Landline (2017)

On a plot level, I don’t exactly get why this film was set in the 90’s. The title makes you think that perhaps a shared phone line will play a cruicial role, but it doesn’t. This film could have easily been set now with no problems whatsoever. Our world is so obsessed with the past that all the 90’s fashion and music could be used as well. So why set it in the 90’s?

My theory is that director Gillian Robespierre made this film as a Tarantino-level genre homage. Only instead of homaging exploitation flicks from the 70’s, Robespierre was paying homage to New York movies of the 90’s. Dana is living in a Nicole Holofcener film a la Walking and Talking, Ali is living through Kids, and their parents are a Woody Allen film incarnate. And just like in Pulp Fiction, the supporting character of one story gets to be the star of another story.

It’s a cool idea that never beats you over the head with showy visuals or title cards spelling everything out for you. It also doesn’t attempt to elevate the material. This film is right on par with the films it is paying tribute to. This is an warm and funny film that is content to be adequate, and that is wonderful.

Logan Lucky (2017)

If one were trying to describe the Cinema of Steven Soderbergh in a single word, “political” probably wouldn’t be the first adjective to spring to mind. But if you look at his filmography, the overwhelming majority of his output has dealt with issues of class. Even his “sexy” movies (Magic Mike and The Girlfriend Experience) are first and foremost about commodification and wealth. So, while Logan Lucky appears to have sprung from the same mold as The Cannonball Run, it is first and foremost about Middle America. But unlike the first Magic Mike, it isn’t cold and clinical. In fact, If I had to sum this film up in a single word, that word would be, “compassionate”. And we could all certainly use a lot more of that in this day and age.

The Ladies Man (1961)

While Jerry Lewis certainly wears his influences on his sleeve (Tashlin and Tati) there's no denying that he also had an instinctual eye for images. Though the "plot" consists of little more than a series of vaguely connected vignettes, the imagery and jokes are enough to hold your attention. Jerry Lewis is what Adam Sandler could become if he actually gave a damn. The size of that set and the precision of he choreography is enough to give Rear Window a run for its money, and it's all in service of getting the laugh. Jerry was not content to just clown around. He took his silliness seriously and it shows. We really did lose a legend.

Lost in America (1985)

Just as this generation is overrun with movies about Millennials needing to get their lives together, the 1980's was packed to the gills with movies about Yuppies in crisis. While not strictly following the model of films like After Hours and Something Wild, Lost in America really does fit the bill. But instead of being beset by a number of outside forces symbolizing problems in their lives, David and Linda are out to destroy David and Linda. They are 100% responsible for everything that happens to them. There's no big bad guy to vanquish. They are the big bad guy. And in perfect bad guy fashion, their crisis is solved with the help of white, cishet privilege. They are pathetic characters and we laugh at them, but how much are we actually laughing at ourselves?

Baby Driver (2017)

This film would pair nicely with Collateral. Beyond the fact that it allows Jamie Foxx to play the flip side of the role he had in the Mann movie, Baby Driver deepens the themes of that other film by having a much more engaged protagonist.

Baby isn't an innocent who chanced into this life by having the wrong person get into his car. Sure he owes Doc a debt, but it was boosting a car that got him into that position to begin with. He's a thrill seeker who wants none of the consequences. And this film is all about consequences. It's not about action v. inaction. Baby is already a man of action. But does he have the strength of character to live with those consequences once the dominos start falling? Or will he continue to drown out any unpleasantness with catchy R&B tunes?

The Big Sick (2017)

As someone who listens to massive amounts of podcasts I was already extremely familiar with this story going in. Emily and Kumail's courtship is a cornerstone of the comedy podcasting world. They've told this story separately, they've told this story together, they've told it on other people's podcasts, they've told it on their own (now defunct) podcast. And that's just the number of times they've done it on mic. You know they've had to tell this story a million times at various social gatherings with friends and family. And then they wrote a screenplay about it. And then they got notes from Judd Apatow and Michael Showalter. Yet somehow this story did not become stale. I knew exactly where this was going and I was still hanging off of every word and scene. All that podcasting and such paid off. Like the great comedians they are, they honed this material into its ideal form. They know where the laughs are and where the tears are. They are able to play the audience like a fiddle. And they do it expertly.

Toni Erdmann (2016)

On paper this sounds like a film that would fill multiplexes. It also sounds like something we've seen a million times before: Joker parent needs to learn that not everything is a joke, serious child needs to loosen up, everyone learns and grows. As I was watching it, I kept imagining these same scenes being played out with bright lighting and crisp lines and the mere thought made me cringe. It's the makings of an Adam Sandler for Netflix film. Fortunately this movie is not shot that way. 

Director Maren Ade's choice to place this generically farcical story in a very believable world helps to expose just  how generic and farcical our world actually is. Especially the world of business! If you are hoping to climb the corporate ladder, there's practically no end to the ways in which you will debase yourself for advancement. You'll also let a whole lot slide in order to not be seen as difficult. Go along to get along. The world of this film is not a fiction. We are living in it. Donald Trump is President.

I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore (2017)

Just the other day I was telling someone that I'd love to see Family Plot (Alfred Hitchcock's flawed, final film about amateur criminals who get caught up with professionals) remade by the Coen Brothers. But if they're not available, I would now accept Macon Blair as a suitable substitute. The tone mixing in this movie is spot-on. It's like two completely different movies that dance with each other for a while before full-on colliding in the final act. The comedy makes the violence more intense and the violence makes the comedy more darkly hilarious. It's the cinematic equivalent of a Reese's peanut butter cup: two tastes, that taste great together.

Lights in the Dusk (2006)

This film feels like it was made on a dare. It feels like the type of challenge Lars Von Trier would lay down in The Five Obstructions: make a Film Noir - without guilt.

Unlike a traditional Film Noir, where the world is working against the protagonist as some sort of self-fulfilling, guilt manifestation, the hero of this film is guilty of nothing. He doesn't even have an opportunity to become guilty. People are hating him from the very start and for no stated reason. And it's not even some Kafka-esque exercise in paranoia because our hero is oblivious to all the ways in which people are conspiring against him. He's also equally oblivious to the few people out there who give a damn about him.

So is this Film Noir? No. But it is an Aki Kaurismäki film. And that's certainly something to savor.

Edge of Seventeen (2016)

Before this movie even started I was already baffled by the sheer number of company logos at the start. Had the trailers been hiding something from me? Was there going to be some effects-filled, third act twist that would justify so many funding sources for a film about a teenage girl trying to figure her life out? Not to spoil anything but, giant robots and dinosaurs do not show up at any point in this movie. So why did a hilarious and heartfelt film, produced by a Hollywood legend, starring an Oscar nominee who also appears in a popular franchise, need to go to so many different sources for such a modest $9mil budget? I'd venture it has something to do with the fact that the director was a first timer...and female. Please pay to see this film and show all those financiers that their money was well spent!

20th Century Women (2016)

Though still (relatively) early in his feature filmmaking career, the filmography of Mike Mills has come to exemplify a fascinating exception to one commonly held truism about an artist's trajectory.

Like novelists, most directors tend to start their careers with an autobiographical work that is either about their childhood or their current romantic situation. Even the filmmakers who head straight into genre will undoubtedly still include a protagonist who parrots whatever he or she thinks about life, the universe and everything. Then, if that first film is good enough to be successful, it becomes imperative that the filmmaker does something different on their next go around. They have to turn their gaze outward at the wider world. Unless your name is Mike Mills.

With each successive film, Mills has opted to get more personal and to look deeper inward. Though he did not write the novel on which Thumbsucker was based, he clearly felt a kinship with its infantilized protagonist. As a follow-up, Mills dropped the surrogacy of adaptation and instead chose to make a film about his father's late in life coming out and the impact that had on his relationships with other humans. For 20th Century Women, he's gone even further into the past to examine his relationship with his mother and the other women who shaped him.

Though each film is even more autobiographical than the last, rather than coming off as naval-gazey, the overwhelming feeling imparted by these films is one of intimacy. The more specific he gets about the granular details of these lives that are under examination, the more universal the overall work becomes. We might not be able to relate to the specifics of the narrative, location, time period, song choices, etc., yet I'm certain that somewhere in this film's lazy rhythms you will find something to love. Who doesn't love a great Annette Bening performance?

Paddington (2014)

Wow! That was extremely pleasant. I'd been hearing people sing this film's praises for years, I just didn't believe them. I kept thinking back to that trailer, which is just the entire "facilities" scene. Who chose that scene to lead with? It's not really that representative of the film as a whole. Were they just hoping to appeal to the lowest common denominator? Probably. It's a shame though. By taking the easy route, you miss out on audience members who might appreciate how sweet the film is. Or miss out on people who prefer more nuanced or absurdist humor. Or people who aren't six-years-old. Hopefully the sequel doesn't drop the ball. I promise not to judge it by its trailer. I'll trust you guys this time!

Swiss Army Man (2016)

Going in, I assumed that this was going to be  a film about making due with what you have and how desperation can lead you to questionable decisions. I expected an unintended parable for how the Republican Party is currently lashing themselves to the putrid corpse that is Donald Trump. And while I guess that reading could still stand, there's more to it. It's also a Ferris Bueller/Cameron Frye or Tyler Durden/Jack story about having someone to push you out of your comfort zone. It's also a story about farting. And about admitting that you are the one who farted. Just as Daniel Radcliffe's corpse was able to become whatever Paul Dano needed in the moment (be it jet ski or confessor) this film can also be a multitude of things. Why does it have to be just one? Though it never quite worked for me on an emotional level, I was absolutely impressed by how much mileage Daniels were able to get out of a simple premise. They squeezed out all that they possibly could.

Chasing Amy (1997)

To many, liking the work of Kevin Smith is grounds for having your cinephile card revoked. Even I will concede that his most recent work (Tusk, Yoga Hosers, etc.) is near impossible to defend. But doesn't anyone remember those early years? Lately, I've been thinking a lot about Chasing Amy. Smith's tale of a hetero man who is unable to accept his girlfriend's fluid sexuality was more than a decade ahead of it's time. Long before terms like "pansexuality" were able to enter the broader pop cultural lexicon via celebrities like Miley Cyrus or shows like Broad City, there was Joey Lauren Adams as Alyssa Jones delivering impassioned monologues about refusing to conform to what heteronormative society thinks is proper and insisting on loving whomever the hell she wants to love. Sure this message would have been more authentic and nuanced coming from a Queer filmmaker rather than from Smith, but because it came from him, it was able to reach a whole lot of immature boys who just wanted to hear dick and fart jokes. I know this because that's how I found my way to this film. I like to think that in some small way, Chasing Amy helped to move me towards becoming the ally that I try to be. And that's why I paid money to see Cop Out in a theater.

Krampus (2015)

Since the PG-13 rating was created in reaction to Gremlins, a part of me has always felt that PG-13 films should be aimed at the same audience as Gremlins. The PG-13 rating is a stop-gap between childhood and adulthood and the films made with this rating should reflect that. It's perfect that some parents/critics bristle at what makes it into a PG-13 film. That's what this rating was made for. It's made for teenagers. It's made for kids who are just starting to enter a scarier, sexier and more nuanced world and they want their films to reflect that. You can only shelter them for so long before you're actually doing harm. Krampus is a perfect PG-13 movie. It is ideal for a middle-school sleepover. It's also great for making adults feel like they are that young again. Watch it this Christmas on a double-bill with Gremlins for the full effect.

The In-Laws (1979)

New York in the 70's was such a distinct cinematic creature. So distinct that John Carpenter had to wait until 1981 to have Snake Pliskin escape it. The colors, the fashion, the photography and the trash unite so many disparate films. No matter the production designer, you can't help but imagine Taxi Driver, Shaft, Annie Hall and The In-Laws all occurring in the same shared universe. It lends an air of gritty realism to even the wackiest of premises. So much so that when Sheldon and Vince make it down to the fictional island nation of Tijada, with its wacky general and singing soldiers, you're already completely on board. It just fits. The real and the absurd butting heads with each other to generate absolute hilarity.

Tank Girl (1995)

Of all the various low/mid-budget comic book movies of the 90's (Ninja Turtles, The Crow, Spawn, Blade, Barb Wire, etc.) I think Tank Girl might be the masterpiece. Sure it bombed. The audience for the comic was so minuscule that I'm not even sure why someone shelled out money for the rights. And even the super-indie fans of the source material were put off by the Hollywood co-opting of their culture. So then why am I calling this a niche masterpiece? Because to a whole generation of weirdo kids just discovering punk, indie and DIY, this was the film pointed the way. It's a crash-course in collage-culture. Complete with a Cole Porter musical number and a whole bunch of bad-ass women to look up to/fall in love with.

Real Life (1979)

I think this film would make a great double-bill with David Bryne's True Stories, as both films are actively focused on exposing just how surreal "reality" can actually be. When viewed through the right lens, anything can be abnormal or weird. To Charles Grodin's Dr. Yeager, surgery on a horse is par for the course (of course) but to us it is an inspired bit of comic absurdism. By placing this faux-documentary construct on the film we are able to appreciate just how oblivious people can be of their own situations. Just look at how the fictionalized, "neutral" Albert Brooks character is incapable of stepping outside of himself enough to see just how weird it is to begin this grand experiment with a musical number and orchestra. And so, even though the "experiment" is a "failure", it's actually a success. This is how people behave. This is Real Life.

Love & Friendship (2016)

If I had to sum up acting and directing in a single word, that word would be "nuance." Words on a page can be delivered in so many different ways. This is why high school kids hate Shakespeare. Read alone for homework, Romeo and Juliet can be pretty dry stuff. With the right actors and directors it can become a laugh riot. The same goes for the work of Jane Austen. Throughout Love & Friendship I found myself imagining a David Mamet version of this same story with actors merely reciting the script and giving zero inflection. Thankfully, Whit Stillman and his actors chose to wring every possible drop of comedy out of this material. I predict this film will fast become a favorite for substitute teachers to show English classes.

Brazil (1985)

Early in their friendship, Peter Bogdanovich confided to Orson Welles that he wasn't too fond of the legendary auteur's adaptation of Franz Kafka's The Trial. Years later, Orson informed Peter that he had intended the film to be a comedy. Viewed in this light, Bogdanovich was much better able to appreciate the pitch black comedy at the heart of Welles' bureaucratic nightmare. No added context is needed in order to appreciate Brazil. The comedy is right there at the surface. How can you not find humor in all the paperwork and Rube Goldberg technology? It's all so wild and whimsical that the horror is able to really creep up on you. True evil doesn't come at you with a bunch of gloom and doom. True evil comes at you with a smile that looks as jolly and well-meaning as Michael Palin's.