Beautiful Boy (2018) - 7 stars out of 10

Beautiful Boy (2018) - 7 stars out of 10

“Beautiful Boy” is a raw, challenging look at drug addiction.  This is the true story of teenager Nic Sheff, whose casual drug use quickly led to a constant need for something stronger.  He begins his story as a likable kid with hopes and dreams but it doesn’t take long for his life to spiral out of control.  Timothée Chamalet puts forth an impressive performance as he portrays the many different phases of Nic’s addiction.  By the end of the film, it is hard to believe that the pathetic, broken young man is the same person that had so much life in his eyes at the beginning.  His critical acclaim and awards nominations have been well-earned.  Steve Carell gives the most emotional performance of his life in the role of Nic’s father, David.  The film is particularly difficult to watch as a father because the story is told from his perspective.  There is a painful amount of empathy that will make you pray that you never have to see your own child suffer like this.  Carell sheds his typical funny man persona and demonstrates the devastating effects of a person’s drug addiction on their loved ones.  For fans of “The Office,” it was a cruel joke to cast Carell with Amy Ryan (Michael Scott and Holly), only to reveal that they are divorced and only appear in one scene together.  The content of the film reminds me of “Requiem for a Dream.”  It is difficult to stomach in its straightforward approach to what drug use looks like and it’s negative effects on both the human body and psyche.  The story explores rehab, halfway houses, relapse, and how difficult it is to maintain sobriety when your body desires drugs so badly.  The content is extreme and should only be approached in the proper mental state.  It would make any person question the risk vs. reward of drugs and, like “Requiem,” this is a good film to share with a young person who is battling with peer pressure.  “Beautiful Boy” offers strong acting performances and a well-written script but the most important part of this film lies in its thesis: drug addiction begins with a single use and once it grabs hold of you, it will destroy you and every person that you care about.

[Pictured: The high stakes emotions bring the dangers of drugs to the forefront of the film]

Won't You Be My Neighbor - 10 stars out of 10

Won't You Be My Neighbor - 10 stars out of 10

"Won’t You Be My Neighbor” is the feel-good tribute that Fred Rogers deserves.  This documentary comes at a time when our society needs it the most.  On the surface, it tells the story of an aspiring Presbyterian minister who became a beloved children’s television host but deep down, this is an exploration of the ideals that can get our society back on track.  We are a world searching for answers but Mr. Rogers has been giving us the keys to a better world all along: Love and accept everyone, put education first, and teach morality to our children.  Documentarians often choose a subject matter and put their own flashy spin on it.  Often times, the subject is less important than the way that it is told.  This is not the case for Morgan Neville, who steps to the side and allows this story to speak for itself.  The film captures the selflessness of Fred Rogers, whose main motivation for getting into television was to fix the way that children’s programming addresses its audience.  He decided that children need someone to remind them that they are special and that they need to treat others with respect.  It’s as if he predicted our modern downfall of family life where children learn their morality from the media instead of their parents.  “Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood” doesn’t seem too innovative because we are so familiar with it but it’s amazing to see how he created this concept from nothing.  His songs, puppeteering, and Neighborhood of Make-Believe reached kids in a way that they’d never been reached.  He slowed down the action and allowed kids to think as they learned.  His role eventually grew beyond the show as he became a paternal figure that everybody looked to during national tragedies.  He helped children to understand divorce, segregation, and even the assassination of Bobby Kennedy.  One of his most famous moments came when he testified in a Senate hearing to secure funding for PBS, which Neville plays in its entirety and will likely have you in tears.  The format of the episodes is quite smart as he would introduce a major theme in his home and then further explore that theme through the Make-Believe characters.  Rogers’ life becomes three-dimensional through interviews with his family and friends including his wife Joanne, sons John and Jim, Mr. McFeely, Officer Clement, Yo-Yo Ma, and musician Joe Negri.  It has some more intimate moments like a discussion of how Rogers was homebound during middle school due to illness and bullying for his weight, and how this forced him to use his imagination with his toys.  Also, archival footage of Fred explaining that he has an easier time telling people that he cares while acting Daniel Tiger.  Fittingly, the documentary is woven together with animations of Daniel Tiger representing Rogers.  I found it very interesting to hear Fred’s family express that Fred originally saw himself as Daniel but became more like King Friday XIII as he grew frustrated with society.  I could have done without the segment about people speculating whether Rogers was gay and whether he ruined a generation by telling children that they are special.  I appreciate that this was included to set the record straight about who Rogers truly was but it felt out of place in this heartwarming tribute about our beloved mentor.  Mr. Rogers touched the majority of our lives in one way or another and it’s hard to believe that a documentary could help us to have a deeper appreciation for who he was and everything that he did for children.  “Won’t You Be My Neighbor” is a must-see this awards season and will gain the recognition that it deserves with an Oscar win for Best Documentary.  It has my vote!

[Pictured: Mr. Rogers broke down racial barriers with this subtle segment on his show]

Isle of Dogs - 9 stars out of 10

Isle of Dogs - 9 stars out of 10

"Isle of Dogs” may be the most Wes Anderson film that Wes Anderson has ever created.  Whether you love his work or hate it, you have to admit that this heavily stylized film is unlike anything that you’ve ever seen.  So many films lack a stylistic identity but an Anderson film can be identified from any 15 seconds of footage.  His head-on shots give the film a personal feel, as if the characters are speaking directly to us.  Their dialogue is equally colloquial as the characters set aside formality and speak their minds.  Alexandre Desplat matches Anderson’s style with a whimsical score.  I love the incorporation of Prokofiev’s “Troika” into the musical landscape.  The score is crucial to blending the edgy story with the stop-motion medium.  The PG-13 rating reflects some mild profanity and violence, hopefully deterring parents from thinking that this is a family film.  As per usual, Anderson assembled an ensemble cast to bring these characters to life.  The impressive list includes Bryan Cranston, Ed Norton, Liev Schreiber, Bill Murray, Jeff Goldblum, Frances McDormand, Bob Balaban, and even Yoko Ono as herself.  The diversity of vocal tones helps to inject personality into each dog.  There has been a debate on whether this film is racial stereotyping or a tribute to Asian culture.  I agree with the latter and believe that the setting is perfect for this story and any less inclusion of Asian culture would have been an injustice.  “Isle of Dogs” is another fun, quirky addition to the film repertoire from Wes Anderson.  Don’t let the stop-motion medium fool you - this film has all of the sophistication of an art house film.

[Pictured: Wes Anderson's signature style is evident in every frame of this film]

It Follows - 8 stars out of 10

It Follows - 8 stars out of 10

“It Follows” is a surprisingly good horror film.  The premise seems a bit silly, centering around a curse that is passed from person to person by having an “adult” encounter.  The supernatural entity then slowly follows you until it either kills you or is passed on to someone new by the same means.  The synopsis is a headscratcher until you watch it and understand its symbolism.  If you’re catching on, the film can be an allegory for several different things including AIDS and STDs.  It is pretty genius to incorporate this into a horror film since the lifelong consequences of these diseases are scarier than any slasher film.  The most clever part of the film is that you can’t get rid of “It” – once “It” catches someone, “It” starts working “Its” way back down the line until “It” gets to you.  You can buy yourself some time but it will eventually catch up to you, similarly to how you cannot escape the physical and emotional toll of these diseases.  I hesitated to watch this film because I knew that there would be a lot of adult content but director David Robert Mitchell focuses on the consequences of the action instead of the action itself.  That being said, the content is too extreme for kids or teens and the R-rating should be observed.  The acting is quite good for such a young cast, particularly Maika Monroe and Daniel Zovatto whose characters really popped off of the screen.  The most impressive part of the film is its portrayal of the entity.  It catches you off guard because it takes different forms, sometimes normal and sometimes frightening (and particularly gross at times).  Perhaps the scariest thing about the entity is its slow speed.  It enhances the sense of dread that you can get away but you will have to run and be alert for the rest of your life.  I appreciate the amount of restraint shown throughout the film, first making us wonder if the entity is really capable of much and then magnifying the fear factor each time that the characters encounter it.  This is one of the few times that I’ll ever say that I would love to see a sequel.  There are so many layers of this story that could be unwrapped if the main character started going down the line to discover the origin of the curse.  Then again, maybe we should learn from “The Ring” series and remember that the unknown is always scarier than what we know.  “It Follows” is an original concept that stands out in a genre that often suffers from repeating the same story over and over again.  It is important to be aware of the premise and the content that comes with it but the story at the heart of this film is fascinating and perfectly executed.

[Pictured: The entity moves so slowly that it is unnerving]

Black Panther (2018) - 10 stars out of 10

Black Panther (2018) - 10 stars out of 10

“Black Panther” is more than just another Marvel movie.  It hits all of the right notes in different categories from production design and special effects to acting and a topical social commentary.  It has also been praised for its diverse cast but I hope that people see that this is a bonus and not the main reason that it should be celebrated.  The Marvel Cinematic Universe has had its high and low points in regards to acting and storytelling, though most maintain that classic superhero film feel.  The layering of this story is more akin to a critically acclaimed drama told through the lens of superheroes.  I also found it refreshing to have a standalone film, compared to every other recent Marvel film that necessitates a strong presence of Stark Industries to strengthen its story.  I understand that this is what has made the MCU unlike anything that the film industry has ever seen but it’s been a long time since we saw a superhero film that stands completely on its own legs.  And that is why I believe that this is the first superhero film to have a legitimate shot at some Oscars outside of special effects - it is a complete package.  Writer/Director Ryan Coogler has crafted a script that perfectly fits into a superhero universe while drawing parallels to the modern headlines of refugees, building a wall around your borders, and countries keeping to themselves instead of helping those who are in need.  Coogler’s political stance is very clear and he uses the film as an allegory to shine a light on his concerns, much like George Orwell before him.  The cast that brings this story to life is a “Who’s Who” of Hollywood’s biggest stars.  You know that you’re doing well when Forrest Whitaker and Daniel Kaluuya are around sixth and seven on the cast list!  Chadwick Boseman drives the entire film with his conflicted character who does not know how to be both a good person and a good king.  Michael B. Jordan put knots in my stomach every time that he appeared because I empathized with his circumstances but hate his actions.  His intensity helps the dichotomy of the film since his L.A. personality doesn’t feel like it belongs in Wakanda, which is exactly the point.  He makes an amazing villain.  Lupita Nyong’o and Danai Gurira make amazing warriors in these empowered roles and Martin Freeman brings some important comic.  Perhaps the most underrated performance comes from Andy Serkis.  He steps beyond the curtain of motion capture to show that his live acting can be just as chilling and intense without the help of computer graphics.  Speaking of computer graphics, this film is a visual masterpiece.  The technological/woodsy world of Wakanda is vivid and feels like it could exist in a hidden corner of our world and the cinematography supersedes what you’d expect from an action film.  The soundtrack perfectly compliments the story’s dual African and superhero roots and the sound editing captures every sound from fantasy flying ships to the simplicity of a museum.  “Black Panther” is the complete package and sets a new expectation of what a superhero film should be.

[Pictured: The incredible hero/villain combo of Boseman and Jordan is one of many amazing aspects of this film]

First Man (2018) - 8 stars out of 10

First Man (2018) - 8 stars out of 10

On the surface, “First Man” appears to be a film about the Apollo 11 Moon landing but it digs much deeper than that.  This biopic tells the story of Neil Armstrong, a man whose failures and personal losses shaped him into the perfect candidate to man the first mission to the Moon.  The film begins with Armstrong’s days as a NASA test pilot before detailing his training in the Gemini program and the life-threatening dangers faced by these astronauts.  Consequently, only about 20 minutes of the 140-minute film is spent on the actually Apollo 11 mission but Armstrong’s journey is important to understanding the success of the mission.  I will state the obvious first: this film will make a strong showing at the Oscars in the technical categories.  The Moon landing sequence is so vivid that you will think that it is authentic footage of the events.  It is one of the most artistic moments that you will see in any film this season.  The sound in the action sequences builds tension, pairing perfectly with the GCI and practical effects to transport us to the Moon alongside the characters.  I honestly lost my awareness that this was a film and not a documentary throughout the film.  Despite its incredible effects and cinematography, I still prefer “Apollo 13” for its superior storytelling and acting.  The main issue with “First Man” is that you walk into it expecting a space adventure but it is actually a character-driven drama that happens to cross paths with the space race.  The film moves very slow and the nature of Ryan Gosling’s character hinders him from giving the emotional lead performance that can drive a film’s energy.  Claire Foy has a solid shot at the Best Supporting Actress Oscar with her two impassioned scenes but the rest of the cast is a bit bland.  On the other end of the spectrum, the soundtrack is perfection as it captures both the loneliness of the characters and the mystery of space.  Justin Hurwitz realizes the necessity for musical simplicity in a film like this to keep the music from overshadowing the subtlety of the characters.  Within this framework, he incorporates unique sounds like the theremin and creates memorable musical moments like the whimsical “Docking Waltz.”  Oddly enough, the score may be too similar to last year’s winner (the otherworldly “The Shape of Water”) to secure an Oscar win, but I’m sure that it will be nominated.  One of the most confusing (and controversial) aspects of the film is the purposeful omission of the astronauts planting the American flag on the Moon.  Whether the decision was politically motivated or not, it counteracts the story's patriotic theme and its emphasis on NASA's urgency for the United States to win the space race.  Overall, I was a bit disappointed by “First Man” because I had an expectation of watching a space adventure; still, director Damien Chazelle has done an amazing job of realizing this historic event fully in context and making us feel like we’ve traveled to the Moon with Neil Armstrong.

[Pictured: The imagery of the Moon landing sequence instantly become iconic]

Strictly Ballroom - 3 stars out of 10

Strictly Ballroom - 3 stars out of 10

"Strictly Ballroom” is a goofy 90’s romantic comedy about a competitive dancer who doesn’t want to adhere to the rules.  It is okay for what it is but you shouldn’t walk into this one expecting “You’ve Got Mail.”  The tone lies somewhere between a Christopher Guest mockumentary and a Chris Farley comedy, with a love story about as strong as that of “Happy Gilmore.”  In fact, I wouldn’t even really consider this a romcom.  I really sense a cinematic identify crisis with this film.  It film focuses on exaggerated stereotypes and over-the-top acting rather than a strong plot, but they aren't quite ridiculous enough to be at a mockumentary level.  Even the dancing that is the focus of the story is only slightly better than average.  Viewing the film with these expectations, the actors get the job done by capturing the spirit of each character’s big personality.  Paul Mercurio and Tara Morice do well in the lead roles, though I preferred the character roles of Pat Thomson (mother) and Bill Hunter (Barry).  I was surprised to see Baz Luhrman’s name attached as director since the film is such a far cry from his other films like “Moulin Rouge” and “Romeo + Juliet.”  I feel like it falls short of his visionary storytelling.  He is well-known as a risk taker but perhaps he was just finding his vision since it was his directorial debut.  I view “Strictly Ballroom” as an “ok” film that feels dated; still, if you’re looking for a brief amusement and a sense of nostalgia for 90’s films, this one should do the trick.

[Pictured: Even the dance sequences can't make this a memorable film]