Sully (2016)

I really like that the film is not all about the landing on the Hudson. It's not even really a pivotal point of the movie. We start after the incident. And see it only in flashbacks, albeit several times. The bulk of the movie is in the unglamorous, no frills NTSB hearings. The movie is more properly about Sully than about the Miracle on the Hudson. It is about the internal struggle he faces post-trauma. Tom Hanks portrays a calm, low-key everyday hero, reminding me of Captain Philips. It is very much a Tom Hanks-kind of character. He does good ole American hero well. 

The Jungle Book (2016)

I feel like this film is the next era in computer graphics. Disney did it in 1946 bringing the animated characters in Song of the South to the live-action world. Here, they place Mowgli in a computer-generated jungle full of computer-generated animals and wonders. Nothing else in this movie is real, but you wouldn't be able to tell. In that respect, The Jungle Book is very impressive.

Favreau creates his own enthralling world such that he doesn't need to hearken back to the original. It is all his own, though he sometimes tries to remind us. This Jungle Book is a lot scarier and less fun than the one I remember. And Mowgli is a lot more annoying than I remember, too. I kind of couldn't get over it. The iconic Bare Necessities sequence was strange to put it plainly with Bill Murray as Baloo. Actually, his portrayal of Baloo and his relationship with Mowgli reminded me of St. Vincent. Don't think that was intentional, but Murray sort of plays it the same way.

Kubo and the Two Strings (2016)

This has been an excellent year for animation, and in an off-year for Pixar at that (Finding Dory was good but uninspiring). And amid all these excellent animations, this one is surely the most beautifully done. This stop motion has some very impressive visuals, and it is rightly on the shortlist for the Oscar for Best Visual Effects It plays on the theme of origami and you could only imagine how difficult it must be to do stop motion in origami. There is a seamless combination with computer generation that you legitimately cannot even tell the difference.

On top of that, I love the music. Kubo plays his two-stringed instrument with magic powers. The Italian translation incorrectly titles the film Kubo and the Magic Sword, but it's not about the sword at all. What makes it so special is that his weapon is a beautiful cultural instrument. This film embraces Japanese culture and puts it on display in a beautiful homage.

The imaginative story is wonderfully complex, and unexpectedly sad and powerful. The range of emotion is Pixar-level, bombarding these kids with more than might understand. Maybe Laika will pick up the torch of creativity where Pixar left it and become the new cornerstone for the medium.

Snowden (2016)

Edward Snowden's saga has been well documented, thanks to the efforts of Snowden himself. It will be redone many times. It's an enthralling tale. I don't think any account will match up to Citizenfour. But this dramatization does an excellent job of painting Snowden as a patriot. Having seen all these different accounts over the last several years, I've gone back and forth on the issue. I constantly ask myself, would I be able to work for the NSA, or for the intelligence community generally? And I honestly have not arrived at an answer yet. I am really unsure about how I feel about the NSA's questionable efforts to enhance our safety. This film actually had the opposite effect of what I imagine was intended. It gives the impression that Snowden did the right thing and it did that. But I actually felt more inclined to join the intelligence community. It looked like they were doing important, cutting edge work. Some methods are better than others, but on the whole it is positive. Even if their morals are debatable, Stone does not undercut the work that the NSA does, in my view (though he might've been trying to). And although he disagrees with their methods, we know that Snowden has always maintained that it was for the public to decide, they simply had the right to know and make an educated decision. He's a humble bragger--that certainly comes across. Well done, JGL.

The Great Beauty (La Grande Bellezza) (2013)

Paolo Sorrentino's Oscar-winner is beautiful as always. He knows how to take breathtaking shots. The typical criticism of his films is that though they are gorgeous, they are empty, void of meaning. This film does not have that problem. There is definitely something there, though that something is, ironically enough, emptiness. It is not always immediately clear to me though. This film supposedly captured the contemporary zeitgeist of Berlusconi's glamorous Rome. In that sense it is almost pseudo-anthropological in that it captures the essence a people in a specific period, but it is made up. That being said, I appreciate that it is a beautiful, well-made film. Did I enjoy watching it though? It was 2.5 hours! To be honest, it was an overload to the senses, if you ask me. 

Show Me a Hero (2016)

This miniseries from the master David Simon is gripping. He exceeds at crafting and developing characters on all ends of the spectrum. He depicts life in Yonkers from the upper-class white side to the lower-class black side in public housing and then the integrated neighborhoods with the new contentious public housing. It matters that Simon's stories are inspired by real life. He is depicting a real slice of life in America, at times mundane but always real. When people want to see raw everyday America, they would do well to turn to Simon.

The choice of music is very fitting. For the most part, it's not performed music (diagetic) like in Treme. But it features lots of Bruce Springsteen in the Oscar Isaac scenes. And period hip hop in the projects scenes.

It is a timely story about race. They always are about race, actually. But this is very explicit. It is a true story about opposition to building federally mandated public housing in Yonkers, NY in the late 80s. Yes, recent racism in NY. It existed and exists today. You are made to see everyone's side of the story. Oscar Isaac plays the young mayor. He is always excellent, really inhabiting the life of this "hero." My favorite were the first few episodes with the nitty gritty local politics. But the development of Catherine Keener's character was also really engaging. The opening scene is also the ending scene, and while I kind of saw it coming, I was genuinely shaken by it. 

Sing Street (2016)

John Carney is really just magical. He knows how to make charming musicals about making music. They're always really touching. His depiction of love is beautiful and real. It's about hope and joy and taking chances and being young.  And the original music is genuinely good. "Drive It Like You Stole It" is in my playlist now. The cast is lovable, their 80s Dublin costumes are hilarious, and you really root for them. At the end, I found myself inexplicably attached to these characters. I must admit that I wasn't even really paying much attention while watching this movie, but somehow they still hooked me. 

Suspiria (1977)

We watched Suspiria as the first screening in our Cinema Society at SAIS Europe. Without knowing anything about the film, it was abundantly clear that this movie was the inspiration for Neon Demon, which I saw at Cannes. Neon Demon was terrible, but the one thing I remember that I liked about it was its use of color and light. And it borrows that directly from Argento. He uses colored lights to create this artificial look that enhances the horror. I don't really like horror, and I still don't really like horror, but I appreciate style. And while the plot is thin and shallow, it is certainly stylish. The production design of this ballet academy is so distinctive with the solid colors. It is a gory film, so there's obviously lots of red. The creepy musical theme is still haunting me.

One really bizarre thing for me was the dubbing. It is in Italian but the actors aren't all Italian, so the film is dubbed into Italian, despite being a native Italian film. I really can't get over the dubbing. I can accept it in animations when you don't have real mouths, but it just looks so unnatural. 

Inferno (2016)

We saw Inferno at the Cineteca di Bologna, because unlike in the rest of Italy where they dub foreign films, they show films in their original language there. They have some respect for movies there. The Cineteca is world renowned for its film restoration and its rich film archive. It's also really cheap to see a movie there. Even though it's clear on the other side of the city, it's worth going there.

Inferno opened in Italy before it opened in the US, presumably because it was all filmed in Italy. And it is very evident. The movie is basically an extended tourism commercial for Florence. And when I went to Florence a few weeks ago, I was walking around recognizing places from the movie. And it's beautiful and lovely. So...it worked!

The movie itself was alright if you can get over the whole product placement thing. I felt like there was some inconsistency with the plot. The treasure hunt clues were certainly not as airtight as National Treasure. I haven't seen DaVinci Code or Angels & Demons, but I'm going to assume those have consistent treasure maps too. Who left these clues for whom and how did we find them? Did we really need that middle clue? Then without spoiling too much, there is a big reveal at the end of the book (according to Will) that does not play out in the movie, though it is sort of hinted to if you've read the book and can pick up on it. And that reveal sort of gives some reasoning and thoughtfulness that was otherwise missing.

They also must've wasted a hell of a lot of money on special effects for the opening scene depicting Inferno. It is wholly unnecessary and adds absolutely nothing to the plot. 

Patton Oswalt: Talking for Clapping (2016)

It was pretty funny, but nowadays there is so much great stand-up that doesn't just rely on crudeness and sex that this was really nothing special. It definitely should not have won the Emmy over Jon Mulaney and Tig Notaro, my two personal favorites that have genuinely funny material. Especially when there is some really boundary pushing comedy out there, like Amy Schumer, how could Patton Oswalt's tired comedy win? It's funny but we've seen it before. I guess it was the safe/comfortable vote.

Captain Fantastic (2016)

I missed this one when I was at Cannes. And I'm very glad I finally got around to it, because it is incredible. Viggo Mortensen plays the anti-capitalist patriarch of a family that lives deep in the wilderness. They have survival skills and in-depth knowledge about very specific things, including philosophy and the US Constitution. But they struggle to reintegrate into society lacking "normalcy." Is normalcy a good thing? With a thought provoking screenplay and commanding performances, it is an excellent film. And there is a big splash of family drama and emotion to make you feel for these characters. It's really touching.

13th (2016)

This much needed documentary is very well done. It is a documentary for our contentious times. Ava Duvernay's direction is evident in the beautifully shot talking head interviews. They are sometimes in the traditional rule of thirds, and sometimes dead in the center staring straight down the camera. And they are accompanied by well-made, non-cheesy graphics.  She speaks to some of the most eminent scholars and activists to tell the story of African Americans. One of the scholars she features is Michelle Alexander and rightly so, because the film is essentially a film version of  her seminal work: "The New Jim Crow." I read that book in my sophomore year and it completely enlightened my outlook on race in America. What Duvernay adds to the conversation is the last six years of history, of damning evidence. Alexander's book was published in 2010. And to put it plainly, a lot has happened since then. 

Star Trek Beyond (2016)

It was not as mind-blowing as the two previous installments of the reboot, but this is still a very good effort. JJ Abrams can do no wrong. The writing was excellent. It was quite humorous (thanks to Simon Pegg) and also really complex. Being a student of international relations, I have been taking Theories of International Relations. And the plot of this film is essentially the classical debate between realism and liberalism. Of course, the Federation is an interplanetary institution meant to reduce conflict between planets. They are the liberals. That interplanetary organization (and the intricate leadership structure of each starship) is my favorite part of Star Trek. And Idris Elba is the realist. He believes that power is everything. The Federation doesn't work. What's more realist than that?  Spoiler alert: the liberal galactic order wins.

Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016)

Did we really need this sequel? No, not really. Tim Burton created an amazing vision of Wonderland in the first film. Then he stepped away and the world Disney re-created just wasn't quite as impressive or imaginative. Time Burton created an original story with familiar characters in the first one. The story culminated in an epic battle and was well done. This one just doesn't match up. Even the actors don't seem quite as invested in the project. No one asked for this sequel.

Money Monster (2016)

So I was generally in the same vicinity as George Clooney when I was at Cannes, but I couldn't get in to the premiere screening and I didn't see him but I know he was somewhere there! The movie has a promising premise. A man threatens to kill George Clooney, a Jim Cramer-type character, on live TV after a stock pick he makes collapses. And they slowly, too slowly for a thriller, unravel a conspiracy. I didn't really like the resolution of the film. It was almost satisfying but ultimately the ending was disappointing after the whole buildup.

The Nice Guys (2016)

I missed the premiere screening of The Nice Guys at Cannes, but it got a pretty good reception, if I remember correctly. It's a pretty funny buddy cop mystery movie. It has a sometimes inappropriate, but witty, script. It's better than a Judd Apatow kind of inappropriate, though I can't quite explain why. The movie hearkens back to the 70s with an appropriately fun soundtrack and ridiculous costumes. Russell Crowe and Ryan Gosling have a great buddy chemistry. I guess Ryan Gosling just has good chemistry with everyone. 

Florence Foster Jenkins (2016)

This movie was pleasantly hilarious. Meryl Streep can basically do no wrong, you can always count on her (Hugh Grant and Simon Helberg are pretty funny too). She plays a rich patron of the arts who thinks she can sing and no one has the heart or the guts to tell her that she can't. Her lack of operatic abilities is astounding. She is so bad that the audience in the film can't help but laugh. And that laughter is infectious. 

Captain America: Civil War (2016)

I saw this movie a couple of months ago. I guess the fact that I can't really remember anything about it is a testament to its mediocrity. I'm getting kind of sick of these Marvel Avengers movies. They are all more or less the same--this one is 2.5 hours of the same. There are just too many superheroes in this movie. It's kind of difficult to care about any one of them when they are so numerous. They introduced a couple characters without any explanation. I'm sure the comic book geeks understood their presence no problem, but I was looking for some introduction. And quite frankly, I don't remember the previous films well enough to follow all of the other story lines either. It's all a big fight. Some cool special effects I guess. I know I had more to say about it two months ago, but I just can't remember anymore.

Singin' in the Rain (1952)

I love musicals. Why? Because they're just so fun. And that's why I am so excitedly looking forward to Damien Chazelle's upcoming La La Land. To prepare, I watched Singin' in the Rain, the legendary movie musical. The music is iconic: Good Morning, Singin' in the Rain, Make Em Laugh.  And of course, Gene Kelly was a dancer. There is that gorgeous dance scene in the rain with the umbrella. Now that is iconic.

The plot is quite light. It is about the transition from silent movies to the talkies, a classic story that has been told many times since Singin' in the Rain, such as in Best Picture winner The Artist. I love the depiction of Old Hollywood.  It is really a magical period for a movie lover. But it's not about the plot. Good old song and dance are all you need. 

The Lobster (2015)

The Lobster is a super strange and awkward movie. It almost has a bit of a Wes Anderson feel to it. I love the premise. It is fresh and original. Colin Farrell moves into a hotel where singles have 45 days to find a partner lest they get turned into an animal. The first half of the film is highly enjoyable. It is a quiet kind of funny and you have no idea what is coming up next. The premise evolves and unravels and you're never sure what insane new rule the hotel came up with or what quirky guest is staying there. I won't reveal too much cause it's really insane. I do feel like the movie sort of falls apart in the second half. The hotel was so brilliant, that I was unsatisfied with the world created outside it where you have to learn a new set of rules.  I would've been happy if they had just fleshed out the story within the confines of the hotel. It's a shame because I really like Rachel Weisz, but the second half in which she appears was a little difficult for me to follow. 

All the Way (2016)

Bryan Cranston won a Tony Award for his portrayal of LBJ in All the Way. In the HBO adaptation, he transfers that performance to the screen. Cranston is perfect in everything. I love HBO's political dramas. And this is no exception. LBJ's presidency was very eventful: Civil Rights, Vietnam, Great Society. There is a lot to pack into a two hour movie. Perhaps the issues don't all get enough screen time, but as a survey of history from the perspective of the most powerful man in the world, it succeeds.

El Ciudadano Ilustre (The Distinguished Citizen) (2016)

This was my favorite film that I saw at the Venice Film Festival. It was also the last film, ending well after midnight. It is about a famous author, a Nobel laureate, who is invited to return to his small hometown (village) in rural Argentina. It is a forgotten town that he never returned to after leaving. But he gained fame off of writing about the people in the town in his novels. Now he returns to face them, though he didn't realize how hilariously problematic this would be. It is basically one of those situations where everything that can go wrong does. I laughed a lot during this movie. The audience maybe wasn't up for it at midnight, cause it got a rather tepid reception, but it was exactly the kind of movie I wanted at the end of a 4-movie day. Oscar Martinez gives a great performance as the superior being just sick and tired of everyone. The film looks hyper real. I'm not really sure why, but it's a little strange. Maybe it's the way it was shot. I don't really know, but I looked past it and just enjoyed the funny screenplay.

Hacksaw Ridge (2016)

I wouldn't really say I'm a fan of Mel Gibson and he hasn't really done anything particularly noteworthy in a while. I wasn't expecting much but this movie is his return to form. He went back to what he knows, war movies. The battle scene is very long and the violence is quite gratuitous but all in all the choreography is actually really well done. There is a constant intensity. Is it a little over the top? Sure. But war is over the top, isn't it? There were a couple of scenes that just didn't work. At one point, you see warships that bomb the ridge. And in this day and age, the warships should not have looked so fake. The CGI and special effects in that scene were not up to date. Secondly, the inevitable seppuku scene was unnecessary and in poor taste. We got the idea already, we didn't need to see it.

Andrew Garfield is quite good. His southern accent sounds a little off, but it is charming nonetheless. The first half of the movie perhaps bangs on the bible too much for my taste, but that is the whole point. Garfield plays a conscientious objector (for religious reasons) who volunteers for the army anyways. The film presents an ethical dilemma that is genuinely thought provoking. The movie is emotional in all the right places. The star of the movie, however, is Vince Vaughn. I think he is hilarious in everything he does, and a war movie is no exception. He is an interesting and brilliant (kind of provocative) choice to cast as the army sergeant, providing some comic relief to an otherwise unfunny situation. 

Il Piu Grande Sogno (I Was a Dreamer) (2016)

This film is based on true events, and the (non-professional) actors portray themselves, playing out their life story. It gives the film a raw quality. It is genuine and authentic, unflinching in its look at reality. Local government is not glamorous. It has its rewards, but certainly has its challenges. And the troubled Mirko tackles this challenge with bravery and pride. He just wants to do good in his community after a spin in jail, and he makes every effort as the newly elected president of the homeowners' committee and is constantly thwarted. Mirko, a tough Italian guy, shows vulnerability and emotion and depth beyond what you expect (the full beards are partly to blame for my judgment, but they all sport manly beards). It is inspiring because we know behind the dramatization, it actually happened. The cast was in attendance and they were all glammed up. The film is in Italian, and here and there I understood some bits, picked up some slang, but for the most part I had difficulty understanding the accents. I think it was kind of southern. In any case, it's not what I'm used to hearing. 

Spira Mirabilis (2016)

Spira Mirabilis is a documentary supposedly about immortality. Though you wouldn't necessarily know it from watching the movie. This is a very challenging film. It challenges you to stay awake through scenes of nothingness. There is very little dialogue, quite unusual for a documentary, a genre that relies on explaining things. You watch people do mundane tasks. Sometimes it's kind of mesmerizing--the petri dish underneath the microscope. Other times it isn't. For instance, we watched a caravan of vans drive through the desert for a solid minute. You watch a pair make something out of metal for the whole film, and its not till the end when you figure out what it is. It's a drum, by the way. Not a big spoiler, because it's not really clear what the drum has to do with anything. Essentially, there are these unconnected stories, very very loosely connected by a theme of immortality (VERY loose). I don't know how they came up with this film in the first place. I wonder if they found these separate projects and then said, "How can we put these unrelated things all in one movie?" Or did they first come up with the concept and then look for the projects to film? Either one would be astounding because honestly they are all so unrelated that it is unfathomable that anyone could piece them together.

Mr. Holmes (2015)

Mr Holmes was a pleasant surprise. Ian McKellan is a fantastic Sherlock. The film is very thoughtful and touching. It follows an aging Sherlock, looking back on his final case. The film goes through his process of memory recovery. But his memory is failing and it is deeply affecting to watch a great mind in deterioration and then to watch an old man evolve. It lacks the glamour that we've become accustomed to in the most recent adaptations of the detective (Benedict Cumberbatch and Robert Downey Jr.). It lacks the brilliant intricacy of the cases in those stories, but rather this is about solving his own case. What it lacks in flash it more than makes up for with emotion.

All the President's Men (1976)

After seeing Spotlight last year, I had to watch the original journalism thriller. And I was not disappointed. Journalism is tough work. It's not glamorous. But it's important. Redford and Hoffman as Woodward and Bernstein are both excellent. The story unfolds in such a way that keeps the audience on edge throughout. The nitty gritty of the politics behind the Watergate scandal is fascinating. I also love where it ends, right at the beginning of the uncovering of the truth, not hashing it all out. I didn't realize it would end so abruptly, but it leaves a lot to typewritten postscript. It perhaps shows the scope of the investigation and the amount of effort and dedication that the Washington Post put into this investigation. Solidly acted, interesting and important.

Gone With the Wind (1939)

Let's say it's a 5 of respect. Because there are some incredibly epic things about this movie. It is THE epic--on a scale that matches the grandeur of the classical old South. It's all about big production value. The film is technically brilliant. And watching this movie in this day and age, you can't ignore how iconic the film has become. But no one wants to hear pure praise.

It is about ostensibly about Scarlett O'Hara's love life, but it is really a portrait of the old South. The film is charming. If you find antebellum racism and slavery charming.  What I guess I'm trying to say is that while I can appreciate the cinematic value of the movie, the story is kind of offensive with our contemporary hindsight. Of course, to provide an accurate depiction of the South, you can't ignore slavery. However, the depiction of slavery is not indicative of 19th century sentiments as was probably intended; but rather it is reflective of contemporary 20th century sentiments, which were very negative though they probably didn't think so at the time. Racism remained a problem through Jim Crow all the way to 1939 when the film was made and on to the present day. We always think that we've made progress, but it moves at a snail's pace and with hindsight we can see how our progress is stalled. I think it is interesting to analyze the film as a primary source on America in the 1930s rather than as a secondary source on 19th century American South (thanks to Professor Mason's History and Film class).

Also, I saw this on a ten hour flight. That is the optimal time to watch a four hour movie--when you are trapped and have nothing to do but watch movies. You don't even have to set aside a giant block of time.

Yu-Gi-Oh!: The Dark Side of Dimensions (2016)

Let me preface this with...Actually this is going to take a lot of prefacing. I did not think that I would watch the Yu-Gi-Oh movie in Japan. In fact, Yu-Gi-Oh has not crossed my mind in many years. I did not think that I would watch any Japanese movie ever without English subtitles. I don't feel like I really have the right to give it a rating seeing that I didn't understand the movie. It's one thing to not understand the language, but I also wasn't up to date on the backstory. I used to watch Yu-Gi-Oh when I was younger as a casual Saturday morning thing. I didn't really follow it closely for story. I do remember going to see the movie in theaters years ago and getting a pack of souvenir cards. I can confirm that today I also got a souvenir card, in Japanese of course.

As expected, the movie had no substance, or I just missed it. But the computer graphics were pretty good. A big step up from the TV show. The duel scenes almost make a mockery of the TV show, which I believe used to have more of an emphasis on the mechanics of the duels. The duels in the movie are so fast, you can't even keep up. It is a product of the action movie period we live in. Not that it really mattered, cause again, no substance.

But none of that matters because I wasn't there for the movie, but the experience. I am very glad that Gabrielle and Amy convinced me to join them. Because this was a hell of an experience, by far the most Japanese thing I've done so far.

We went to buy tickets first earlier in the day. Being a Wednesday, ladies got discounted tickets for "Ladie's Service Day" whatever that means (do they have to service something or is the theater doing them a service?). I got a less discounted price as a student and had to show my student ID. Curiously, the women did not have to show ID to prove gender.

I had a large popcorn, which was like an American medium. It comes in the usual bucket, but then they put the bucket in a plastic tray so you can hold the tray which has a spot for popcorn and a drink. And then at the end of the movie, there are people to collect your tray and trash. It is very clean and efficient.

Back in May, I attended the Cannes Film Festival. And we all said that movie theaters were ruined for us now because we were spoiled by Cannes. At Cannes, you have audiences who enjoy and respect movies. They laugh when they're supposed to and clap at the right place and cry when appropriate. It is the reason watching movies in a group is different than watching a movie alone. Well, this experience was totally the opposite.

First, the audience for these anime movies at "Road Show" screenings cosplay. That means they dress up in costume and they're really good costumes too. They spend some real money on these. And it's not just one or two people. I'd say half the audience is in costume. And they all have glow sticks. Now, I don't know where they got these glow sticks, but they all knew exactly what to do without instructions. They have different color settings, and somehow they all know that the different colors correspond to different characters. I don't think the sticks are specifically made for this purpose, but they have all the necessary colors and everyone has them. And they hold them up and shake them to the beat of the background music to cheer for the characters...Not just their favorite characters, but all of them. Turning back in my seat, I would see a whole sea of glow sticks beating an imaginary drum in unison. It is hilarious. They get so into it. They being the audience, which was predominantly female, probably in their twenties.

Before the movie even started, they were screaming at the top of their lungs at the trailers. And they are so loud. This would not be acceptable in an American theater, but this was like an interactive movie experience. Sometimes one person would call and then everyone would respond. And they all know exactly what to say at the right time. Clearly these people are coming back for second and third viewings. They would yell "kawaii" when there was a cute kid on screen or "ohayou" when someone on screen woke up or simply yell the name of the character on screen like a fan girl. It was like being at a Justin Beiber concert but the screaming was totally unexpected. Most of the time I had no idea what they were saying, but it was always hilarious. They are so into it.

I don't think I'll ever have a movie experience like that again. But it was unforgettable.

The Little Prince (Le Petit Prince) (2015)

This is a gorgeous little movie that mixes traditional computer animation with creative stop motion animation. The animation is brilliant. That is by far the best part. I admit I didn't read The Little Prince. So I don't have the same connection to this story that other people have. But it is a touching story with an uplifting moral. There is this strange balance between English and French in this movie. The dialogue is in English but the text is in French. The production is French, but was supposed to be accessible to a wider audience. And yet it has had a difficult time breaking into the American market. I had to see it on an international flight. But I would highly recommend it to all kids.

Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials (2016)

This was the movie that really exhausted me on the plane. After watching Hail Caesar, I saw another bad movie. This is what I call a running movie. It was basically nonstop running. It doesn't make for very interesting plot. It's a chase without a destination. I enjoyed the first one because of the mystery surrounding the premise. But the mystery does not resolve itself in this one. The plot doesn't really move at all. We just have to wait for the final installment. They didn't give me enough answers. And there wasn't enough Minho.

Hail, Caesar! (2016)

In short, I didn't really like this movie. I fell asleep. It has its funny moments. There are some great scenes, like the one in which the religious leaders discuss the accuracy of the movie. There just aren't enough of them.  It really feels like a Coen Brothers movie. The humor is unusual and dry but fast and witty. But I just couldn't really get into it. The movie is loving depiction of Hollywood and the movie-making business. 

Downton Abbey (2010-15)

Downton Abbey is a costume soap opera that started out with a phenomenal first season. And it kept it up for a bit, but then they fell into a lull in the fourth and fifth seasons. Gladly, they ended strong with an excellent final two episodes, tying nicely everyone's story lines in a touching and emotional way. As a big ensemble drama, there are a lot of characters. And admittedly, some characters have more interesting story lines than others. You try to equally invest in the upstairs aristocrats and the downstairs servants. The separation between the two spheres was distinct but I enjoyed watching their interaction as well.

The characters that last all 6 seasons maintain continuity in a world of change. The great estates of England are in decline by the end of WWI and we watch the times change and the family adapt. It is a period drama, and the time period always played an important part of the story as new technology was introduced and as events unfolded around the world. And time moves very quickly episode to episode. The music and cinematography of Downton Abbey is really pretty too. It takes place in the gorgeous Highclere Castle.

Mary was known for being mean to poor Edith. Their dynamic was always funny to watch. Mr. Carson and Ms. Hughes also had some great banter. But Dame Maggie Smith was was the star of the show with her never ending one-liners.

Glen Campbell: I'll Be Me (2014)

This documentary chronicles the a few years in the life of the legendary country musician Glen Campbell, specifically after his Alzheimer's diagnosis on his farewell tour. The footage of his tour is particularly well done. You watching the show go off without a hitch at first, and slowly as his health deteriorates the show falls apart. It is an unflinchingly emotional portrait of a man who is only part of who he once was. It is especially moving seeing him retain his musical skills while other parts of brain fade. And it is especially powerful watching his final concert, which he barely gets through. This movie achieves its goal in a very tasteful way. It sets to raise awareness for Alzheimer's disease and it certainly does that. The audience sees this man suffering from a disease in all his strength and courage. And it brings out lots of big name musicians for talking head interviews to talk about their memories of Glen and their own experiences with Alzheimer's. And the end of the film presents a new song: I'm Not Gonna Miss You. It is a heart wrenching ballad sung by Glen, his swan song. 

Eye in the Sky (2015)

This is a sleek modern intense war thriller. War has changed in the modern era. There is arguably no war in the film. But there is military activity. Our soldiers may not be on the ground, but there is a profound presence around the world with the new usage of drones. The technology is incredible clear and precise. And this film is thought provoking. It does its best to be unbiased, presenting and defending vigorously each side of the argument, exploring multiple issues regarding drones. War thrillers are always in the moment, and that is how they build intensity. But this movie is intense because it actually drags out the drama. We are forced to constantly wait and delay because that is how war is now. There are legal issues, political issues and a whole chain of command that must be consulted--and we see it all. 

Finding Dory (2016)

This is Pixar's long promised sequel to the classic Finding Nemo. The film is actually very similar to its predecessor; similar but not a copy like the new Star Wars. This movie makes much more use of flashbacks. This is partially due to the nature of Dory's short term memory loss, but it also capitalizes on cute baby Dory whose eyes make up more than half of the entire fish. The story is familiar but very well executed by once again moving from the open ocean to the an aquatic environment in a human context. Ellen is fantastic as a forgetful fish. But Ed O'Neill steals the show, essentially playing his usual curmudgeon character as an octopus. And there's a great cameo by Sigourney Weaver's voice.

What is so incredible about this movie is the advances in animation made over at Pixar. The octopus is such an intricate character to animate. Movement and camouflage involve several moving tentacles and a body that moves like nothing else does. Further, the under water scenes better reflect the lighting of the ocean. The sea floor is dark and scary and murky and the effect that you would normally get with a camera comes through in the animation.

As with all Pixar movies, it preys on emotion. There is always that moment about three-fourths in to the movie that is supposed to make you cry. But I felt like that moment, in comparison to other Pixar movies, is a little too predictable and a bit too cutesy to be as powerful. It relies on you feeling bad for baby Dory, rather than stemming from pure emotion.

The short film preceding Finding Dory was Piper. The animation is incredible, it looks absolutely real. The birds and the sand and the beach and the water are so lifelike. The story is simple and sweet. It makes you smile. And what more can you ask for from a short film than to evoke genuine emotion.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay--Part 2 (2015)

This is a much darker film than other blockbuster series. And that tone matches the the book but I didn't really like the last book. The Hunger Games series was great because of the hunger games. But the last two films don't feature a hunger games. They focus instead on rebellion, which is complicated, cynical and messy. Much of this final movie is spent filming propaganda. And there is no glamour in propaganda. There is no glamour in war. It makes you long for the extravagance of the earlier films. Jennifer Lawrence can do no wrong-- she'll forever be known as The Girl on Fire. The novelty has kind of worn off now that dystopian teen fiction is everywhere, only exacerbated by splitting the final book (arguably the worst one) into two films.

Confirmation (2016)

HBO continues to make dramas of our recent political history, following Recount and Game Change. As always, HBO attracts an all-star ensemble cast that is given plenty of room to shine. Kerry Washington brilliantly plays Anita Hill. She is smart and calm in the face of unimaginable adversity. This is accentuated by juxtaposing her with Jennifer Hudson's more fiery Angela Wright. Wendell Pierce from Treme is angry and defensive as Clarence Thomas.

The film makes a lot of use of actual news footage. It gives the film more authenticity. It gives the viewer insight into what people were thinking at the time, while also portraying a perspective in the film with hindsight. The film takes a pretty negative stance on the Senate Judiciary Committee and the hearings. Particularly, Senator Biden comes off rather weak. But ultimately the film is about Anita Hill. It is about female empowerment. It is about confronting sexual harassment. And it does all these things quite well.

Midnight Special (2016)

This movie has a Steven Spielberg feel to it. It is his brand of science fiction. It is a little bit Close Encounters and a little bit Super 8--all very prominently feature the night. It is about a young boy with mysterious powers who needs to get to the right place at the right time for something. It is all shrouded in mystery. There are three parties who have competing stakes. One party is the FBI, joined by Adam Driver from the NSA. Adam Driver is a little subdued, he kind of under acts. It is the same bland delivery of lines as in Paterson and Star Wars. Sure, I guess it fits the role but it's always the same with him. Another party is a religious cult that reads prophecies from the boy's powers. And the third party is made up of Michael Shannon, Kirsten Dunst, and Joel Edgerton. All three of them are excellent. I particularly liked Shannon's intense performance as a concerned father. The movie is engaging and mysterious, not to mention visually striking. 

The Puppetmaster (1993)

The Puppetmaster is a gorgeous epic tale. It is an extraordinary tale, that is unbelievably autobiographical. Li Tian-lu, master puppeteer, narrates his own life story as an artist living under the Japanese occupation of Taiwan. Periodically, we cut to talking head interviews with the aging Li that give his story an air of authenticity like a documentary. The scenes typically start in the moment and we watch history unfold. Meanwhile, a narrator tells the audience what is occurring (it is difficult to tell who is speaking, whether it is someone inside the frame, someone outside the frame, or more often the narrator) while we see a slight variation on screen. The movie provokes questions about history versus memory.

The cinematography is absolutely gorgeous. Interior doors and walls create a framing device within the frame of the camera such that we only see a fraction of the action. The characters move in and out of the frame as if life exceeds the boundaries of the film, and we are just observing it. We are reminded of this in the mesmerizing puppet scenes, in which the focus is not simply what we see on stage but also the characters acting and viewing the show. When we do see people on screen, they are always occupied with something, as if they were standing on stage exposed to the audience doing choreography. The movie is characterized by long master takes (vignettes) beginning with a fade-in and ending with a fade-out filmed by a single still camera. When the camera does move in rare circumstances, it is striking.The wide shots of the Taiwanese countryside are beautiful with small silhouettes of working people accentuating the scenery.

The music is also notable, including both traditional Chinese instruments and western style epic soundtracks. And Li has a sense of humor that is actually quite funny though sometimes the movie is a little slow. It is a heartwarming story about an artist who mastered his craft told in a greater historical context. 

Ant-Man (2015)

Paul Rudd stars in this Marvel flick, which was actually quite funny. It is more traditional humor, unlike the riskier Deadpool. Quite frankly, I think Ant-Man works better. Michael Pena is hilarious as Rudd's sidekick. And Paul Rudd, as a comedian, is naturally funny and charming whereas sometimes you feel like Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool tries too hard. What is really great about this movie is that Ant-Man is human. He is not "super" like some other Marvel heroes. And as a human, he has human problems, family problems, mundane problems. This human element grounds the film in reality. The powers come from science, which though it is unrealistic, is hypothetically believable. It does not take itself too seriously, while not being a total joke like Deadpool. 

Zootopia (2016)

On the surface, it is an animated buddy cop comedy (helmed by a strong, dominant female lead), but there is so much more to it. Zootopia is a brilliant allegory that is funny, relevant, and witty. Predators and prey live together in harmony, or so they believe. But stereotyping and discrimination run abound. It is not a perfect analogy to the real world. Nor can it be expected to capture all of the complexities and intricacies of our society. But Disney creates its own world with its own imperfections, a utopia that cannot reach the high bar it sets for itself. It is very thoughtful and thought provoking. It preaches a message of tolerance that falls upon American ears that need to hear it. But the message is never too blatant--it is balanced well with genuinely funny jokes (including references to The Godfather and Breaking Bad) and modern animation. 

The Tonys 2016

Every once in a while, a cultural phenomenon takes Broadway by storm. Hamilton follows in the footsteps of The Book of Mormon and The Producers and Rent, though I'm not sure if those are even proper comparisons for the groundbreaking musical. Already with a Pulitzer, the hip hop history play is the hottest ticket in town. Just how many awards will it win? The record of 12 was set by the Producers. Out of 16 nominations, Hamilton is up for 13 unique awards, all of the awards for which it was eligible. Many are predicting that Hamilton is a lock in 7 categories. Personally, I think Hamilton will tie the record, losing just the Lead Actress in a Musical Tony. James Corden, a Tony winner himself for One Man, Two Guvnors, is hosting. He did a Carpool Karaoke segment with Lin Manuel Miranda, Audra MacDonald, Jane Krakowski and Jesse Tyler Ferguson already for his own show. I think he will do a Crosswalk the Musical segment for the Tonys (I'm hoping for In the Heights on an actual street in Washington Heights). Full disclosure, the only eligible show I have seen is On Your Feet, which is up for 1 Tony for choreography.

Best Play
Will win: The Humans
Watch out for: Eclipsed

Best Musical
Will win: Hamilton

Best Book of a Musical
Will win: Lin Manuel Miranda (Hamilton)

Best Musical Score
Will win: Lin Manuel Miranda (Hamilton)

Best Revival of a Play
Will win: A View From the Bridge
Watch out for: Long Day's Journey into Night

Best Revival of a Musical
Will win: She Loves Me
Watch out for: The Color Purple

Best Actor in a Play
Will win: Frank Langella (The Father)
Watch out for: Mark Strong (A View from the Bridge)

Best Actress in a Play
Will win: Jessica Lange (Long Day's Journey into Night)
Watch out for: Michelle Williams (Blackbird)

Best Actor in a Musical
Will win: Leslie Odom Jr (Hamilton)
Watch out for: Lin Manuel Miranda (Hamilton)
Unless they split: Danny Burstein (Fiddler on the Roof)

Best Actress in a Musical-- Hamilton's Loss
Will win: Cynthia Erivo (The Color Purple)
Watch out for: Phillipa Soo (Hamilton)

Best Featured Actor in a Play
Will win: Michael Shannon (Long Day's Journey into Night)
Watch out for: Reed Birney (The Humans)

Best Featured Actress in a Play
Will win: Jayne Houdyshell (The Humans)
Watch out for: Andrea Martin (Noises Off)

Best Featured Actor in a Musical
Will win: Daveed Diggs (Hamilton)
Watch out for: Jonathan Groff (Hamilton)

Best Featured Actress in a Musical
Will win: Renee Elise Goldsberry (Hamilton)
Watch out for: Jane Krakowski (She Loves Me)

Best Director of a Play
Will win: Ivo van Hove (A View from the Bridge)
Watch out for: Joe Mantello (The Humans)

Best Director of a Musical
Will win: Thomas Kail (Hamilton)

Best Choreography
Will win: Hamilton
Watch out for: Shuffle Along

Best Orchestrations
Will win: Alex Lacamoire (Hamilton)

Best Scenic Design of a Play
Will win: The Humans
Watch out for: Therese Raquin

Best Scenic Design of a Musical
Will win: Hamilton
Watch out for: She Loves Me

Best Costume Design of a Play
Will win: King Charles III
Watch out for: Eclipsed

Best Costume Design of a Musical
Will win: Hamilton
Watch out for: Shuffle Along

Best Lighting Design of a Play
Will win: The Humans
Watch out for: The Crucible

Best Lighting Design of a Musical
Will win: Hamilton
Watch out for: American Psycho

Update: 19/24 categories. Hamilton came away with eleven awards, falling just short of the record 12 set by the Producers. But to be fair, the Producers won a sound award that no longer exists. Hamilton lost just two races, one to The Color Purple and one to She Loves Me. 

Beyonce: The Formation World Tour (2016)

Beyonce is the undisputed Queen. She slays for two hours. Now 19 years into her career, she has climbed to the top of the industry and can do no wrong. She unapologetically ("I Ain't Sorry") embraces her femininity, her sexuality, and her blackness. Her unprecedented visual album Lemonade is visually striking and provokes questions about race, gender, marriage and strength in the face of infidelity. It is an admirable accomplishment, but I am not sure all of these complex ideas shine through in her concert. The movie was such a force that it is perhaps too much to ask for a concert to convey such deep messages. But this is not to detract from what Beyonce does well in concert.

What is abundantly clear is the power of womanhood. Beyonce leads her all-female backup dancers in a militant march. In solidarity, they support Beyonce in mesmerizing, overtly sexualized dance. They project the a silhouette of Beyonce's figure perched atop a chair against the audience. The dance style is characterized by sharp, bold movements and Beyonce's ferocity comes through most in the dance sequences. I would say she dances as much as she sings, especially in the first half while she has energy. Luckily, she is a good dancer. The lighting actually detracts from the dance, blinding the audience and obscuring the dance, which is the strongest aspect of the concert.

The main set piece is an enormous LED box that revolves and splits down the middle. Clips of Lemonade are shown on all four sides. They keep the audience engaged during Beyonce's many costume changes. The stage is otherwise empty. The band is nowhere to be seen, save for a drummer and a bassist. The backup singers are in the shadows. It's really not about the music--dance is the showcase.

The most stunning part of the show is the final set of songs. The thin, long runway that bridges the main stage to the smaller platform out in the audience is revealed to be a conveyor belt. And that smaller platform reveals a shallow pool of water in which they dance clad in white and raise hell. Wet and alive, Beyonce slays "Freedom" and Destiny's Child's "Survivor."

After her performance at the Superbowl earlier this year, SNL aired a skit in which white people discover (much to their surprise) that Beyonce is black. It's funny because there is some truth behind it. There were more white people in the audience than I was expecting. New York is perhaps not a good representation of white America, but I have a hard time believing that middle America would enjoy DJ Khaled's hour long opening featuring a slew of names I was only vaguely familiar with. Each of them only rapped part of one song (none of which I knew) on a very small section of stage. I didn't think I was that out of touch with hip hop, but I was wrong. Make no mistake--this concert experience isn't about what fans want or are familiar with. It is about embracing the black experience. Lemonade represents a thematic evolution in Beyonce's music that reflects both our time and her ability to do whatever she wants. She is the Queen and she doesn't need to worry about what anyone else thinks.

PS. I thought I was much more familiar with Beyonce's music than I actually am. I think I recognized less than 50% of the songs she performed, many of which were just partial songs. Nonetheless, Beyonce's performance at Citi Field was a religious experience. Did Jay Z cheat? Maybe, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter. What matters is this story gave Beyonce a vehicle to project her strength as a black woman.

The Long Night of Francisco Sanctis (La Larga Noche de Francisco Sanctis) (2016)

A Long Look at the Dirty War (For Those Familiar With It)

            Based on a novel of the same name by Humberto Constantini, The Long Night of Francisco Sanctis (La Larga Noche de Francisco Sanctis) runs just a brief seventy-eight minutes yet it feels much too long. It would have made an excellent short film, but it makes for a generally slow feature film.

            First-time directors Andrea Testa and Francisco Marquez drag out a single tension-filled day in the life of a middle-class worker living a quiet life in Buenos Aires. The opening scene expertly shows (and refrains from “telling” at any point in the film) the audience everything to know about the daily life of Francisco Sanctis, portrayed by Diego Velazquez. In a single take with a still camera, Sanctis and his wife hurry to prepare breakfast for their two children. The four of them barely fit in the cramped kitchen, let alone within the frame. Like a typical family, they are running late in their morning routine. The children complain like children do, and Sanctis talks about his anticipated upcoming promotion like a proud breadwinner does. It is evident that this average man lives a mundane life. The drama and impetus of the plot is whether Sanctis will break out of this banal lifestyle.

            He is soon given such an opportunity when an old acquaintance, Elena, phones him at work ostensibly to talk about a poem he wrote in college.  This phone call misled me, as I assumed this poem was about love and this call about an affair. The dialogue with his co-workers hint at an affair as well. After all, extramarital sex is seemingly the most common theme in the films screened at Cannes this year.  But this film was one of just a few I saw that contained no sex. Rather, this was a suspenseful encounter about politics, though the average American viewer would not have realized it. For this reason especially, this arthouse feature is not immediately accessible to a general audience below a certain age.

            The first thing you need to know is that the film takes place in 1977 under the rule of a brutal military junta, right in the midst of the Dirty War. The protagonist uses pay phones several times, but the viewer is never explicitly told what year the film takes place. Perhaps the old fashioned costumes and mustache might suggest that the film takes place in the 1970s, but it was very difficult to confirm my suspicions about the context of the plot otherwise. Testa and Marquez make a very bold assumption that the audience is familiar with the Dirty War. While that may be true of Argentinian audiences, and even Western audiences who lived through it, the typical young American viewer is not well versed in the Dirty War. I can say with certainty that the Dirty War is not included in the American high school history curriculum. Thousands of Argentinians who were thought to oppose the military dictatorship were disappeared, often never heard from again. They were thrown into prisons and flung into the ocean from helicopters left to drown. In this period of terror and uncertainty, everyone was scared and no one could be trusted for they could be spies of the government.

 The only reason I was familiar with it (and was able to form a hypothesis about the plot while watching it) was because I have seen The Official Story (La Historia Oficial), one of the first films released internationally about the Dirty War, in which it is revealed that children of the disappeared were given to families with close ties to the military for adoption. Without the necessary background knowledge, the viewer is left completely in the dark, figuratively and literally. And even with this knowledge, I could only make assumptions as the dialogue is necessarily cautious and consequently vague. This vagueness feeds suspenseful mystery. Viewers clamoring for explicit answers never get them as the mystery lingers past the end credits.

            There were a few specific words that tipped me off, but they could have easily been missed. The first was the name of the military branch that Elena’s husband works for, which sounded aerial in nature, implying death flights (vuelos de la muerte). The second was the use of the word “taken” though the more common term in the context of the Dirty War, “disappeared” (desaparecidos), is never used and the mysterious “they” is never specified. Lastly, Sanctis’s left-leaning poem uses the word “comrade,” revealing his past political activism as a student and providing a motive for why he might be interested in helping Elena warn two people in imminent danger, though Sanctis is unsure just how imminent, adding to the suspense. Talking about the Dirty War without coming right out and being explicit is a means of testifying. If we are to read this film as a primary source on contemporary Argentina, why this film had to be made at this point in time, such testimony is necessary for national healing. It is impressive that these ideas could be conveyed with minimal dialogue, evidence of strong storytelling ability. It is not easy to read between the lines but it is quite rewarding.

            The opening scene in the kitchen probably has more dialogue than any other scene in the film. It is used to introduce the viewer to the ordinary Sanctis family which is implicitly put at risk.  If Sanctis acts on behalf of the strangers and gets caught, he will be disappeared, and his wife probably would be too. And yet if he does nothing, the strangers will surely die as a result of his inaction. It is an impossible moral dilemma. The rest of the movie is characterized by long silences, filled only with ambient street noises, though even those are infrequent in the empty streets of suburban Buenos Aires in the middle of the night. There is no score to fill these silences either, forcing the viewer to simply marinade in the silence of an uneventful night—and that is why the film feels so long, and how it so masterfully builds suspense.

            The reason for the excruciating silence is that everyone is scared. Everyone tries to keep to themselves, because it is not worth the risk of engaging with a stranger who might betray you. An extended scene on a bus gives each of the eight passengers a solid fifteen seconds each to themselves. Each individual is terrified, doing nothing but sitting silently afraid.  Make no mistake—it is suspenseful but you must be prepared for a very slow burning film. The directors succeed in creating this atmosphere of fear that will compel those in the audience who can understand the tension. The uncertainty is unsettling, disquieting. The haunting mystery of the unknown nags at you incessantly. I think that is why despite my slight confusion the movie lingered with me.

The scenery is extremely dark, with just street lamps periodically providing a slight orange tint. This fosters a bleak atmosphere building suspense and quiet anticipation.  The viewer feels the tension and fear that Sanctis does, not knowing what or who may be lurking around the corner or in the shadows. Maybe I have just seen too many scary movies during the Festival, but the dark quiet alleyways made me shiver. Testa and Marquez convey the horror that the Dirty War was by using elements of the horror genre. Thankfully, no one ever does jump out from the shadows, but it is the suspense that something could take you by surprise that keeps the viewer scared.  

Unlike other films about the Dirty War that focus on the disappeared themselves, Testa and Marquez look at a man who is uninvolved in politics.  This is a study in the dilemma ordinary Argentinians simply trying to get through life faced on a daily basis. Sanctis faces a tough situation, one that the viewer as an ordinary person can sympathize with. We suffer along with Sanctis and question our own convictions asking what we would do in his situation. He did not ask to be dragged into this dangerous situation and yet he cannot simply do nothing. He struggles with this internal struggle as he meanders through the city. He perhaps wavers a little more than is necessary to convey the same message. The lack of dialogue hinders the viewer from getting inside Sanctis’s thought process, which would have made for some more eventful scenes. The viewer is left to simply read Velazquez’s facial expressions. A monologue would have been helpful though understandably out of character.  But if you have a family, maybe you do not exactly need Sanctis to spell out his dilemma. The viewer is (probably intentionally) forced to look inside himself to transpose his own thought process to Sanctis. Nonetheless, I think the message is clear that the dark reality of politics is inescapable no matter how far removed one may wish to be from conflict. We can comprehend the horror on a personal level because ordinary viewers can plausibly place themselves in Sanctis’s ordinary shoes. The viewer may have no stake in politics, but neither did Sanctis. And that is what is so scary about this situation, if you can comprehend it. 

X-Men: Apocalypse (2016)

What I love about the X-Men series is the complex discussion of politics and the revisionist history making for an engaging story. This movie doesn't do that. Instead, like a typical superhero movie, it delves into mythology, which is less interesting. And X-Men has gotten extraordinarily confusing in terms of timeline. How could this big huge Apocalypse thing have happened in the 80s and we never heard about it in the original trilogy? There is the welcome re-insertion of Jean Grey (Sophie Turner from Game of Thrones!), Nightcrawler, Storm (who is apparently Egyptian now?) and Cyclops, but Angel is a puzzle. Is this a different Angel than the one from the original trilogy? Because his appearance in this film does not fit in with his role in the original. There is a small cameo by Wolverine, which is bizarre because Wolverine usually has a bigger part in X-Men. And if he wasn't going to have a real role, we didn't need the two minutes. The after-credits scene also alluded to something related to Wolverine, probably to connect this to his next standalone movie. The film's greatest strength is fitting Jean Grey's development back into the narrative, seeing as she is one of the most important mutants.  Usually, one of the high points is the Magneto-Professor X dynamic, but I don't think they got enough scenes together this film. And there was really nothing added to their relationship in this story line. Hopefully, the next X-Men movie returns to its roots.

The Taming of the Shrew (The Public Theater) (2016)

This all-female production of a rather misogynistic play was interesting, but certainly strange. It is a twist to make outdated Elizabethan gender roles tolerable and accessible to a modern audience. Janet McTeer as Petrucchio is excellent. She plays a man well. And Cush Jumbo is versatile as Katherina both unruly and tamed. But what was weirdest about this production is the transposition of the Italian-set play to America, specifically Texas. They don't change any of the place names, but the costumes include cowboy hats and leather jackets and plaid. The set looks carnival themed. They read Shakespeare with a twang. Shakespeare is meant to be read with a British accent.

There is an inexplicable beauty pageant in the beginning and end of the play that definitely wasn't written by Shakespeare. It is used to cleverly jab Donald Trump. And maybe a knock at Steve Harvey too? But I'm not entirely sure where it fits into the play. The production is supposed to move away from Shakespeare's original reading of gender stereotypes, but a pageant seems to reinforce them. Unless it's all just to set up the very last moment when tamed Katherina has the title stripped away from her. Maybe that is the intention. I don't know, but it's kind of bizarre.

The Good Wife (2009-16)

The Good Wife has consistently been one of the best shows on TV. In the era of cable television, The Good Wife has been the lone standout on the networks, delivering 23 episodes of high quality drama per season. It was procedural without ever feeling procedural. It was definitely the best legal drama, showing audiences different types of courts, a cast of quirky judges and lawyers, and interesting and innovative interpretations of the law. It glorifies the legal profession and, as an aspiring lawyer, inspires. Apart from the law, the politics was always engaging, especially behind the scenes of the campaign. The show always did a good job reflecting reality, bringing in stories from the current newspapers, like the brilliant NSA arc. Plus the writing was funny. It was overall an enjoyable show to watch--a show I would actually look forward to watching every week.

I didn't really like the finale.  It's one thing to leave us with uncertainty, but doesn't Alicia deserve some finality? Don't we deserve to know that she can be happy? I will always remember Josh Charles's last episode, a shocking moment coming out of left field in the middle of an episode in the middle of one of the best seasons, so we were given plenty of time to process what we'd just seen.

Not only was the main cast excellent, including Emmy winners Julianna Margulies and Archie Panjabi and my favorite Alan Cumming, but the recurring guest cast was phenomenal and memorable as well. Michael J. Fox and Carrie Preston are particular standouts. But each season had several new names worthy of praise. It was a show full of strong female characters played by strong female actors. Julianna Margulies will forever be known for playing The Good Wife. The show's title is a bit of a misnomer. The show quickly became so much more than a show about a woman who stood by her man. She was defined by her own accomplishments and prowess, never merely by her role as a wife.