Blood Diamond (2006)

This movie is a little strange. It defies categorization to its detriment. It is sort of an action thriller--Leonardo DiCaprio on a quest with a gun. But it deals with very serious, depressing themes that are not well-served in an action thriller: civil war, conflict diamonds, refugees, child soldiers, mercenaries and smuggling. There is a strange sequence featuring the child soldiers blasting 90s hip hop and shooting heroine and it is edited in a way that makes it looks like they're having fun, which is wildly inappropriate for the subject matter. The tone is very strange. Every nice moment is capped off with action--you're not given any opportunity to enjoy it. The movie severely undermines the important role of the press in conflict zones as Jennifer Connelly is a pawn in Leonardo DiCaprio's game, really just serving as a love interest and a distraction. The white savior narrative is also unwelcome. Everyone with real agency in the movie is white in this movie that takes place in Africa. Leonardo DiCaprio plays a man from Zimbabwe; he introduces himself as Rhodesian. He puts on a white South African accent; I can't really tell if it's good or bad. The dialogue is either brilliantly in dialect or very offensive. DiCaprio is certainly very committed. Djimon Hounsou is actually the star of the movie, in my opinion.

Strong Island (2017)

Strong Island is a deeply personal movie, crafted with an abundance of care with family photos complete with fingers adjusting them. More than anything else, it is a personal journey. This is not for us. We, in the audience, are on the outside looking in, observing and feeling the pain that the Ford family experienced. It is an introspective movie. Yance Ford tries to understand the circumstances surrounding the death of her brother. The movie walks toward something bigger, trying to contextualize the Fords' story as a story that could have happened to any African American family. While I understand that sentiment, I think Ford very rightly stops just short of that. This is too personal of a story. And it is owned by the Ford family. It haunts them but they confront it. 

The Post (2017)

If there was one thing I learned in college, it was how to study historical films as primary sources (Thanks Professor Mason!). This is a perfect example. While the movie takes place in the Nixon era, it is a product of its own time, the Trump era. What can this movie about the 1970s tell us about 2017?

It can tell us that our society is still uncomfortable with a woman in charge, even if she's Meryl Streep. She has an excellent monologue towards the end in which she tries to explain why. Katharine Graham discusses her own lack of confidence and distrust in herself. Her own development was influenced by society. It was no one's fault, it was simply the unquestioned norm. It's difficult to wrap your mind around this idea but she articulates it brilliantly. The movie is not about Katharine changing society. Though she's a trailblazer, women in business still face abundant discrimination. Her important decision to publish was surely brave, but ultimately it was the Supreme Court that stood up to the President. Alone, she could only do so much. It will take a joint effort to truly create change.

This is not a movie about journalism, it's about press. Comparisons to All the President's Men and Spotlight are inappropriate because this is not about the investigation. It's not about uncovering the contents of the Pentagon Papers. It is about the act of publishing them. The other message? Our newspapers must remain diligent and hold the President's feet to the fire. The Washington Post in particular has taken a bold stance ("Democracy dies in darkness" is poignant). Thank god Katharine Graham and Ben Bradlee have made the Post the national authority it has become today. And when the President tries to ban the press, an integral part of democracy, the newspapers must come to each others' support in solidarity.

This is an important movie for 2017. It's powerfully acted and orchestrated. Even though we know how it ends, there is plenty of drama. And the production design is very 70s. The inside of a newspaper is pretty cool.

Columbus (2017)

Slow isn't the right word to describe it. It's deliberate. First-time director Kogonada has such a firm control. His style resembles Yasujiro Ozu. His very still camera and low angles is almost unsettling. Every single shot is beautiful. There are frames within frames, a brilliant use of doorways and mirrors. The acting is impassioned yet quiet. The dialogue is intelligent yet natural, subtle yet brilliant. It is important that the director is Asian, as the subtlety is handled carefully in a way that an American probably could not fathom. The themes are very thoughtful and poignant--what is the role of architecture, how do we process grief, and what do we owe ourselves? The chemistry between John Cho and Haley Lu Richardson is gorgeous. 

John Cho is finally given an role worthy of his ability. He's actually a great actor. He gives Asians a good look.  Kogonada defies stereotypes, and in fact reverses them. The Korean Jin encourages Casey to follow her dreams, a uniquely American value. While American Casey fulfills her familial duty to look after her mother, a more Confucian value that Jin struggles with. Now, I'm not entirely sure what happens in the movie. Even with all the dialogue, there is lots left unsaid. It leaves some ambiguity in which we're left to interpret the silences. At the end of the film, Casey goes off to school. But Jin stays put. Jin's story line doesn't really advance over the course of the movie, and yet his character has developed immensely. I don't quite know what to make of that but I don't think that's written so easily.   

An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power (2017)

Who is the intended audience of Al Gore's latest outing? In this day and age, it feels like he's preaching to the choir. The idiots that don't believe in climate change aren't going to listen to Al Gore of all people. And the rest of us don't need convincing. What he can offer us is the method--how should we talk about climate change to most effectively convince the non believers? I think that is the topic of his seminars, of which we catch glimpses in the style of his previous Oscar-winning movie.  We also see him out in the field, talking to real people about the effects of climate change. The best part of the movie is the major progress we've made since his previous film: really the only need for a sequel is the Paris Agreement. This part of the movie unfolds like a drama. I think the movie could have been very effective if it focused just on Paris, maybe more exciting too.

The other function this movie is introspective. Al Gore feels guilty. He's trying to repent, to rectify his mistake. He was so close to the presidency and what he sees as his failure has resulted in the US turning its back on the environment. This, too, could have made for a more interesting movie. But it's a very small part. What we do see is Gore hustling. He doesn't have to represent America's goodwill in the world, but he does. He is a grand negotiator, trying to strike a compromise to save our planet. Perhaps he has been even more effective now, able to focus on the climate unrestrained by politics, than he would have been as president.

Loving Vincent (2017)

Loving Vincent is lovingly painted by over 100 artists in the style of Vincent Van Gogh in painstaking detail. You know how difficult that must've been? It is a mesmerizing movie. The rain and smoke are so beautifully rendered on the paintings with discernibly caked on brush strokes. The plot is a Rashomon-style piecing together of Van Gogh's final days before his suicide. But is it everyone's different version of the truth we're getting? Or is it actually just village gossip designed to throw us off? It's all speculative of course, but it's inspired by a the life and death of a troubled genius. In loving admiration.

Molly's Game (2017)

Aaron Sorkin's directorial debut is very Aaron Sorkin. It runs 140 minutes, and that's with Sorkin-speed speech. Acting in a Sorkin film requires skill. You must memorize your lines by heart so you can spit them back at rapid speed without thinking. That's acting. And it's never easy dialogue. It's brainy. There are unfamiliar words. You gotta become familiar with poker terms and American law. Even for a generally educated person, it can be a little difficult to follow at that pace. But that's what's so great about Aaron Sorkin. He doesn't talk down to you. He pulls you up. He's a smart guy that makes the audience keep up with him. The narrative structure in this movie is a little weird, with Chastain narrating her story in her book being read by her lawyer preparing for court. But it works. Jessica Chastain and Idris Elba are both great Sorkin-actors. Everything comes around full circle. Nothing is forgotten, everything is deliberate. I appreciate that Elba is cast as her lawyer, an smart and articulate and influential black man--the only black man in a story almost exclusively populated by powerful white men. It's tight writing about a strong female lead that doesn't require sex to tell an interesting and intense story. I have a feeling Sorkin will be doing more directing in the future.

One Mississippi (2015-17)

Amazon just pulled the plug after two seasons of Tig Notaro's semi-autobiographical tragicomedy. Tig Ntoaro is not everyone's cup of tea, but I think her deadpan humor is hilarious. Only in the era of streaming could a show so unusual have been produced. She had a story to tell that was poignant. And she told it in her own understated way. I think she's an auteur. And now she's free to go and do more unique things.

Dave Chappelle: Equanimity & The Bird Revelation (2017)

You can tell a master at his craft when it looks effortless.  He's so casual, seated on a stool with an intimate audience. It's not so polished, but he did four full length sets in the year so I'll cut him some slack. Consequently, Chappelle often sounds like he's ad libbing on the spot. I know he's not, but it sounds like such natural story telling. I think The Bird Revelation is a better set than Equanimity. It's not necessarily funnier; both sets have their moments. But The Bird Revelation seems more personal. He tells several stories that are not ostensibly about him. But they have messages that relate to his personal life. He lacks polish, but you can tell that he's trying to say something a little more poignant than usual.

Wonderstruck (2017)

Don't get me wrong, it's a beautiful movie. The black-and-white 1920s cinematography is gorgeous. The production design and costumes for the 20s and 70s are both fantastic. The look of the movie and the music are mesmerizing. The final fifteen minutes especially of the stop motion dioramas are magical. The kids are great actors too. Where I didn't love the movie: I don't think the plot quite paid off enough given how slowly it built up. I think it'd have difficulty holding the attention of the kids it was meant for. But it might seem a little too kiddie for the adults that might appreciate the artistry of it. Rose's story and Ben's story are obviously headed for a collision. And they do. The parallels are clear. But we could've gotten just Ben's story without Rose's and we wouldn't really have lost anything because Rose's story is not relevant to understanding Ben's. In that sense, they don't quite collide enough. What I do love is the New York story. New York is a beautiful city with a beautiful history and beautiful institutions. It's a piece imagining the city in the context of real history: the World's Fair, the Blackout of 77. It does a lot of things right--it's just not as enjoyable as I had hoped.

The Disaster Artist (2017)

The Disaster Artist is a movie about making the worst movie of all time. And it's hilarious. The Room was ridiculously bad. And this was surprisingly good. I don't know how James Franco pitched this movie but it surprisingly works. James and Dave Franco are spot on as Tommy Wiseau and Greg Sestero. And it looks like they're having so much fun playing these bonkers characters. Good or bad, it's not easy to recreate a movie scene for scene. It's so nuts, it's incredibly enjoyable.

Darkest Hour (2017)

Darkest Hour is a vehicle for Gary Oldman, but also for Joe Wright. Starting with Oldman, the makeup is incredible. It's uncanny how much he looks like Churchill. And the speeches some grade A acting. Churchill was an eccentric guy and Oldman plays out the eccentricities. His accent is only intelligible most of the time, maybe on purpose. But I think the director maybe takes too much liberties to make him seem Trump-ish, which just is not correct. He is portrayed as a leader that didn't really know what he was doing but that's not true. He didn't win the war by accident. He was strategic. He was smart, a brilliant historian. His intelligence only comes through in his speeches. He otherwise seems...well, Trumpish. And I don't think that really does Churchill justice.

Apart from Joe Wright taking those directorial liberties, he does some other interesting things. There are two shots that seem to suggest that Churchill was crazy, that he hallucinated: Hitler masks and gas masks. The cinematography and production design (the interior of Buckingham Palace is gorgeous) are notable. I really liked most of the cinematography but it's very dark. The darkness, accentuates the few rays of light. And I get that it's the "darkest hour" but the lighting was certainly a choice, a little extreme at times (like the red bulb). There are some really great angles--I like the busy parliament scenes.

The Shape of Water (2017)

This is a brilliantly, confidently composed creature/romance movie. It may seem like an odd combination, but Guillermo del Toro knows exactly what he's doing. It works on both levels really well as he waivers on neither front, including an out of place yet appropriate black-and-white dance sequence.  The whole concept derived from an (allegedly real) Islamic poem del Toro remembered coming across is very creative. The beast is a gorgeous, intelligent, godly anthropomorphic sea creature.  He is just a pawn in the context of the Cold War. But to Sally Hawkins's mute janitor, the creature is so much more. They connect on a deeper level beyond the superficial romances Hollywood typically produces. There are a number of amazing underwater shots that I'm assuming must have been computer generated. I don't know how else everything could have been so perfectly suspended in the water. The production design transports the audience to 1960s Baltimore, which contrary to Michael Shannon's villainous words, seems pretty cool. The acting is fantastic all around; shout outs to Hawkins (did she learn sign language?), Jenkins and Spencer.

mother! (2017)

What an utterly baffling movie. What's really frustrating is that I think I understood the allegory with my basic knowledge of the Bible and yet I was still baffled. Javier Bardem is God. And the house is Earth. That much I'm sure of, but Jennifer Lawrence is a little trickier. Is she the mother Earth? Is she the nature spirit? Is she Mary? Is she also Christ? I think there's probably a degree of truth to all those identities. That's what was confusing. Pick a metaphor and stick to it.

The movie itself defies categorization. It's marketed as a horror film, but it's not actually scary. What is scary is just the sheer number of people in the house and what terrible guests they are. But it's not really thrilling either. It's just uncomfortable. I will concede that the last twenty minutes of utter chaos is pretty impressive. It's an immersive, visceral experience. 

Call Me By Your Name (2017)

An idyllic setting. A beautiful story about love. Brilliant acting. Incredible subtlety. Interesting shots. Pretty music. And the 80s--that's the fashion.

It's a supremely Italian movie. What do people do in Italy in the summer? It's a whole lot of nothing. Point made. But isn't it just wonderful to do nothing in an Italian villa? Ride your bike into town. Go swimming. Read. Dance. Eat. It's a privileged showy life complete with domestic servants. They read French/German poetry, play piano, and speak three languages (why do they all speak French, the local girls too? It's unnecessarily extra if only to make them seem more pretentious). 

But let's not let that detract from the careful sensitivity of Guadagnino's directing and the performances of young Chalamet, Hammer and accepting father Stuhlbarg. 

Justice League (2017)

I know when we get these superhero movies, we should expect something derivative, but this was just too derivative. There was nothing original about this. It's more than just Marvel beating them to the punch. Boxes of energy? A God-like villain? A God-like villain with an M-shaped crown? The team of superheroes? I know this is the set-up movie, but the whole thing is set-up.  That's what the individual movies were for! We don't want more intro here. The best parts of the movie are Flash and Wonder Woman. Ezra Miller is charming and funny. He's the only person that doesn't take it all so seriously. That's really the heart of the problem. The movie takes itself too seriously. We've come to expect funny superhero movies. This isn't funny. It isn't as dark as some of the older DC movies, but it's too serious still. Also, Cyborg is kind of cool, Aquaman is still lame, and Ben Affleck looks terribly bored. 

Marshall (2017)

Thurgood Marshall is played by a fantastic Chadwick Boseman. The legendary lawyer and judge had a fascinating life but this movie focuses on a single case from 1940. A case that most people probably haven't heard of. As far as I can tell, it doesn't even have a Wikipedia page. Marshall fought a lot of cases, big and small, that together added up to form a patchwork of law fighting discrimination across the country. The movie gives as much of a focus to his co-counsel played by Josh Gad. A Jewish lawyer, he provides the juxtaposition of the contemporary discrimination against European Jews. The music gives the movie an interesting tone for Connecticut. There's plenty of courtroom drama, fine acting and some very nice shots. Admittedly, the reenactments are a little cheesy, but I can overlook that.

I, Tonya (2017)

Who would have thought they could make a movie sympathetic to Tonya Harding? She had a rough life. The odds were stacked against her. The world of ice skating was against her. The country, the world was against her. The movie tells her side of the story mockumentary-style. It features talking head interviews. This tragic story is actually quite funny. It's so ridiculous that it's funny. Maybe it wasn't her fault after all.

The Florida Project (2017)

The Florida Project is a touching story about the innocence of childhood. The kids are highly entertaining as they just try to be kids. They're authentic and honest. Willem Dafoe acts as a father figure to young Moonee as well as to her mother Haley. He protects these kids. The movie is empathetic towards this little seen population living adjacent to the happiest place on Earth. The juxtaposition of their poverty and the riches of Disney World and its millions of annual visitors that never see this nearby population is devastating. These kids manage to entertain themselves in the shadow of kid wonderland. The brilliance of this movie is its perspective. The audience sees from the perspective of young Moonee. She cannot comprehend everything around her. But we can make a pretty good guess. The director need not spell everything out as you would for a 6-year-old. And the purple! It is beautifully filmed on film. Save for the final scene filmed on iPhone without Disney's permission. That's real filmmaking.

Battle of the Sexes (2017)

This is a fun movie about a sport I love and an iconic American. The importance of Billie Jean King transcends sport (and she is arguably the one of the most important athletes of the 20th century). Her story is interesting, daring and entertaining. The Battle of the Sexes was obviously a big and important event, but the US Open awarded equal prize money the same year to the men's and women's tournaments apparently outside of that context and it would have been useful to include that more directly. A little less of their personal lives would have been fine too. It was kind of long, otherwise they could have included more tennis politics. The movie is quite funny and it boasts a big cast of comedians, even in small roles like Fred Armisen, who has a couple lines and then sits quietly.

Abacus: Small Enough to Jail (2016)

This is a very interesting documentary about a community I care deeply about. It's in traditional documentary style; it was distributed by PBS Frontline after all. Abacus Bank in Chinatown, NY was the lone bank prosecuted following the 2008 Financial Crisis. And Ken Yu, a former loan officer at Abacus, was the lone person imprisoned. The rest of Abacus was exonerated. The crisis was obviously brought about by the failure of the major banks to care that they were endangering the world economy-yet no one has been imprisoned. The idea that little Abacus had an important enough role to really play any part in the take down of the world economy is laughably implausible. But Abacus was important enough to have an impact in Chinatown. It serves the Chinese community that typically cannot qualify for traditional credit. The bank is run by a successful and articulate Chinese-American family that makes for a good documentary subject.

Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017)

It's a dark comedy, cleverly written, well-acted, and unexpectedly quite funny for a movie about vigilante justice. But I do feel like it hides a little behind it's label as a dark comedy. There are some rather problematic parts that I think have been glossed over a little quickly without scrutiny. For example, Peter Dinklage's character is the butt of a number of ill-spirited midget jokes. How about the blase attitude on police brutality? There's the cop that beats African Americans. There's this same cop that defenestrates people. There's the sheriff that seems to condone this cop's behavior. And we're supposed to feel bad for this sheriff? And what about the black friend that is thrown in jail on trumped up drug charges? Frances McDormand makes a big fuss about it at first, but then let's it go. Just collateral damage. So what redeems the movie amidst all this? Frances McDormand. She's devilishly good.

Lady Bird (2017)

What a beautiful little film about growing up. Saoirse Ronan is delightfully quirky as are all her friends and family. The writing is brilliantly hilarious. The relationships are authentic. The movie overall is just so refreshingly honest about adolescence. The ending maybe needed a little bit more closure for Lady Bird. Lady Bird's story is done but Christine's continues. I'm not really sure what specifics I want to say about this movie, but I loved everything about it. I think maybe it's the movies for which words escape you that are the most affecting--to literally be speechless.

Chicago (2002)

I thought the movie was much better than the play. The movie's style does not replicate the revival's minimalist sets and costumes. It is much more extravagant, thankfully. What is so brilliant about the movie, though, is that it is theatrical. The musical numbers are staged, performed on a vaudeville stage with an audience rather than in the context of the story. It gives it an almost dreamlike quality that is just mesmerizing on the screen. The movie is all the better for it--praise for Rob Marshall's direction. The best numbers in the movie are still the best ones from the musical: All That Jazz and Cell Block Tango.   (I admittedly thought Nowadays was very good in the movie too). Cell Block Tango would've been very different if filmed in the prison. Catherine Zeta-Jones and Renee Zellweger are both phenomenal. In a musical you're obviously looking at the singing and dancing, but in the non-musical scenes as well, they are acting. Their desperation (for fame) comes through.