Black Panther Best Picture?!

The Oscar nominations have been released and The Favorite and Roma lead the race by a total of 10 Oscar nominations each, both nominated for Best Picture specifically. Every year, the Oscar nominations have always bothered me and others as well. The Oscar's usually nominate the quote end quote "Oscar" type film. Think about the Theory of Everything, a film which was fine, but nothing really noteworthy. Or even Boyhood, while not really winning much of what it was nominated for, it did get a lot of nominations for a somewhat average film (in my opinion). But, the Oscars have usually been focused on a very particular set of films. You really hardly ever see any Marvel or Star Wars film get nominated for something like best picture--till now. With Black Panther being nominated for best picture, it really calls into question why did a summer blockbuster film get such a high level of praise in the Oscars.

Black Panther was a fine film. Not the best superhero film ever made, not even the best superhero film of 2018 (Infinity War was much better). The story was really average, it was basically the first Iron Man told again but in a different setting. The cinematography was average, and at times pretty bland (the lighting in particular in some action scenes was far too dim). A lot of just shot-reverse-shots and we barely see any of the Wakandan city in any grande way outside of the first time we enter into it. There are some good elements of Black Panther, however. The portion with Killmongerer, portrayed by Michael B Jordan, was really interesting and well made. I was pretty invested for those 30-40 minutes. That is aided by the really good soundtrack and acting. The soundtrack is probably some of the best in the MCU; it was not cliche or anything like that, it was pretty original for a summer blockbuster film. The acting by Michael B. Jordon was pretty great and I really liked his character a lot. However, past that 30-40 minutes, the rest of the film is pretty bad. The CGI was awful for a 2018 MCU film, and the end battle was pretty boring and bland. Overall, a 6/10 film.

So what gives? Why did this get nominated for best picture? Well, with the mentioning of a most popular film category in the Oscar category, I think the Oscar's are trying to appeal to the mainstream. Black Panther did get the most amount of publicity, both critically and from the audiences. It was also a very diverse film; which I do say that Black Panther did deserve publicity for that aspect since it was really an almost all-star diverse group of actors. Added all up, it can be clear that Black Panther was nominated for two reasons: to make a statement and for the other upcoming Oscar category.

The Oscars did want to make a statement. It wanted to say that we are not just some hippy, old white guys sitting in a room nominating weird films that no one has heard of; we are with the mainstream and we like these action-packed films as well. Some will say that it chose Black Panther because it is a diverse film, and while that could be the case, I think they picked Black Panther to appeal more to the mainstream.

Lastly, that upcoming most popular film category is clearly coming its way and nominating Black Panther might have been the Oscars way to curtail the outrage that will come by many film enthusiasts in the next year or two (whenever it comes out I don't know). I mean think about it, no one was really happy with the popular film category which was revealed last year. Everyone thought it would be a stupid decision; a decision to appease to the masses and that's about it. But, with nominating Black Panther, it kind of shows the direction the Oscars will be taken in the upcoming years; at least, with including common summer blockbusters essentially in the Oscars.

Maybe the Oscars people really liked Black Panther; maybe it really did win their hearts over films like First Reformed, Eighth Grade, or Suspiria. But really, I think that the Oscars want to be more mainstream and get in with the more popular films around. It wants to draw in the large mainstream audience; I mean, why else would the Oscars make a popular film category in the upcoming years? It is clear that they want to take out that idea of the Oscars being old white men film club, and show that it is a film club for all audiences, and nominating Black Panther was probably its first step towards that.

Netflix’s IO is BORINGGGGGG

I love a good slow-paced Sci-fi film. I love 2001: A Space Odyssey. I really liked Moon and it’s slow building character story. I even liked Prometheus for its great visuals and interesting concepts. However, there comes a fine line between being slow and interesting, and being just plain boring. Netflix’s IO is the later; a film that moves way too slowly, has no interesting characters, and by the time it gets to the actual meat of the plot, it is just too late for the audience to care.

The story in IO is about a young scientist named Sam, played by Margaret Qualley, who tries to save a dying Earth. Most of the people on Earth when to a near-by space station by Jupiter's moon IO. One day on her stay on earth, Micah, played by Anthony Mackie, shows up to talk to Sam's father. Without trying to spoil much, this is the synopsis of the boring film IO.

To give credit where credit is due, this film did try. It did try to make a more emotional and character focused Sci-fi post-apocalyptic film. See, that’s fine if the characters were interesting. I mean look at Moon, a film focused entirely on one character. Sam Rockwell's character and his interaction with the robot and seeing his emotions as the plot unfolds is pretty entertaining and fun to watch. The plot moves in a fast pace, and Rockwell's character is pretty interesting. In IO on the other hand, it tries to do the same set up, but without great acting, an interesting plot, or good characters.

Let us start with the acting. The acting in this film is fine; it really goes from passable to decent. Margaret Qualley's performance is fine. I feel like she's actually a pretty good actress, but in this film I feel like she really is not giving it her all. She does not really show that much range of emotions, and even when she does at some points, it just does not seem natural. Anthony Mackie's performance is also just fine. Again, I feel not much effort was put into his performance either. These are by no means bad actors, just one's who might not have cared that much for the project.

Another major issue with this film is the plot; or the lack thereof. The film really does not go anywhere for most of its runtime. It feels like a 2 hour film, even though it's only an hour and a half. Nothing happens till an hour and 10 minutes into the film, and by that time you really do not care at all. There is even a countdown for these characters to go do something (no spoilers), and honestly the film could have completely forgotten about the countdown and thrown that element out the window and it would have had no change to the plot at all. The characters just sit around do nothing for most of the time, till close to the last 20 minutes of the film.

The biggest sin of this film is making us focus on characters that we simply do not care about. If you'r not going to have much of a plot, then making the characters engaging is probably the most important thing for you to do; and yet, these characters are so boring. I did not care about any of their past traumas, nor did I care about their relationship. Maybe that is due to the fact that much of the character stuff is pretty predictable; I mean, I, probably along with most people, already knew that this film was going to force a dumb romance part with the two leads. Which is fine, but the way they go about it is so cliche and dumb. They just sit around, talking about their past and the world and IO, and because they're by themselves, they end up falling in love. Yawn. It does not feel like an earned romance, it feel like it was forced in because most movies need a romance element to it. It is pretty much like in the first two Thor films, and the relationship between Thor and Natalie Portman's character... yeah if you totally forgot about that that's fine, because just as forgettable and un-interesting they were in those films, these two characters in IO are just as forgettable and un-interesting. Except, with no action, no great visuals, or story to keep us interested.

Overall, it was a movie. It was an hour and a half long, an hour too long in my opinion, and it was just a movie. It was not bad, it was no Bird Box, but it was just so boring with the visuals and the plot and the characters. Really, don't watch this film. If you want people stuck somewhere in the future, go watch Moon instead. But just don't waste your time with this film.

Score: Boring/10 (Please subsribe to my Blog on the top right side. Put in your email to get notified whenever a new blog is posted. Also go follow me on LetterBoxd to see all my film lists and reviews: https://boomovies1.blogspot.com/?m=1)

Amazon's Homecoming is a Uniquely Told Story, That Falters a Bit By The End

Director and writer Sam Esmeil has really made his mark on the television industry with his show Mr. Robot. A show that has received great critical response, all praising its unique storytelling, its dark and complex characters, and its unique visual style. With his new show, Sam Esmeil wants to prove that Mr. Robot is not his only accomplishment; that he still has great ideas and is a unique director. In seeing this new show, I can safely say that Esmeil is not a one-hit wonder; this show clearly shows that he has a lot of talent, great ideas, and even with some mishaps, is a creative television show director that has convinced me to start watching Mr. Robot (lol).

In Homecoming, Julia Roberts' character Heidi Bergman, is one of the heads of Homecoming, a facility that treats and helps soldiers transition back into civilization. Slowly throughout the 10 episodes, you realize that something is off about the Homecoming facility. This is shown very much so when detective Thomas Carrasco, played by Shea Whigham, investigates what's going on with the Homecoming facility. While it is a story that we have seen before, it is an entertaining show to watch with a unique way of telling it. The story and the mystery slowly starts to unfold, with a good amount of twists and turns to keep the audience occupied. Also accompanied with great performances by Julia Roberts, Shea Whigham, and Bobby Cannavale, Homecoming has a lot of good things going for it.

Probably the most unique aspect of the show is that of its visual style. A lot of use of long-takes, with the camera going from different rooms and levels of the facility, it is all pretty impressive. Even simple aspects of the visuals, like the way the camera faces characters in a shot-reverse-shot is always so interesting and unique. The way the camera will zoom in on certain characters or moments is very creepy and reminds me a lot of some of Kubrick's works. Every frame and camera placement of this show is handled phenomenally. The lighting in this show is also very well done. A lot of times, television shows tend to have bad lighting. A lot of shows tend to overlook this important detail when it comes to the visuals; most just light the show like a regular sitcom, even when the story of the show depends for something far different. Homecoming understood the dark story that it needed to portray, and thus had lighting that fit that dark storytelling. The show is visually darker than a lot of shows. The show looks as if the lighting was natural, coming from the environment a lot of times rather than from behind the scenes. Rather than having the entire character's face lit at all times, there are many times when there are clear shadows on the characters faces, adding a darker look to play with the dark theme of the show. There is just a lot of attention to detail in this show when it comes to the visual aspects.

Another unique aspect of this show is the music. One of the few times where I actually remembered the music in a show. It was so dark and mysterious, and it really made you feel uneasy throughout the entire season. It was like I was watching a horror film a lot of the times; and while this show does deal with dark themes, it is not a horror film so to have such a weird and creepy soundtrack really added a lot to the atmosphere and my overall appreciation for the show.

However, the show is not perfect. My main issue with the show is probably the story. I do not mind that this is something we have seen before, because there are a lot of twists and turns that do change things up a bit and make this show stand out. However, the script, while interesting and mysterious at first, dies down towards the end. Specifically, the last 2-3 episodes is when the show tends to go downhill a bit for me. Throughout the show, the mystery of the Homecoming facility is very intriguing; you want to know what is going on with the facility and why the detective is investigation the aftermath of the facility. However, once the mystery goes away and it is revealed what exactly going on, the remaining 2-3 episodes are sort of bland and uninteresting. All the suspense is gone, which is fine if we had something interesting to keep us going; however, we simply don't. By the end, we are left with some character interaction and thematic elements to keep the show going. By that point the thematic element has already hit you over the head numerous of times, and some of the character things end up not being that interesting either. Towards the end of the season, the show is still wrapping up some loose ends with some of the characters, and it is doing it in a way as if we don't know whats going on. But by that point, we already know what is going to happen; so instead of waiting to see what will happen, we are waiting to see when things will happen. The first couple of episodes really did hook me, the middle portion was taking long to get to where it was going, but the atmosphere and the mystery kept me hooked, but the last 3rd of the show was just pretty underwhelming as it took too long to wrap things up and explain stuff that we already knew before.

Overall, Homecoming is a very interesting show. I really would recommend you all to watch it; specifically, to see the great cinematography and to listen to the great atmospheric music and to be immersed in the mystery of the Homecoming facility. The show is gripping and mysterious, with a few mishaps and not-so-great dialogue throughout, but it really is, for me at least, the last 3rd of the show that brought it down a few points for me. But overall, a show I would recommend and if they make a season 2, I will definitely watch it.

Score: 7/10

Paul Thomas Anderson's The Master: Finding Happiness

In the search for happiness and contentment, we usually have people telling us and guiding us in a specific direction that they perceive to be the key to achieving happiness. We take some and leave some, and no matter what advice one gives us our way of seeking a form of happiness is in our own specific way. People can guide you all they want, but if it does not conform to your mindset, you will not be happy. In all of Paul Thomas Anderson's works, we see characters trying to achieve happiness in ways that we as the audience might not comprehend or might not agree with. They take measures that, in our own view, might lead one to sadness and displeasure; yet, by the end of some of his films, the characters are happy or at least reached a level of contentment in life. In order to understand this, we will be looking at three of Paul Thomas Anderson's films--The Master, There Will Be Blood, and, Phantom Thread--and see how the main characters in those films find their own form of happiness through their somewhat absurd ways. These will be divided into three parts, each focusing on how each character in each film showcases characters trying to find happiness. In this, we will first focus on The Master.

When we see Joaquin Phoenix's character Freddie Quell at the start of the film, we clearly see a disturbed and broken man. One who seeks sexual pleasure from a figure of a woman he made in the beach. One who when asked about his mental state from a military officer, gets angry and the questionnaire. Freddie is suffering from PTSD from the war and is dealing with the absence of a loved one, Dorris, and these clearly have taken a toll on him. He is not a content and happy man; he is lost in a sea of chaos and confusion; that is until he meets the Master and the Cause.

Upon meeting the Master and the people in the Cause, Freddie is skeptical at first. He sees the way the Master psychoanalyzes people; claiming to have the cure to any form of mental and physical disease and ailment. Freddie does doubt this. However, Freddie coming into the cause is because he is in search of something; whether he knows it or not, he is in search of happiness and to find some meaning in his life after losing Dorris after the war. While Freddie shares many common likes with the Master, that being their love for woman and booze, Freddie needs more than just that; he needs a way to break from his mental pattern of sadness and discontentment. While hesitant at first, Freddie decides to go through a processing therapeutic moment with the Master.

The Master wants Freddie to relieve himself of the suffering and burden he has gone through. He makes him go through this form of processing in order to alleviate him of his past life, to be reborn once again. This processing done by the Master parallels the questioning Freddie goes through in the start of the film with the military officer; however, Freddie's response to both is vastly different. When being asked relatively the same questions at the start of the film with the military officer, we saw the Freddie was acting very antagonistic towards him. Freddie was not willing to talk to, who he thinks is, a low-life officer about his mental problems. With the processing done by the Master however, we see that while Freddie might not have wanted to provide answers at first, slowly through the processing, Freddie’s inner-self opens up and he begins to open up to the Master. We see him tear up and we see the barrier he has had towards other people breaking away. This is the first time in the film that we actually get a flashback to a part of Freddie’s previous life; we see a part of his relationship with Dorris and how much he deeply and truly loved her. It was the last time he was truly happy, when he had someone.  Through this opening to his past, it has not only opened up the audience to Freddie, but also opened up Freddie to his journey in finding happiness.

Throughout the film, once a member of the Cause, Freddie follows and obeys almost everything the Master and the Cause says. We see that Freddie is completely determined to stick with and defend the Cause and the Master whenever he can. This defense is less so due to a sort-of theological or logical one, but rather, through an emotional attachment to something. In one incident, when someone questions the Master’s therapeutic techniques, Freddie does not attack back with logic or theology; but rather, by throwing a fruit at him. In another incident, when a family member of the Master’s states that the Master is just making up everything, Freddie physically attacks him. These forms of angry outbursts are the same way Freddie responds whenever Dorris is mentioned. In one part of the film, when Freddie is probed by the Master and from one of his followers, we see the same angry reaction when Dorris is mentioned as when any critique of the Master is mentioned. In the probing scene, the Master tells Freddie that he has to listen to what one of the followers say to Freddie and that Freddie cannot reply or look away. As soon as the follower mentions Dorris, Freddie was ready to attack the man. Throughout the film, whenever Dorris is mentioned, Freddie clearly has an emotional reaction to it. Why does Freddie respond the same way when one criticizes the Master and the Cause as when one mentions Dorris? The reason is because Freddie’s loss of happiness came from his loss of ownership and companionship over Dorris.

This sense of ownership is what the Cause gave Freddie; a feeling that he lost when he went to the war. Freddie was happy when he had someone in his life; he was happy when he felt that he had an ownership to someone/something. This is not a bad ownership; rather, it is one that we all have in a relationship. One says that, for example, this girl is my girlfriend. It is something that one has in their mind; and that girlfriend has that boy as her boyfriend. It is a relationship through a form of ownership. Freddie was happy when he had that sense of ownership, he was happy when he had someone to turn to who understood him. However, that was all destroyed when he went to the war. He lost the one thing he had; thus losing any form of happiness that he also had. However, it was in finding the Cause, that, in Freddie’s mind, is that thing that can replace, in a sense, the feeling of the loss of Dorris. He is shifting his lack of ownership and connectivity to Dorris, with the ownership and connection with the Master and the Cause.

However, Freddie does not stay in the Cause for too long. Freddie’s journey in the Cause was not a permanent solution to his sadness, it was rather a large stepping stone in coming out of the miserable rut that he was in. He was able to combat the lost of his loved one and the PTSD from the war; while he will forever have trauma from these, he was able to combat it to a much greater degree than before. The Cause is like a one hour therapy session; in that one hour, that relief of talking about what is bothering you and getting advice in how to deal with it, is, even in the sadness, an extremely happy feeling. You feel that no only that someone understands you, but that you are worth something. That was the Master and the Cause for Freddie. The Cause gave him the ability to move on from the past, combat it, and find his own happiness. However, an hour long therapy session is only one hour, and for Freddie, the cause was not a permanent solution. Of course, maybe Freddie found that the Cause was all fake, or that he was not happy anymore in there; but the Cause gave him the tools to find happiness and combat the barrier of sadness that was over him. When Freddie chooses to leave the Cause and go on his own, he is where he is most happy. Even though at the start of the film Freddie was not happy out in the open, with the knowledge and tools he received from the Cause, he is actually much happier now. Just like in a therapy session, once you leave, you are thrown back in the same environment you were in, but just in a better place.

We see that Freddie’s search for happiness was through finding something to help him deal with the loss of Dorris. While clearly the effects of the war are lingering on him, I believe that it was the loss of Dorris, not being able to attain her, was the straw that broke the camel's back. When finding the Master and the Cause, Freddie found something to replace that and help him cope and move away from Dorris. The Master, even though his methods might not be scientifically sound, was a way for Freddie to open the door for searching for happiness; it was a way for him to at least move past that which was holding him back. Even though Freddie started out in the same place where he started, he is far happier now than in the position he was before. Freddie cannot stay in a long-term relationship, he cannot stay in the Cause forever. Freddie is a sailor, he moves where the wind takes him. However, it was through the Cause, that he was able to take out the anchor that was holding him back. Freddie is happier not landing on an island, but rather, flowing through the sea.

Why The Sopranos was/is so amazing

Twenty years ago today, The Sopranos was introduced to the world. It caught people and critics by storm; a show that was just so different and unique from everything else that was made and put out at the time. It was much darker than most shows at the time, with deep and complex characters, with movie-like quality filmmaking and storylines. It was ahead of its times for sure and it truly did influence a lot of the ways that television shows are made today. However, even after twenty years, The Sopranos is still one of the greatest shows ever made. On the twenty-year anniversary, I would like to show you why The Sopranos was, and still is, amazing today; and why everyone should go out and watch it.

The Story and Characters

One of the reasons why The Sopranos is so amazing is because of the story and the characters that inhabit this story. In many cases, a show or film about a mobster focuses on the crimes and the violence being done on people. We see that these mobsters are evil and vicious, and thus we have no sympathy or remorse for them. The Sopranos takes a different approach in telling a mob story. It focuses less on the violence and portraying these characters as pure evil, and focuses on trying to make you sympathetic towards them. The show actually focuses a lot on the inner conflicts and drama that these characters face on a daily basis. Much of the show deals with mental health issues, addiction, betrayal, and finding one's identity. Even when some of these characters do awful things, these awful acts are then juxtaposed with the characters grief or remorse for committing these acts of crime. For instance, one of the most dramatic and heartwrenching moments in The Sopranos was in season 4's finale, Whitecaps, where Tony and Carmella get into a huge fight. In a regular mob show, the finale of a season would probably be a huge shootout between the mob bosses; however, the big shootout in The Sopranos was the shootout between Tony and Carmella. How a show about a mobster who shoots and kills people choose to focus on the dramatic real-life issues of these characters, and make it some of the most difficult and heart-wrenching part of a show and a story just showcases the brilliance of writer David Chase's storytelling. 

American Dream

The Sopranos is a show that clearly shines a light on the American dream. Every character has the motivation to become rich and to do something more with their lives. Yet, they are all stuck. Every character, whether they achieve their goal or not, are all sad and miserable and stuck in the rut of despair. Think about the main family and characters in the show, the Sopranos family itself. Tony has it all; two kids--one boy one girl--a wife, a big house, millions of dollars. He has everything that we the viewers and other characters in the show want to achieve. Yet, look at their family. Tony is seeing a therapist due to his anxiety and depression; Carmella is not happy about her marriage; A.J. battles with being a man and a looming sadness and loneliness that haunts him; and Meadow is dealing with the family's cruel business. These are not happy characters; and yet, they have the American dream. They have money to their heart's content.  On paper, an amazing life; in execution, one of the saddest and most depressing life anyone can have. That is something that The Sopranos is trying to portray; that the American dream of becoming rich can be fulfilled, but it comes with the price of losing your happiness and sanity. Even today, twenty years later, The Sopranos frame of the American dream is as real as ever.

Tony Sopranos

Of course, this show would be nothing without the great Tony Sopranos played by James Gandolfini. What could be said about Gandolfini's portrayal of a mob boss with mental health issues that have not been said before? The portrayal of an evil, brooding man, who is then juxtaposed with a sad, and lonely character is absolutely brilliant. There are so many layers to Tony's character that, even with recent shows like Mad Men, Better Call Saul, and Breaking Bad who have deep and complex character, still stands up as one of the most dynamic and complex television characters ever. Seeing a mob boss who kills and tortures people, to then have panic attacks and have to seek help through therapy to deal with his anxiety and self-loathing is not only so complex, but it is also very relatable. We may not relate to Tony's evil, almost Machiavellian ways of dealing with people, but we can all relate to a character that feels sad, lonely, and wants a way out of his own mentality and thoughts. It is that relatability, but also that evil and maniacal nature, that makes us love and hate Tony simultaneously. We can hate Tony because of his actions, yet we feel sympathetic for his sadness, and yet, we love the complexity of the character itself. This diversity of emotion and actions of Tony makes Tony one of the greatest television characters to this date.

That Ending (A bit spoilery)

Yes, I love the ending of The Sopranos. At first, like most, I hated it. I literally went up and checked if the television broke or if the table got disconnected in some way. Without spoiling much (but a bit of a spoiler), almost everyone knows that the screen just turned to black randomly. 6 long seasons with the Sopranos family, 6 long seasons of heart-wrenching and depressing television, and all we get as a resolution is a random quick cut to black. It was, and still is, one of the most shocking and unexpected endings in any form of media ever. At first, no one liked it. Go on top ten lists of worst television show endings and The Sopranos will surely be up there. However, that is simply not the case anymore. Writer David Chase was ahead of his time when the show started and when it ended. No one, including me, understood the brilliance behind the ending of the show. How the ending was a perfect fit for such a dark, brooding, television show. We all probably wanted to see some form of retribution to come Tony's way, or to see Tony change by the end; or to see the family get together and have dinner together. We get none of that in the finale. What we get is ambiguity; what happens to Paulie? What happens to Tony's family? What about Tony himself? While there are thousands of theories online, it becomes somewhat clear what the answers to these questions are if you pay attention. Where shows like Breaking Bad or Mad Men ended in a way that wraps up all the loose ends and sends off all the characters in a nice, maybe even happy way, The Sopranos, on the other hand, did something different. And because it took that risk, and because David Chase was willing to receive much backlash at the start, The Sopranos to me and to most other people has easily one of the most memorable and amazing endings to a television show yet.

The Sopranos is to this date still on my top 3 favorite television shows of all time. It is a remarkable show all around and even though it is twenty years old, with the prequel being underwork, it is now the time to get in and watch one of the greatest television show of all time. 

Some of The Best Working Directors Today

With the plethora of Hollywood action films, Marvel and DC films, we often see little creativity and originality. While I do love many of the Marvel and Star Wars films, I, along with many other film lovers, need something more than just good CGI and action. We want originality, creativity, and a filmmaker who tries to make special films. So today, I will be looking into a few of my favorite directors working today. I only go into detail on a few, there are directors like Quentin Tarantino, David Fincher, and Edgar Wright, who are all phenomenal directors, that I do not discuss in this list (might do so in another article). This short list is just going into directors that I have really gotten into and looking into the detail about how these directors, who have all recently released a film, direct their films and differ from the mainstream

Yorgos Lanthimos

Director Yorgos Lanthimos came out of nowhere. His first film, Dogtooth, was a great indie film that, while getting much attention overseas, did not get a lot of recognition in the United States and in mainstream Hollywood. However, out of the blue, Lanthimos came out with one of the top 5 films of 2015: The Lobster. It was nominated for best original script that year. The Lobster, in my opinion, has been one of the best films in a long time. There is so much depth and themes interwoven with such a bizarre story. Then, after that success, in 2017, Lanthimos wrote and directed The Killing of A Sacred Deer. While not as critically acclaimed and as well known as The Lobster, The Killing of A Sacred Deer is, in my opinion, one of the best psychological horror films released in a long time. His recent film, The Favorite, has been praised immensely by numerous critics and audiences alike; many claiming that it will at the least get nominated for best picture.

Lanthimos is one of the most unique directors on this list. He makes very unconventional films. He somehow manages to mix horror, satire, and comedy altogether. This mixture in comedy and horror is extremely bizarre; it makes the viewers question whether they should be laughing, or be in shock. For instance, when watching The Killing of A Sacred Deer with some friends, I noticed that some friends were in shock, while others were laughing. Even with different reactions, all of them loved the film for different reasons. It is with this bizarre mixture of two completely opposing genres that make his films so original. If you want originality, go watch any one of his films, because you will hardly find such a unique style. Another aspect of Lanthimos’ storytelling is in how he distorts our perception of reality. In Dogtooth, for instance, Lanthimos takes the concept of the quote-unquote “helicopter parent” to the ultimate extreme; he distorts any form of reality that we can perceive of. The parents in the film don’t just force their kids to stay in the house all day, but the parents lie, deceive, and force their kids to do disgusting and horrific acts. In The Lobster, Lanthimos takes the concept of love and relationships and distorts them to the ultimate extreme. It takes the emotion of love, to its most literal and societal view. I do not want to spoil anything here, but when you watch any one of his films, you feel disturbed at how he is able to distort aspects of reality to its most absurd. I suggest watching Motion in Art video How Yorgos Lanthimos Distorts Reality to see a thorough analysis of Lanthimos’ style.

Denis Villeneuve

Director Denis Villeneuve has been making waves in Hollywood. From his critical hit, Prisoners, in 2013, Villeneuve has made a new film in nearly every year. From the absurd and disturbing Enemy in 2014 to his first venture into the Science Fiction genre with Arrival, to the sequel to one of the most well-known and loved Science Fiction films of all time, Blade Runner 2049. How an indie director like Villeneuve is able to make award-winning and Oscar-nominated films year after year, to then making the sequel to Blade Runner all these years later is outstanding. And, with him directing the new Dune remake, I have full faith that this director will be remembered as one of the most diverse and profound directors in a long time.

Every single one of Villeneuve films are different. He plays with different genres, different time periods, different settings and so on. You will never just watch one Villeneuve film and understand his pattern of style; each film has its own individual style to it. However, each of his films has the director's trademark touch that makes it “his” film. Whether it be with the amazing use of a color palette in most of his films, to the great and sharp cinematography, to thematic elements in all of his films. All of his films are different and while I have my own personal favorite of his, if someone were to tell me another one of his films to be the best, I would be able to understand just because they are all of such high quality with different tastes and style. In terms of storytelling, Villeneuve's stories deal with many different themes and aspects of humanity. In Sicario, for instance, Villeneuve deals with the concept of evil and the grey area between good and bad; in Enemy, he looks at the duality of man and the problem with addiction. All of his stories deal with morality and humanity and through the use of mystery and riveting characters, he shines a light to humanity. If you want an analysis of Villeneuve’s style of storytelling, how he interweaves mystery and morality, please take a look at Criswell’s video on Villeneuve: Denis Villeneuve - Crafting Morality Through Mystery

Paul Thomas Anderson

Director Paul Thomas Anderson is probably one of the most well-known directors to film lovers (nerds such as myself). With a total of 8 Oscar nominations, I think that popularity is well deserved. From the award-winning There Will Be Blood, a personal 10/10 for me, to the absurd and confusing The Master, another 10/10 for me, Anderson really cannot go wrong (outside of Inherent Vice to a degree). While Inherent Vice was not a personal favorite of mine, his latest film Phantom Thread, another 10/10 for me, really shows that he has not lost his style and form. He has a wide range of films all connecting to Anderson through his distinctive style.

When you see an Anderson film, you know it’s an Anderson film. Whether it be his masterful use of the long-take, scenes that, filmed by anyone else, would be made into numerous of quick cuts and many edits, or his amazing use of actors and how he is able to get the best performances out of them. He even got Adam Sandler do a phenomenal job in Punch-Drunk Love! Anderson is a master at getting every ounce of the best performances from his actors. However, in terms of storytelling, Anderson’s films always stand out from amongst the crowd. His films can be categorized through looking at different aspects of society or man, through the different characters he chooses to look onto and analyze. In The Master, we take a look at organized religions, cults, and groups and how they can deceive people while giving them something to benefit themselves. We take a look into these different aspects of society through the eyes of Freddie Quell, a man suffering from PTSD who walks into one of the Master’s sermons. In There Will Be Blood, we look at the concept of evil and how greed can take control of someone through the eyes of Daniel Plainview; a horrible, greed-filled, and deceptive character. If you want an analysis of Anderson’s characters in his films, I recommend watching Jack’s Movie Reviews video Paul Thomas Anderson - Finding Purpose In Life.

Coen Brothers

Lastly, the OG, Joel and Ethan Coen. The Coen brothers are some of the best directors not only working today but just one of the best directors in filmmaking history. They have made so many classic films. Think Fargo, No Country For Old Men, and Barton Fink, to name a few. The Coen Brothers have been around for a long time, making classics and perfect films left and right. And, with their new release, The Ballad Of Buster Scruggs on Netflix, we can see that they have not lost their touch as The Ballad of Buster Scruggs is one of the best films that came out in 2018, and easily one of the best Netflix original films as well.

The Coen’s have always been a master at dark humor. Their films are never too depressing, they never are like a Lars Von Trier film, and when they do go towards a comedy direction, they always balance a well-made story with a lot of dark, real-life, elements to their stories. In discussing their stories, the Coen brothers are well-known for the way they portray the ambiguity of life and the world in their stories and characters, but also in their endings. Take No Country For Old Men, or A Serious Man, films specifically dealing with ambiguity in life. Without spoiling their endings, both films end in a “what the f” fashion. I hated No Country For Old Men ending when I first saw it; however, when I sat and thought about it and watched it again, it became a perfect ending for that story. The Coen’s are some of the best screenwriters ever, getting the number 2 spot in the top 100 list of greatest screenwriters. If you want to know more about the Coen’s directing style, I would highly recommend Every Frame a Painting old video on Coen Brothers, Joel & Ethan Coen - Shot | Reverse Shot, and see how they use of shot-reverse shot cinematography in a different, and better, way than most filmmakers. I would also recommend watching The Discarded Image video, Deconstructing Funny: Coen Brothers, to see how the Coen Brothers utilize comedy in their dark films.

Roma Review

Alfonso's Curano's new film is heartbreaking, hopeful, sad, and one of the best films in a long time.

In Roma, Curran tells a personal tale set in Mexico City in the early 1970s. The film centers on Cleo, a young Mexican woman who works as a maid for a middle-class white family that is slowly falling apart. This is not a simple A-B story; there is no "rising action" or a specific "turning point," this is a film that is trying to immerse you into the personal lives of these characters. It is a film that wants you to feel the sadness, depression, and the hope that these characters feel throughout the film. It is a film that wants you to not watch a story of random characters, but rather live and be with these characters in every aspect of their sad and hopeful lives.

The way that Curran immerses us into the story that he is telling is through the visuals and the audio mixing. Curran has always been known for his use of long takes; whether that be in the critically acclaimed Children of Men car chase sequence or in the numerous long takes in space in Gravity. In Roma, the use of long takes are there not as a way for the director to show off his abilities, but rather to immerse the audience in the daily lives of these characters The camera floats, glides, revolves around and follows each character as if it were glued on to them; trying to catch every aspect of their lives. I have never been this immersed in a film through the visuals alone since Son of Saul. The opening shot alone showcases the beauty of Cuaron's direction and use of long takes. The opening of the film starts with a long take facing down on a marble floor. Slowly, we see water splashing into the frame as someone is cleaning the floor. As water builds up and swooshes around, we see off in the distances in a reflection from one of the floor tiles, an airplane flying above. How Curran is able to hold the camera on a floor for 4 minutes with the slow reveal of an airplane once the water leaves the frame is absolutely beautiful and phenomenal in terms of directing.

Past the long takes, another aspect of the visuals that stick out is the use of black and white. This is oddly one of the most colorful films I have seen. Many fail to realize that when shooting a black and white film, you have to film it differently than a colored film. The use of lights, shadows, and depth all have to be taken into account differently than in a colored film. Curran understood this and filmed it as a Black and White film, not as a colored film changed to Black and White. The way Curran plays with light is absolutely phenomenal. One scene in particular, when Cleo walks through the streets of Mexico, with the lights of the city and cars in the background, was stunning. I was actually tempted to pause the film because I flat out gasped at the stunning visuals. The way light bleeds through certain scenes and how shadows are enhanced and highlighted is visually amazing. Roma's use of black and white is not just a gimmick, it aided the film in so many ways that, if shot in color, would not have had such a great impact.

One aspect that I believe that has been overlooked by many critics in describing the immersion of the film is the audio mixing. This, while many might not put much thought into it as the cinematography, adds so much depth and detail to this world. As Mark Kermode stated in his review of the film, this is a film that can just be heard. The way that you can hear the distant noises of cars and people walking on the street, while also being able to hear intimate conversation amongst characters with soft ambient noises of the environment playing in the background, is extremely immersive. The audio in this film is the most mesmerizing and memorable audio that I have seen in a film in a long time. Usually, when you leave a film, you remember the score that was played in a specific scene. However, in Roma, I remember the sound of water mixed with the sound of the sweeping of a broomstick, or the sounds of fire crackling wood while hearing characters discussing amongst one another as the wind wooshes pass them. This amazing attention to detail in terms of the audio presentation is not only needed in a film like this that tries to immerse you into the environment and lives of the character but is also an achievement at just how specific and detailed the film gets with trying to immerse you solely through the audio mixing.

In terms of story, Roma, as mentioned before, is not a common Hollywood blockbuster film. There is no "call-to-action" from the main character, no goal that the main character tries to achieve or accomplish throughout the main film, and no basic Hollywood conclusion. It is just a snippet into the lives of these characters. It is a window into the events that transpire during this period in time of their lives. The main character, Cleo, played phenomenally by first-time actress Yalitza Aparicio, slowly starts to see the connection that she has with the mother of the family that she is taking care. Two people from two totally different levels in life, one a single maid and one a wife of a rich husband, somehow connect with one another with the same situation and difficulty in life. As the life of Cleo is slowly falling apart, so is the life of the housewife Sofia, portrayed by Marina De Tavira. We see how these events that happen in their lives not only bring them together in unexpected ways, but also how they both react in their own specific ways to these hard realities of life. The themes of connecting with people, the passage of time, and the disappointment and happiness in life is so beautiful and perfectly told. It is a film that, even without thinking about these themes, just seeing the lives of these characters and how they interact with not only one another but with the events and circumstances that surround and affect their lives, is a tour-de-force on its own.

Overall, Roma is nothing short of a masterpiece. From the technical, to the script, Roma is a film that I would not be surprised if it swooped most of the awards in the Oscars. I absolutely loved this film and, it being on Netflix, is also an amazing aspect in it of itself. How a film of this artistic quality can be released on Netflix and only have a small release in theatres is pretty outstanding. It shows that Netflix can release great quality films (unlike Bird Box). There is no excuse for people not to watch this masterpiece of a film. While slow at first, the second half of the film is an emotional rollercoaster unlike any other. Go watch it right now and watch not only one of the best films of 2018 but one of the best films in a long time.

Score: 10/10

Film Recommendation: Hereditary

Since Hereditary has finally arrived on Amazon Prime, I thought it would be great to recommend not only one of the best films of 2018, but also, one of the best horror films in a long time.

Toni Colletta stars as Annie Graham, an artist who is coping with the tragic and sudden death of her mother as she is finishing her diorama of her family for an art project. Alex Wolf plays Peter, Colletta's son, in the film and Gabriel Bryne plays Colletta's father. All the characters are coping and facing with not only the tragic death of a family member but also with the numerous other events that plague the family.

Horror films have always been a staple to my love of films. No other genera can make me experience so many emotions throughout its runtime. Horror films can make you feel uneasy, tense, anxious, sad, and even at times hopeful. It is a genre ripe with possibilities and so many ways to take the audience on an emotional rollercoaster. However, great horror film has been in a decline lately. This genre has been plagued with cheap jump scares, cliches, and bad stories. However, Hereditary comes into the masses to show not only to show what a true horror film is like, but to also scare the crap out of everyone.


One of the ways that Hereditary is able to make the audience scared is through its cinematography. Director Ari Aster and cinematographer Pawel Pogorzelski chose to shoot the film with a lot of long takes. Aster does not use quick editing or quick cuts to add horror; rather, he utilizes long takes to put the audience in a sort of frightening spell; putting them in an uneasy state when they are forced to stare at the horrific. There will be many long scenes with no cuts and at the start of the scene, you might see something right at the corner of the camera. As soon as you notice it, it will quickly disappear out of frame; yet, the camera still continues to move with the characters and linger on. As the camera is moving with or away from the characters, you sit and wonder, what did I just see? You start to peer at the corner of the frame to see if something will pop out or creep back into frame. Sometimes, something will come and it will scare you; other times, the scene will continue, gripping you in the unknown. It is the anticipation and the fear of what could be beyond what we are seeing that makes nearly the entirety of the film an anxious rollercoaster.

But outside of the horror element, the long takes let us sit with the characters and sit with their emotions. One scene in particular, which I will not spoil, where Toni Colletta's character is begging her husband to do something for her; rather than creating tension and emotion through quick cuts between the two characters, it is filmed in just one long take. By filming it in a long take, it makes you watch Colletta cry and beg her husband to help her in this nearly unimaginable situation she is in. It was such a hard, emotional, scene to watch, yet, Aster and Pogorzelski want us to dwell in the difficulty of watching the scene. They don't want to give us any breathing room to allow us to take a break; they want us to feel what the characters are feeling at all times.

However, cinematography can be great and all, but if the story and the characters are bad, then good visuals won't matter. Luckily, the story and the characters in this film are on the same level as the masterful cinematography. Without spoiling anything, the film goes into so many directions, with so many twists and turns, that it leaves you on the edge of your seat for most of its runtime. What really makes this film unique, is the aspect of the story of dealing with grief. This is not some typical horror film, where some paranormal activity haunts a family. Hereditary is a film with the themes of facing grief, and how we deal with tragic events in our lives. These themes and story beats are illuminated with all of the fascinating and layered characters of the film. These characters have to deal with events that we could never imagine facing, and the way their characters react to these events is just so fascinating.


These characters are boosted up by the top-notch performances from (nearly) everyone. Toni Colletta deserves an Oscar nomination for her role. The number of emotions she needs to portray and the amount of trauma that she is inflicted with, and how she is able to capture all of that through her acting is pretty remarkable. Colletta shows so many emotions just through her facial expressions alone. The way she uses her eyes, by enlargening them and by how she focuses and moves them during an argument, or when she is terrified, is such remarkable detail added to her character. Nearly everyone else in the film did a remarkable job as well. But, much credit needs to be given to Toni Colletta because every scene she was in, she clearly stole the show.

Past all the technical and story aspects of the film, Hereditary, is a horror film, so we need to talk about the actual horror element of it, and man is it scary. This is what real horror is like. There are no jump scares, or something running right in front of the camera to scream at you, not any of that cliche garbage. Rather the horror in Hereditary is portrayed through the depression and fear of the characters. After a series of tragic event, we see the slow destruction of a family. We see how they are all slowly becoming mentally fatigued and terrified; and how that then plays out with their interactions with their family. Seeing this slow descent of the family is terrifying for so many reasons.
It is portraying a regular, every-day, family losing and destroying themselves. It is something that, while many of us might not think about it, could happen to our own family as well. It is a reliable, an "at home," horror film. But, it is the way the film portrays this slow descent amongst the characters that really make it horrific. You see the characters getting mad at one another for irrational reasons; you witness the characters mentally hurting themselves and not being able to take the event surrounding them. This close connection with the family, and the destruction of this family, is one of the scariest things I've seen in a theatre in a long time.

However, it cannot be a horror film without some weird scary things happening, and this film has plenty of that as well. As mentioned before, sometimes, you will see something in the corner of the frame that quickly disappears. It makes you anxious wondering what it was and when will it appear again. As the film progresses, the film slowly becomes scarier as you get more information about the family. Not to spoil anything, because you really want to go into this blindly but you will really be caught off guard by many of the events and sequences in this film. The film goes from family drama to psychological horror, to even more bizarre horror, and all of these types of horrors add up to an anxiety-inducing horror film. Every act of this film has a different type of horror to offer you, and when the film gets to the really spooky, creepy stuff, it really hits it hard.

However, as almost anything you love, there are some aspects of this film that are not as amazing. Granted, these are nitpicking, but even the negatives of a film I love should be mentioned. For one, I said almost everyone did a phenomenal job in the film. While this is true, I did have mixed feelings on Alex Wolf's performance of Toni Colletta's son, Peter. At times, he did a phenomenal job. One scene in particular (if you've seen the film, you know which one) where the camera just holds on him and just seeing his facial expression really shows that he is a great actor. But sometimes, I did feel he was a bit uneven in his performance. Sometimes his character's persona would change and the way Wolf portrayed that was not as good as it could have been. Another small issue is pacing. Some segments in the middle did take a while to go through, and while I do get why it was done that way, I do feel like it could have been cut just slightly. Lastly, I feel that in the end, the film did too much talking to explaining what is happening. Really, leaving some ambiguity would have worked wonders. While there was ambiguity, the last couple of minutes does somewhat spell out the conclusion to the film for you.

Overall, Hereditary is a phenomenal horror film. It works as a drama about a family dealing with a tragic event, but also as a pure psychological horror film. This and The Witch (also on Amazon Prime) are some of the best horror films in recent memory. If you haven't seen it, please go do so. If you have seen it once, watch it again because seeing it a second time, there are so many scenes and elements of foreshadowing at the start of the film that you might not have gotten in your first viewing. Overall, a phenomenal horror film and an instant classic I highly recommend you all to check out Hereditary since I believe, in due time, it will become a classic

Score: 9/10