stone-cold childhood classic for me. Many describe it as the best Fantastic Four film, but I think that cheapens it. It's more like... well, it's more like Watchmen for the whole family.
#63: We Need to Talk About Kevin
#62: Waiting for Happiness
#61: The Souvenir
I've raved about this British independent film elsewhere on this blog after I was fortunate enough to be able to see it at the Sydney Film Festival 2019. It truly is an excellent slice-of-life drama and I'm happy to see it place this high. As far as 2019 films on this list go I think I prefer Once Upon a Time in Hollywood but I gave them the same rating - they're both great.
#60: Ted
Well, that's an interesting choice.
#59: Gangs of Wasseypur
#58: Wuthering Heights
#57: Leave No Trace
#56: Behind the Candelabra
Candelabra is a word I have an endless amount of trouble pronouncing.
#55: Russian Ark
#54: The Social Network
The Social Network is a fantastic film that I'm happy to see on this list. I actually think about it a lot; it gives you tons of food for thought. It's my third favourite David Fincher film - the other two are both from this century so I hope to see them in the top fifty. And may I remark what an absolute tragedy it was that Colin Firth won Best Actor over Jesse Eisenberg in this film. Firth in The King's Speech was an often amusing and serviceably compelling protagonist. Eisenberg's portrayal of Mark Zuckerberg was naturalistically flawed, at times cold and unforgettable. All in all, it deserves it's spot on this list and I'm eagerly awaiting the yet-to-be-announced Part II where we get to see Zuckerberg's recent trials.
#53: Fire At Sea
#52: Amores Perros
#51: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
*deep sigh* Look, I really don't like CT, HD and I don't get the hype. It's a bunch of great action scenes held together by a poorly-paced, repetitive and at times downright dull story with forgettable characters. The fight choreography is fantastic, Ang Lee's direction is fantastic, but the film is kind of bad. I know this is a hot take but I have to do it: the placement of this film on the list earns a hard disagree from me.
#50: Before Sunset
#49: 24 Hour Party People
I'm now regretting my decision to praise lots of English-language films and then completely trash the first foreign language film I come across. That doesn't reflect very well.
#48: The House of Mirth
#47: Margaret
#46: Volver
#45: 13th
#44: Toni Erdmann
#43: The Wolf of Wall Street
Surprised it took this long to come across a Scorsese film but that might mean they're all in the top forty.
#42: 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days
#41: The Handmaiden
#40: Unrelated
#39: Meek's Cutoff
#38: Once Upon a Time in Anatolia
The second film on this list so far with Once Upon a Time in... as part of its title.
#37: Dogville
#36: A Separation
#35: 45 Years
Should've put it at #45. Yes, I just did that joke again. Feel free to close this page.
#34: The Child
#33: The Royal Tenenbaums
I've yet to see The Royal Tenenbaums but the description says that it is 'certainly his finest', which is a shame because it means that we probably won't see my favourite Anderson film The Grand Budapest Hotel later on.
#32: Gravity
Ay, Alfonso! Gravity has some of the best visual effects I've ever seen and at four stars, it's a pretty good benchmark for deciding whether a semi-realistic space movie is good or not. The whole premise of a sharp cloud of debris flying around the Earth's gravity at hundreds of miles per hour is a really effective and terrifying way to build tension and create a ticking clock for the plot. I think the movie is let down a little bit by the two characters, who are a little thin, but they have enough motivation and conflict that it doesn't bother me. I hope this isn't the last Cuaron film on the list because there are at least two more films in his directorial filmography that I would consider to be stronger than Gravity. 
#31: Anomalisa
Hey, we're having a good run as far as films I've seen. Anomalisa is a meditation on existence and society. With puppets. It's penned by one of my favourite screenwriters, Charlie Kaufman, who also co-directed the film, and it's incredibly clever, with some great performances and probably the best stop motion animation I've ever seen with the some of the most detailed and expressive animated characters to ever be put to film. It's five stars from me, and easily deserves its place on the list.
#30: Leviathan
#29: Nebraska
#28: The Tree of Life
#27: The Grand Budapest Hotel
WOO-HOO! I thought The Royal Tenenbaums' entry implied that this one had been knocked out of the running but I guess it did get in after all. This film boasts some fantastic characters (and the best performance I've ever seen from Ralph Fiennes) and a quirky visual style that's instantly recognisable and iconic. Great score, great screenplay, great film. It definitely deserves to be on this list.
#26: Yi Yi 
#25: Get Out
Get Out was one of the most impressive directorial debuts in recent times, if not forever. Jordan Peele somehow managed to suddenly jump from being a comedian to writing and directing one of the most interesting horror films of the decade. It's a very interesting film to really dig into, even if the themes can be a little in-your-face at times (his second feature Us, while definitely messier, is a bit more complex and subtle). I gave it four-and-a-half stars and I think it deserves its place on the list.
#24: Ida 
#23: Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan 
Thanks to Inglourious Basterds, I can now not spell 'glorious' correctly on my first try.
#22: Spirited Away
#21: The White Ribbon
#20: Roma
Nice! Very happy to see this make the list. I'm pretty sure it's writer/director/cinematographer/editor/producer Alfonso Cuarón's masterpiece and easily the best film of last year. It's a very personal, semi-autobiographical story with fantastic characters and great acting by a mostly amateur cast. The cinematography is absolutely stunning and the film can be incredibly calming, tense, heartwarming and heartbreaking at various different points, sometimes doing more than one at once. It's a slow-burn emotional rollercoaster that everyone needs to see. I doubt it's a film mainstream audiences would find especially entertaining but it is a masterpiece - five stars, easily.
#19: Lincoln
#18: A Serious Man
#17: The Great Beauty
#16: The Act of Killing
#15: Shoplifters
#14: White Material
#13: Far From Heaven
#12: Son of Saul
#11: Mulholland Drive
Phew, I'm glad this made it onto the list, I was getting worried there. Anyway, you don't need me to tell you that Mulholland Drive is an absolute masterwork that I would give more than five stars if I could. I came out of watching it in a daze, mulling over the complex enigma of a plot. This was Naomi Watts' breakout role and she is utterly brilliant in it, starring alongside Laura Harring, who's also a great actress. It's very much a part of David Lynch's canon as it explores the idea of a seemingly idyllic town having a dark, rotten side, a theme that can be seen in his other work, particularly Twin Peaks and Blue Velvet. Other than narrative, this theme is personified in two characters who are played by the same actress in the film. I'll leave it at that because spoilers (it helps to know nothing about a David Lynch film before going in, which is why the tagline for Inland Empire was simply 'a woman in trouble' and there were barely any trailers for Twin Peaks: The Return). 
#10: Team America: World Police 
#9: Zama
#8: Moonlight
#7: Synecdoche, New York
Another one of my favourites from the 21st Century. I think it's Charlie Kaufman's best film (he proved that he has more than just a talent for screenwriting in this, his directorial debut) and Philip Seymour Hoffman gives one of the best performances I've ever seen. It's not a very crowd-pleasing film; it's dark and moody, confusing at times, and makes you feel very, very alone. I think we can all recognise aspects of our own behaviour in the plight of Hoffman's character, Caden, especially if you're a creative type. I love Synecdoche and would give it five stars.
#6: Hidden
#5: In the Mood For Love
#4: Under the Skin
#3: Boyhood
#2: 12 Years a Slave
Should've put it at #12- okay, I'm done.
#1: There Will Be Blood

Overall, I think that was a pretty solid list. I'll admit that I have not seen the majority of the films on there (I'm working on it, okay?) but of the ones I have seen, everything seemed to be in the right place. aside from the crap Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. I would have switched the order up a bit (I really like Gravity but no way is it better than The Social Network, The Dark Knight, The Souvenir, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and the list goes on), but overall the choices were well-informed. Some notable exceptions that I would have personally included are Inglourious Basterds, Zodiac, Hero (a much better martial arts film than CT, HD), Children of Men (better than Gravity), Adaptation., Unbreakable, Fincher's The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Mad Max: Fury Road, Inside Llewyn Davis, Parasite (though I'll forgive that one because it hasn't been released in a lot of places yet), Django Unchained, Birdman, Whiplash, Three Billboards and Blade Runner 2049. It would have also been fun to see some Nightcrawler or Pan's Labyrinth action. 

Thanks for reading!

It: Chapter Two - A Messy But Entertaining Second Half

In retrospect, 2017’s It had genius marketing. Coming out at the perfect time to capitalise on both that weird creepy clown trend and the recent popularity of the first two seasons of Stranger Things (another horror ‘80s throwback), it quickly became the highest grossing R-rated horror film of all time. Part of this success was how singular it seemed. Although those who had read the novel were certainly aware that the film was only one half of Stephen King’s 1,138 page epic, the general public were fooled into thinking that the film was standalone and that any of the major characters could be slain by Pennywise (Bill Skarsgard) at any moment. It wasn’t until the closing title card that director Andy Muschietti played his winning card; the addition of a ‘Chapter One’ to those two letters. Despite the fact that R-rated horror films rarely do gangbusters at the box office, a sequel suddenly became inevitable and twenty-seven fiction and two real-life years later, we have one.

As mentioned, It: Chapter Two picks up twenty-seven years after the events of the first film. Nearly every member of the Loser’s Club has moved on from Derry and have had varying levels of success, including Bill (James McAvoy), Ben (Jay Ryan), Beverly (Jessica Chastain), Richie (Bill Hader) and Eddie (James Ransone). The only Loser who has remained in Derry is Mike (Isiah Mustafa) and he sets the story into motion when he observes a series of disappearances and realises that Pennywise has returned. Muschietti returns to helm the picture, along with the original child cast, who are seen in flashbacks.

The first thing you might think about the film leaving the cinema is about its length, which was easily the biggest talking point leading up to the movie’s release. At 170 minutes, it is much longer than your usual studio horror film. For comparison’s sake, the first It was considered pretty long at about 140 minutes. It is easy to argue that a combined 310-minute runtime is justified for such a long source material (after all, Peter Jackson’s three-film adaptation of Lord of the Rings ran to 682 minutes), but the way Chapter Two uses its runtime make it feel bloated. Very bloated. In simple terms, the film takes bloody ages to do anything. Don’t get me wrong, it’s entertaining throughout, but editor (sorry to name and shame) Jason Ballantine could have easily cut a good ten or twenty minutes off the film. Part of the reason it runs so long is its overreliance on flashbacks to the younger cast. As many viewers have been quick to point out, the whole point of splitting the story into two parts was so they didn’t have to overpopulate the adults’ story with flashbacks to the kids. But overpopulate it does, and the screenplay regularly drops in scenes (that could have easily slotted into the first), with all the grace of an elephant balancing on a pin. There’s even a whole location that was apparently important to the child Losers that wasn’t even alluded to in the first film. Note to screenwriters writing a two-part story; this isn’t how to do it.

On the bright side, many of the elements that worked in the first movie still work here. The adult Losers have striking resemblance to their child counterparts (particularly Ransone) and have the same chemistry with one another. The standout of the cast is Hader as Richie, who is a very effective comic relief character, getting pretty much all of the best lines, but is still given more depth than your usual comic relief character. In fact, after being fairly annoying in the first film, Richie gets some great development here and is now perhaps the deepest character in the film. On the other side of the emotional spectrum, Skarsgard is still doing great things with Pennywise, creating a terrifying screen presence by straddling the line between comical and creepy. On that line of thinking, the film also has some inventive scares that are a bit less predictable than the first’s. The scariest of these involves a countdown, and on that I shall say no more.

The film constructs a running gag about how Bill (who has become a novelist) never finds a satisfying way to end his works. This is set up from the very first scene with him and continues throughout most of the movie. This is most likely a playful swipe at Stephen King, who also seems to have trouble ending his novels (I should know, I’ve read quite a few of them). One of the most notorious of these ‘bad’ endings is the ending to the It novel. Without spoiling anything – reader, it involves a sentient cosmic turtle. Chapter Two follows the precedent that the 1990 It miniseries set in ditching that climax and trying to construct a better one. Just like the 1990 version, it fails spectacularly, in a resolution so goofy it makes the cosmic turtle seem like a David Lynch creation. If I wasn’t so committed to not spoiling the movie, I would be happy to describe it in all it’s ridiculous glory here. If you thought the climax of the 2017 film (in which the kids beat Pennywise up with baseball bats) was a bit silly, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Now that I’ve gotten that off my chest, It: Chapter Two is definitely a mixed bag of a film. It has pretty good performances (and a couple of great ones) and overall expands on the themes of its predecessor through some effective scares and character moments. However, it falls apart with a structure too overreliant on flashbacks to material that could and should have been covered in the first film. Add to that a ridiculous ending, and you’ve got a screenplay that probably needed another draft or two. That being said, it’s entertaining and engaging throughout and is an enjoyable watch with a couple of your cinephile mates (if only to turn to each other and point out the cameos, Easter eggs and references).

Score: ⭐⭐⭐1/2 (B)

My Journey in Movies For July 2019 + Blog Update

First off, an apology for not writing as much as I would have liked this month. The main problem was that I haven't seen any 2019 movies since Spider-Man: Far From Home, so I haven't had any reviews to write. Additionally, I've been working on a big, long post about Star Wars that has taken way longer than I thought it would. It has taken so long that I've decided to change the post into a more concise format. It is a bit of a shame but I would have been writing that post for the rest of my life if I hadn't. That post should be up at some point this month once I finish rewriting it. I've also changed the layout of this blog a bit (a bit = literally nothing is the same) to make it look a little more professional. The unfortunate side effect of this change was that certain elements of many previous posts have been reduced to a bunch of white lines in a manner similar to the opening credits of that crappy Godzilla movie from 2014. I have been working to fix this and from what I can ascertain I've succeeded - if there are any other posts that have been rendered illegible, please do not hesitate to tell me.  I've also introduced a new kind of post, the 'Short Subject' editorial, in which I write about a specific aspect of the film world in a way that can be read in one sitting. I premiered this idea the other day with an editorial on 'Why the Violence in Django Unchained is Brilliant', so please check that out if you haven't already. I've got more Short Subjects in the pipeline, so look out for those.

Now, onto the Journey. I've decided to stop copy-and-pasting my Letterboxd reviews as it felt a bit lazy. It also wreaks havoc with the new blog layout. From now on, I'll simply sum up my thoughts in a sentence or three.

Anomalisa (2015)
Directed by: Charlie Kaufman and Duke Johnson
Thoughts: Not as good as Adaptation or Synecdoche, New York, but still a deserving five star film with a lot to say about the human condition. The stop motion animation by Johnson is absolutely stunning and this is an easy recommend for me.
Score: 5/5





Being John Malkovich (1999)
Directed by: Spike Jonze
Thoughts: Still good, but a huge step down from all of the works from both Kaufman and Jonze I've seen. I found the characters quite irritating at points (with the exception of the main man Malkovich, playing himself) and the ethical dilemma of the film not well-explored at all. Easily the weakest film I've seen from both auteurs. That being said, I have to give it points for a fantastic premise and some spellbinding sequences.
Score: 3.5/5



Manhattan (1979)
Directed by: Woody Allen
Thoughts: Some fantastic dialogue and great cinematography. The premise is a little creepy given the current political landscape. It utilises the black-and-white very well and has some good performances. Ultimately, though, I wasn't especially invested in the characters, so this 4/5 is more of a technical score than anything else.
Score: 4/5




Zodiac (2007)
Directed by: David Fincher
Thoughts: A truly masterful crime thriller. This is my favourite of the three Fincher films that I've seen (the other two being The Social Network and Alien Cubed). It features excellent performances by Jake Gyllenhaal, Robert Downey, Jr. and Mark Ruffalo and some spectacular cinematography in which Fincher proves he is a true master at using CGI as an enhancement rather than the main feature. If you don't know what I'm talking about, I highly recommend this video essay on YouTube. It definitely helped my viewing experience that I knew next-to-nothing about the Zodiac killings going in, so the film was much more tense for me than it would be for other, more knowledgeable people. If you know nothing about the historical context, don't Google it, just watch the film. It'll make the experience much more rewarding.
Score: 5/5


Jackie Brown (1997)
Directed by: Quentin Tarantino
Thoughts: This is hugely underrated. It's not as fast moving or as violent as Tarantino's other work, which is probably what throws people off, but this is still a fantastic piece of cinema with Tarantino's trademark dialogue, some great performances and a standout scene in which the same heist is played a few different times, each from a different perspective. Admittedly, I would have cut off maybe ten minutes or so from the first act to keep things moving but that is only a blot on what is, for this film, a pretty spotless record.
Score: 4.5/5


Some Like it Hot (1959)
Directed by: Billy Wilder
Thoughts: Look, I really tried to like this one but I have to conclude that it really wasn't for me. I didn't find it all that funny (apart from a couple of hilarious gags, specifically some of the double entendres - which appealed to my dirty mindedness - and the classic line 'I'm a man!' 'Well, nobody's perfect', which was the funniest bit of the whole comedy) and the plot was filled with conveniences and character actions which kind of baffled me. I can appreciate its historic relevance (probably one of the first films to include cross-dressing over an extended period of time), but overall it was just too long and not as funny as it thinks it is.
Score: 3/5

Pan's Labyrinth (2006)
Directed by: Guillermo del Toro
Thoughts: The first of two foreign language films I watched this month is a spellbinding, dark fairy tale that manages to be both whimsical and tense over a well-paced runtime that never overstays its welcome. The scene with the Pale Man is, in one opinion, one of the scariest in cinema history, relying on pure suspense rather than jumpscares. There are several distinctive and memorable characters. The production design is probably among the best I've ever seen in a film. My only complaint is that I would have liked del Toro to try to connect the fantasy and real worlds a bit more. I understand that he was trying to make a contrast but it kind of feels like two great films rather than a single masterpiece.
Score: 4.5/5

Inside Llewyn Davis (2013)
Directed by: Joel and Ethan Coen
Thoughts: This might just be my new favourite Coen Brothers movie. It's difficult to put something above Fargo but this absolutely knocked it out of the park. The best thing about it (other than the writing) is Oscar Isaac's powerhouse performance as the titular character. Expect to see this on my 'best of decade' list at the end of the year (while we're on the subject, why has IndieWire already posted it's 100 Best Movies of the Decade? The decade's not even over yet! What if Cats is the best movie ever?!?).
Score: 5/5


Mulholland Drive (2001)
Directed by: David Lynch
Thoughts: Honestly, if I could give this six stars I would. I watched it almost a month ago and I still think about it every day, trying to unravel the mystery. It was a surreal, dream-like, totally transcendent film experience I will never forget. I loved every single minute of this, even the ones that didn't make sense (especially the ones that didn't make sense). Each time I think about it, each time I read someone else's interpretation, it climbs a little bit higher on my favourite films of all time list. It is scratching on the door of my top ten and I wouldn't be surprised if it kicked it down. This is maybe my second best first time watch of the year, and it could climb even higher than that.
Score: 5/5

Inglourious Basterds (2009)
Directed by: Quentin Tarantino
Thoughts: Yes, I realise how bad it looks that I gave out three five stars in a row, but come on. Llewyn Davis, Mulholland Drive and Inglourious Basterds? If you've ever had a better one-two-three punch of first-time watches, please tell me. Anyway, Basterds is a masterful piece of cinema from Tarantino, with great writing, cinematography, acting (particularly Brad Pitt and Christoph Waltz) and what might be my new favourite closing line of a movie. I'm struggling to decide whether I like it more than Django Unchained, but either way I loved it.
Score: 5/5


The Seventh Seal (1957)
Directed by: Ingmar Bergman
Thoughts: The last movie I watched in July. Like Some Like it Hot, this is another black-and-white film from the late-'50s that just didn't really click for me. I can appreciate a lot of Bergman's directing prowess and much of his clever dialogue, but the story and characters just didn't click for me. I thought the character of Death had a fantastic screen presence but overall I expected more from this supposed classic.
Score: 3/5



Ranking:
11. Some Like it Hot
10. The Seventh Seal
9. Being John Malkovich
8. Manhattan
7. Pan's Labyrinth
6. Jackie Brown
5. Anomalisa
4. Inside Llewyn Davis
3. Zodiac
2. Inglourious Basterds
1. Mulholland Drive

Short Subject: Why the Violence in Django Unchained is Brilliant

Short Subject - editorials on a random filmic subject, short enough for you to read in one sitting.

When Quentin Tarantino's seventh feature film Django Unchained was released in 2012, I have no doubt many members of the fun police protested the film's violence. They probably called it excessive, exploitative, sadistic, sickening, and many other negative, hyperbolic adjectives.
These people have missed the point completely.

The most violent scene (at least in terms of bloodiness) in Django is the shootout at Candieland where, without spoiling anything, Jamie Foxx goes on a bit of a rampage, doing a pitch-perfect impression of me whenever I play Red Dead Redemption 2 (I wish). I remember thinking that Tarantino must have used half of the fake blood population of the world as red fills the frame, splattering the walls and characters, the relatively small wound caused by a revolver's bullet exaggerated by about a thousand times.

On the surface, the easy explanation for the huge amounts of blood on-screen is that it simply adds to the dark-yet-slightly-campy tone where you are as much invited to laugh at the massacre as you are to wince.

But there's more to it than that.

For the first few decades of the twentieth century, America was treated to bloodless, safe, censor-appeasing Westerns such as High Noon, The Magnificent Seven and The Searchers. If the gun violence is exaggerated in Django, it is understated in these films. This is not a reflection of those films' quality, it's just how it is.

Or, rather, was, as the late Fifties and Sixties brought in a new kind of adventure in the Wild West: the spaghetti western, the slightly racist-titled Westerns made in Italy, starring Italians with their voices dubbed over with English, plus the odd American star, like Clint Eastwood. Although they shared a genre with the American multiplex Westerns, the spaghetti variants were a different beast; darker, with more morally ambiguous characters, and much bloodier.

The fun police are right about one thing; the violence in the Candieland shootout does make you a little uncomfortable. You're simply not used to seeing this much blood on screen. And that is completely intentional.

I can only imagine what American audiences used to Stagecoach thought of For a Few Dollars More or The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Tarantino's favourite film of all time) when they first saw them. They were probably horrified by the amount of blood and violence. The reaction was probably the same as it was for modern audiences seeing Django Unchained.

With Django, Tarantino set out to replicate the feeling of watching a spaghetti western back in the day. Part of that was replicating the way American audiences must have felt about them at the time. Current audiences wouldn't be shocked by the level of violence in '60s spaghetti westerns, so Tarantino had to up the ante. Basically what I'm saying is that we had become acclimatised to the level of blood in old westerns and so Tarantino had to dial it up to eleven to recreate that feeling. It may seem completely ridiculous and exploitative, but there's a point to it.

And that's why the violence in Django Unchained is brilliant.

Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019) REVIEW

Spider-Man: Far From Home is the latest instalment of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, directed by Jon Watts (who also directed 2017's Spider-Man: Homecoming). It catches up with Tom Holland's Peter Parker, AKA Spider-Man, as he prepares to go on a school vacation after helping to save the universe in Avengers: Endgame. However, his holiday plans are thrown for a loop when elemental monsters the size of buildings begin to show up around Europe, alongside enigmatic new hero Mysterio (Jake Gyllenhaal).

I would like to start by saying that I don't envy Far From Home. It has the sorry job of following up both April's three-hour epic Avengers: Endgame and last year's spectacular, Oscar-winning animated film Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse. It has to not only measure up to the expectations left by one of the best Marvel Cinematic Universe films, but also to the ones left by one of the best Spider-Man films. It doesn't fully succeed at either, but it is definitely an entertaining film.

Jon Watts was widely criticised for his bland direction in Homecoming, and it feels like he's made a conscious effort to be more interesting here. In certain scenes, he uses a handheld camera rather than the usual Marvel Steadicam, and there is one (already well-praised) sequence relatively late in the game that is one of the most visually inventive I've seen all year, with a hint of the psychedelic visuals of 2016's Doctor Strange. I can't go much further into it without spoiling a major plot twist, but let's just say that you'll enjoy it if you enjoy creative film moments. Watts has still got a long way to go before he can match the directorial flair of some of his fellow Marvel directors such as Taika Waititi (and even longer before anyone could class him as having a distinctive style), but I appreciate the added effort on his part.

All of the performances are pretty good. Holland is as likeable as he usually is, Samuel L. Jackson (reprising his role as Nick Fury) has a lot of screen presence and all of the other bit players get at least a couple of good comedic moments, particularly actor/director Jon Favreau (who appears in a relatively larger role than he has in the MCU's past as former Iron Man supporting character Happy Hogan) and Jacob Batalon as Ned Leeds, Peter's best friend. However, the standout is, as expected, Jake Gyllenhaal. He is one of the most talented actors of this generation and he is perfect for his role as Mysterio. Whenever's he's on screen, the film is always entertaining. Unfortunately, he is largely absent from the first half of the film.

The screenplay and editing really let this film down. The first act is weirdly fast-paced for no discernible reason other than to disguise the fact that not much is happening. I could basically sum up the first half in a sentence and it wouldn't even be a spoiler because it's all covered in about a minute in the trailers. Basically, Peter and friends go to Europe and although it doesn't take that long, a lot of time is still wasted. Other than a pre-credits sting, Mysterio doesn't show up until approximately half an hour into the movie, the first half-an-hour being taken up with high school comedy stuff. While Homecoming did an excellent job at seeding in superhero stuff among the comedy stuff, Far From Home appears to feel the need to carve out large portions of the film for each section, resulting in a narrative that does not flow well at all. Once the plot does kick in, though, we're 'treated' to several numbing, weightless action scenes that are not helped by the fact that you've probably already guessed the twist, which seems to think that it's a lot less obvious than it is and therefore takes ages to show up. The editing really doesn't help as the scene transitions feel a lot choppier than you'd expect from a $150 million blockbuster. On the bright side, the movie really picks up from the twist onwards and the rest of the film is funny, exciting and inventive.

I just really wish the whole film had been like that, because, while Far From Home is certainly a fun, engaging time at the cinema, it never quite reached it's full potential. A good comparison point is 2013's Iron Man 3. When faced with following up The Avengers (2012), Shane Black decided to deal with the way the events of the previous film changed both the world and its characters, which resulted in what is probably my favourite MCU film (a bit controversial, I'll admit). Far From Home attempts this, but while IM3 was a tightly plotted thriller with well-written dialogue, this falls apart in the writing. However, it is definitely helped along by entertaining performances and a good third act. Unfortunately, to dig into my specific positives and negatives on this film, I'd have to go into spoilers, so let's just say that while this is by no means a perfect film, it is an entertaining if slightly disappointing follow-up to Endgame.

Score: ⭐⭐⭐1/2

My Journey in Movies For June 2019

Due to a combination of the Sydney Film Festival, lots of new cinema releases, and just being generally busy, I didn't watch anywhere near as many films this month. But that's not to say I didn't watch any. The early stages of the month were mostly taken up with classic films (classic here being defined as pre-1970), from Hitchcock to Leone. After that, I watched some grittier, more modern releases, before concluding with a couple of light comedies. I managed to not give out a single negative score this month (apart from one new release), so I guess that's a win...?

Vertigo (1958)
Watched On: Blu-Ray
Score: ⭐⭐⭐1/2
Avg. Letterboxd Rating: 4.2/5
Avg. iMDB Rating: 8.3/10
My Review: It pains me to give a Hitchcock film anything lower than 4.5 stars, but this one just isn’t up to scratch with Rear Window or Psycho or even The Birds. It definitely has a very intriguing, well-shot storyline for the first hour or so, with great performances from both of the leads, reaching a crescendo with possibly the best dream sequence in the history of cinema. And then it keeps going, stripping away every strip of likeability that our protagonist had and ultimately not contributing much at all. It ends with a scene that feels more Hitchcockian than any of the unnecessary hour leading up to it, one that brings to mind the climax of Rear Window, but that scene culminates in an ending that is so abrupt and unsatisfying it is almost comical. Overall, Vertigo is a great half a movie.


For A Few Dollars More (1965)
Watched On: Stan Australia
Score: ⭐⭐⭐⭐1/2
Avg. Letterboxd Rating: 4.1/5
Avg. iMDB Rating: 8.3/10
My Review: Actually better than A Fistful of Dollars. Sergio Leone’s great camerawork is complemented with a more complex story with better characters and even more action. Clint Eastwood’s Man With No Name is badass as always, but it’s Lee Van Cleef who really steals the show here, his elegance contrasting perfectly with Eastwood’s grittiness, with a believable backstory and motivations to boot. The film also has a great villain, who is menacing throughout and is explored as the story progresses. Not many Westerns would take the time to develop their villains, but this one does. The soundtrack is fantastic, and feels much more thematically appropriate than in Fistful. There were a couple of scenes where diegetic sound was important to the plot but the score drowned it out, but it’s still a great score. At 132 minutes as opposed to 99, it loses some of Fistful’s breeziness, but there is not a moment wasted and the constant action ensures that it never drags. The action is perfectly edited and choreographed much better than was the industry standard at the time. This is the deeper, darker second entry, and further carves out the space for the Dollars Trilogy to become one of my favourite trilogies of all time. Bring on The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.


Sherlock, Jr. (1924)
Watched On: YouTube
Score: ⭐⭐⭐⭐
Avg. Letterboxd Rating: 4.3/5
Avg. iMDB Rating: 8.2/10
My Review: Quietly amusing and quirky. It boasts some fantastic special effects for the time and contains one of the greatest dream sequences ever in film (which I also said earlier this month when reviewing Vertigo). It’s compelling, light viewing that doesn’t require too much thinking but is certainly entertaining and funny. Buster Keaton is fantastic and it’s amazing how much can be communicated without conventional dialogue. A high four from me. I’d definitely recommend it to people who want to go back to the early days of cinema.






The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966)
Watched On: Stan Australia
Score: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Avg. Letterboxd Rating: 4.4/5
Avg. iMDB Rating: 8.8/10
My Review: It’s now no surprise to me that Sergio Leone’s The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is considered one of the greatest films ever made. The epic conclusion to Leone’s Dollars Trilogy (that is as standalone as the other two installments), it frames an epic journey to $200,000 buried in a grave against a backdrop of the American Civil War. It is part-western, part-war film, and does each side justice with some of the best cinematography I’ve ever seen complimented by extraordinary editing and a relentlessly hummable score. While Clint Eastwood’s Blondie is still as stoic and badass as he was in the previous two films, he’s given new depth by his setting. In the third act, his act of kindness towards a dying army captain solidified his place as a hero rather than a antihero. He makes up the ‘Good’ part of the title, and is joined by Lee Van Cleef as the ‘Bad’, a more villainous rendition of the character he played in For a Few Dollars More, and Tuco (the ‘Ugly’), whose hyper-excitedness is a good counterpoint for Eastwood’s man of few words. It’s the interactions between these three that give the film much of it’s sense of humour, which is often perfectly realised by the editing. 
The war steadily grows in the background until it is inescapable and the characters have to cross battlegrounds to get to the grave. There is very much an anti-war sentiment here (the film looks down on both sides rather than framing one as heroic) and it blends surprisingly well with the western aspects. In a way, the soldiers are similar to the titular gunslingers, pettily duelling over a few small bits of land, or a few small bags of coins. 
And duel they do, climaxing in a three-way gunfight that is perhaps the most brilliantly edited and scored scene of the entire film.
The ending is very satisfying, and as the last man standing rides into the mid-afternoon sun, you know only one thing: you’ve just witnessed a true masterpiece.

Snowpiercer (2013)

Watched On: Stan Australia

Score: ⭐⭐⭐⭐1/2

Avg. Letterboxd Rating: 3.6/5

Avg. iMDB Rating: 7.1/10

My Review: Great direction, great performances, really cool world building. Actually decently funny for such dark plot points. I really enjoyed it’s use of slow motion, which emphasises every breath, step and blow. Some of the action scenes were a little chaotic - not hard-to-follow, per se, but the camerawork was very shaky - and some of the editing was a bit choppy, but none of those things really bothered me that much. This is an excellent modern sci-fi film with fantastic visuals, and is certainly an underrated gem.

Dirty Harry (1971)

Watched On: Netflix AU

Score: ⭐⭐⭐⭐

Avg. Letterboxd Rating: 3.8/5

Avg. iMDB Rating: 7.8/10

My Review: Dirty Harry is a classic crime film that still holds up brilliantly today. This is partly due to how many films appear to have taken inspiration from it since then (I noticed similarities to movies such as Speed and Die Hard With a Vengeance). Clint Eastwood is great as always as the titular character while all of the supporting cast also deliver good performances, particularly Andy Robinson as the psychotic ‘Scorpio’ killer. The film is fantastically edgy and definitely is a product of it’s time, as a story that could almost exclusively be told in the fallout of Vietnam. The screenplay is immensely quotable (‘Do I feel lucky? Well, do you, punk?’) and the cinematography is actually above average, which I wasn’t expecting. There are a couple of examples of nice composition, and there’s a brilliant shot at the end of the stadium scene. The action scenes are all entertaining and easy-to-follow, right through to the film’s brilliantly bittersweet ending. If I had some gripes with the film, they’d be related to the lighting (some scenes are way too dark). I’d have also liked to see some of the supporting characters get further fleshed out. Those are only minor things, though; this was really good.

Hero (2002)

Watched On: DVD

Score: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Avg. Letterboxd Rating: 3.8/5

Avg. iMDB Rating: 7.9/10

My Review: Hero, a 2002 Hong Kongian martial arts film, takes inspiration from Akira Kurosawa’s Rashomon to craft one of, if not the, most beautiful films I’ve ever seen. In fact, I’d go so far to say that this is the superior film between the two. Each portion of the film is distinguished by a different colour, from red to blue to green and more. This is visually striking by itself but is made even more stunning by the brilliant cinematography. I could praise the visuals of this film for days but I don’t want to make it seem like this is style over substance. There is a real story here, about love, unity, and the power of mind and words over violence. All of the performances are great and the story structure is perfect. All of the action scenes are fantastic - standouts included the black-and-white fight between Jet Li and Donnie Yen in their minds, and a bit where Li and Maggie Cheung fend off against a bunch of arrows using a sword and, in Cheung’s case, cloth. Some of the scenes also use slow motion to visceral effect. 

Hero is both effortlessly cool and staggeringly beautiful, and we really can only thank Quentin Tarantino for bringing this masterpiece to English audiences.

Groundhog Day (1993)
Watched On: DVD
Score: ⭐⭐⭐⭐
Avg. Letterboxd Rating: 3.9/5
Avg. iMDB Rating: 8.0/10
My Review: Groundhog Day is a funny and touching romantic comedy featuring a great performance from Bill Murray. If I could change one thing about it, I might use editing to tighten some of the repeated scenes so that it becomes less repetitive. Still, this was pretty good.

Groundhog Day is a funny and touching romantic comedy featuring a great performance from Bill Murray. If I could change one thing about it, I might use editing to tighten some of the repeated scenes so that it becomes less repetitive. Still, this was pretty good. Groundhog Day is a funny and touching romantic comedy featuring a great performance from Bill Murray. If I could change one thing about it, I might use editing to tighten some of the repeated scenes so that it becomes less repetitive. Speaking of repetitive, I feel like I’ve written this before. Groundhog Day is a funny and touching romantic comedy featuring a great performance from Bill Murray. If I could change one thing about it, I might use editing to tighten some of the repeated scenes so that it becomes less repetitive. I’m starting to identify with the existential horror story of being stuck in the same day over and over, unable to make your mark on the world until, inexplicably, you do. Groundhog Day is a funny and touching romantic comedy featuring a great performance from Bill Murray, who I should start taking the advice of. Maybe I should repeatedly kill myself. Hold on, I’ll go and get the DVD of Jurassic Park III.  Groundhog Day is a funny and touching romantic comedy featuring a great performance from Bill Murray. Killing myself with a talking raptor didn’t work, so I guess I’ll just be nice to everyone instead. Joe Johnston, all is forgiven! Hey, I’ve made it past 6 am! Hey Joe, your movie’s shit!

The Upside (2019)
Watched On: Amazon Prime
Score: ⭐⭐⭐
Avg. Letterboxd Rating: 3.2/5
Avg. iMDB Rating: 6.8/10
My Review: The Upside was a charming, completely inoffensive film. Kevin Hart was okay but Bryan Cranston was fantastic in his role as a quadriplegic. Nicole Kidman, meanwhile, sounded like she was struggling to suppress her accent. Some of the cinematography was nice and the film had a good message, but the script was definitely very cliche. After about a minute, you’ll probably be able to predict every succeeding plot point. What you might not be able to predict are the jarring diversions into Hart-brand comedy, including a scene involving a shower, which add comic relief that wasn’t really necessary. It would be nice if they had just let the film stand on it’s own without feeling the need to add in comedy, because the over-the-top shenanigans  of Hart’s character on his own feel a world away from the gentle humour that his chemistry with Cranston brings to the film. 
Overall, I’d say that the film is good. However, just like how Cranston’s character gives Hart specific orders not to go to any extraordinary measures to revive him, I wouldn’t recommend going to any extraordinary measures to watch this film.

Ranking For the Month:
9. The Upside
8. Vertigo
7. Groundhog Day
6. Sherlock Jr.
5. Dirty Harry
4. Snowpiercer
3. For a Few Dollars More
2. Hero
1. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly