Stay Home, Watch Movies: a 2019 Movie Guide — pt. 2

A continuation of my retrospective movie rundown of 2019 for your 2020 quarantine home-viewing pleasure. Here’s the Top 10.

⚠️ Warning: there’s a lot ahead. This wasn’t written to be read all in one sitting. Skim through, settle where you like, watch a movie and come back to see if you agree, then repeat. No spoilers, so no worries. It’s a guide! ⚠️

If you’re joining us here first, you can find my 11–15 picks and an explanation of my rating system by clicking here. If you’re here for the top 10, you’re in the right place.

Before we go on, I’d like to reiterate that this is by no means an exhaustive list. Some I have not been able to see but would love to, include: “Bombshell,” “Honeyland,” “The Peanut Butter Falcon,” “Waves,” “The Last Black Man in San Francisco,” “Honey Boy,” “I Lost My Body,” “American Factory,” “Ash is the Purest White,” “Pain and Glory,” “Long Day’s Journey into Night,” and “Richard Jewell.”

10. “1917” (7/12)

Honestly, I envy those who walked into this not knowing much about what was going to happen.

What you need to know:

This isn’t just any war movie. It’s brought to you by the outstanding director-cinematographer duo Sam Mendes and Roger Deakins who last paired up on arguably the best James Bond movie “Skyfall” (2012). Deakins’s deft touch especially shines; he is perhaps one of the all-time best cinematographers, behind the likes of “Blade Runner 2014” (2017), “No Country for Old Men” (2007), and “The Shawshank Redemption” (1994). In short, expect a breathtakingly shot movie. It was the heavy favorite to win the Oscar for Best Picture, having won numerous major awards preceding the Academy Awards.

Director: Sam Mendes (Spectre, Skyfall, Road to Perdition, American Beauty)
Starring: George MacKay, Dean-Charles Chapman (Tommen from GoT)
Genre: War Epic, Historical Drama

Ratings:

• 🎥 Filmmaking: The magic of this movie is in the illusion of the “one-long-shot” style. This means the movie appears like the camera (nearly)never cuts off. In Deakins’s masterful hands, it is more than a gimmick. The trick puts you in the trenches with the leads and it feels like it’s unfolding in real-time, ramping up a sense of urgency and tension. It’s intimate yet kinetic, and at times stark and punishing. (2/2)

You feel like you’re in the trenches with them. (source)

• 🕺💃 Performances: Perhaps intentionally, it isn’t really about the characters. The leads execute what I imagine must be physically challenging. They just have little character to work with. The all-star British actors that you recognize in the trailer are great but are basically cameos. (1/2)
• ✍️ Storytelling: The story is pretty simple. Literally, point A → point B, the clock is ticking. You are also not really led to care about the characters. It meanders at points and there are some odd plot decisions if you give it a thought. (0/2)
• 🤩 Feeling: I was gripped. Few movies have made me feel so involved in the action. The characters’ weariness and fatigue rub off to you, in the best way. (2/2)
• 🔄 Rewatchability: I doubt second viewing would be as exciting or stunning. The simplicity of the story doesn’t make it a strong draw but could also easily just play in the background. It may be fun if you want to spot where cuts are hidden but it could also pull the curtain behind the magic too much, too. (1/2)
• 🤔 Thinking: Not exactly a “big ideas” movie. Even on a thematic level, it’s fairly light as far as war movies go (although retreading may have been tiring as well). However, the sheer technical achievement of the movie had me wondering and thinking about how scenes were executed. I think Mendes’s background as a stage-director is underrated and there are elements throughout that make it feel like a play. (1/2)

Five or so of your favourite British male stars steal a scene before fucking off quick. (source)

Bottom Line:

Unless war movies just don’t work for you (this one isn’t particularly gory, btw) it’s an easy sell for most people. However, I think it’s just best-served on a bigger screen if possible. Please don’t watch it on mobile…

Stream/Buy/Rent:

No news yet (as of March 5) on which streaming service it’ll be featured on.
Available on Amazon, Apple TV, and Vudu starting March 10.

9. “The Two Popes” (8/12)

What you need to know

This movie is based on the true story of Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis. The latter succeeded the former after just eight years through a rather unusual abdication of power (popes typically rule until death). Pope Francis is the first from the Americas and from the Southern Hemisphere to be selected as Pope. He is notably recognized as a reformist and some even see him as relatively theologically progressive.

The reason you should give this a shot is because it’s a very personal drama between powerful, ideologically opposed figures with their own demons — and they’re played by truly outstanding veteran actors: Jonathan Pryce and Anthony Hopkins.

Two masters of the retrained, subtle power play. They keep it cordial and classy.

Director: Fernando Meirelles (City of God)
Screenwriter: Anthony McCarten (Bohemian Rhapsody, Darkest Hour, The Theory of Everything)
Starring: Jonathan Pryce (Game of Thrones, Glengarry Glen Ross), Anthony Hopkins (Westworld, The Silence of the Lambs)
Genre: Drama, Biopic

Ratings:

• 🎥 Filmmaking: There are some truly elegant scenes, especially when the settings take on a poetic presence upon the tension at hand. But I think Meirelles mostly steps back to give Pryce and Hopkins the room to do what they do. There’s some amazing scenes but I felt it was somewhat inconsistent. (1/2)
• 🕺💃 Performances: Two veteran thespian powerhouses engaged in polite yet powerful arguments — it’s impressive, captivating stuff. Despite both having had a prolific career and sometimes iconically associated with certain roles, their ability to inhabit and make you believe is wonderous. Great acting can sometimes be wrongly conflated with large, thunderous emotions but the subtle control involved in tempered pain, veiled provocation and simmering tension may seem quieter but more real and looming. (2/2)
• ✍️ Storytelling: The centerpiece here is of course the dynamic between Pryce’s Pope Francis and Hopkins’ Pope Benedict and that study of friendship and rivalry is remarkable stuff. The parts that wade into wider papal procedures and Pope Francis’ history were not quite at the same level. That makes me suspect the two leads are doing the heavy lifting rather than something special in the script. (1/2)

It may be about opposing forces but there’s still sweetness and warmth.

• 🤩 Feeling: Just seeing master actors at work like this is an amazing treat. I know there was a lot of older white dudes reckoning with their lives this year, but with ones as fine and compelling as this, how can you resist? Also, the credits scene is so cute and wholesome and a wonderful encapsulation of the emotional arc at play. (2/2)
• 🔄 Rewatchability: Not that you couldn’t or I wouldn’t. Just not enough memorable moments to hook me back in. I think that has more to do with the conversation nature of the film, though. (0/2)
• 🤔 Thinking: Maybe because I was raised Catholic and I have a complicated relationship with it, Christianity, and organized religion in general, but this made me think a lot in its wake. Most notably was how this humanized what seemed like a monolithic entity to me. It’s often easy to view something as organized, hierarchical and concerned with dogma as the Catholic Church as a singular organism. This made me remember it’s also a group of people. Politics certainly are involved but the level of sincere philosophical, ideological struggle highlighted by Pope Benedict and Pope Francis was eye opening to me. It reminded me of the inescapable duality of humanity, where orthodoxy and structure can have a shared legacy with progressive scholarship and inclusivity. (2/2)

Bottom Line:

A reductive explanation of this movie would be that two old men argue about life, leadership and religion. As unappealing as that may sound, two masters of their craft make it riveting to watch. And as far as arguments go, it’s rather delightful.

Stream/Buy/Rent:

Streaming exclusively on Netflix.

8. “Portrait of a Lady on Fire (Portrait de la Jeune Fille en Feu)” (8/12)

What you need to know

Describing this movie is somewhat of a dilemma for me because I went knowing almost nothing but the general good word on it. It was a nice surprise unfolding the movie but I know there may be some barrier. As you can tell by the trailer, firstly, it’s French. Also, this might be my most art-house-y pick on this list. Having said that, I really hope it doesn’t intimidate anyone from trying. Let me dispel some concerns. (1) Yes, you may have to deal with subtitles. But as Oscar winner Bong Joon Ho has said, “Once you overcome the one inch tall barrier of subtitles, you will be introduced to so many more amazing films.” Also, the movie is not terribly dialog heavy. I believe reading and soaking in the scenes is more than possible. (2) Period piece as it may be, it’s so sparsely populated that it barely has the fussiness associated with the genre. (3) The story is not difficult to follow at all but the nuances come through, perhaps even independent of the dialog.

Almost nonchalantly, a b-plot occurs and the banality of it is actually kind of staggering. (source)

Some other cool things to note: As you might guess, this movie passes the Bechdal test. More interestingly, it fails the reverse! There’s almost no men at all in this movie, and it’s not a contrived choice.

Director+Screenwriter: Céline Sciamma (My Life as a Zucchini, Girlhood)
Starring: Noémie Merlant, Adèle Haenel
Genre: Drama

Ratings:

• 🎥 Filmmaking: Evocative of its artist main character, the cinematography itself is quite painterly. The landscapes are powerful and imposing in their beauty, the portraits intimate and tender in mundanity. Not only are the frames awe-inspiring but they also felt immensely personal. Tight control over composition and mise-en-scene is palpable. There’s a visual poetry and it was humbling for me. (2/2)
• 🕺💃 Performances: Merlant and Haenel as Marianne and Heloise are incredible. Much of this story rests on their shoulders and they execute unflinchingly yet gracefully. I was utterly captivated by these two women and the immense tension they brew together. (2/2)
• ✍️ Storytelling: Let me borrow a phrase from the Times’ A.O. Scott: “Sciamma… practices a feminism without dogma or illusion.” There’s little expounding going on and little is necessary. The subtleties have clarity, and the thrill blossoms despite a distinctly unsentimental view of society’s binds. In all the fiery passion, there is also an icy realism at the edges of the canvas. (1/2)

• 🤩 Feeling: I was speechless in the afterglow of this film. Especially the final scene. That struck a chord with me. (2/2)
• 🔄 Rewatchability: It is a bit of a slow burn and a fairly moody movie so I don’t see myself rushing to play it. But if it’s on, I know I’ll be hooked. If it means getting others to see it, I’ll see it again, no question. (1/2)
• 🤔 Thinking: Not meant as a criticism towards this at all but this seemed more poetry of evocative feeling and mood rather than epic insurrectional plot. I was left deeply moved but it did not provoke special ideas. And… sometimes that’s ok. (0/2)

Bottom Line:

Stunningly shot, stirringly performed and a powerful final scene. It’s such a beautiful film. If you’re in a vibe for a pretty, moody movie, please trust me and give this a shot. It’s intimate, poetic cinema but with ideas and emotions we can quickly grasp.
Side-note: this would make an excellent double-feature with Little Women. Not only because of the comparable themes but in the sheer contrast of tone and energy.

Stream/Buy/Rent:

News is that it’ll be streaming on Hulu starting March 26.
Reportedly coming to on-demand to buy/rent in the summer.

7. “Booksmart” (8/12)

What you need to know

Okay, let’s just address the 🐘. If you’re getting “Superbad” vibes from this, it’s not just you and you’re not totally off. (If you don’t know what I’m talking about, that’s fine) In fact, crazy thing is, lead role Beanie Feldstein is the younger sister of Superbad’s Jonah Hill! The comparisons are going to be inevitable and it’s easy to shake your head against “girl-power” remakes of classics of yesteryear. Let me just jump the gun here and say this one’s not just legit, it’s really good (obviously… on my damn list). I think it updates to a new generation (12 years since Superbad) with a subtle but substantial authenticity. We’ll get to the weeds later. Unfortunately, many — me included — were resistant to it for that very suspicion and may not get the same iconic status. I think it deserves a fair chance.

Wilde seems to know how to work with actors because the characters feel alive.

One added note: this is actress Olivia Wilde’s (“Tron Legacy,” “Rush”) first feature film as director.

Director: Olivia Wilde
Starring: Beanie Feldstein (Lady Bird), Kaitlyn Dever
Genre: Comedy

Ratings:

• 🎥 Filmmaking: While there isn’t anything particularly flashy going on here but I think Wilde’s choices and direction is noticeably effective. In a genre rife with conventions and trappings she sets an energetic, generally gleeful tone. There’s a certain ease, looseness, and joy that is brought out of the young cast that is distinctive and real despite the ostensible exaggerations. Some odd choices too but didn’t bring things down. (1/2)
• 🕺💃 Performances: The chemistry of Amy and Molly is effervescent and its critical to having us along with them on their adventure. There’s some great bit moments by the supporting cast, young and old. (1/2)
• ✍️ Storytelling: Job no.1 of a straight up comedy movie: be funny. This one sure does it. It gave me solid out-loud laughs and chuckles. More than I expected. As far as genre tropes go, it isn’t without some conventions but it also is clearly aware of them and often flips expectations on their head. I also really liked Amy and Molly. For one, they’re good kids as opposed to the long history of assholes, losers and idiots stems from. But also, I would say they are distinct in the pantheon of high-school hijinks movies.(2/2)

• 🤩 Feeling: It was just a really good time. Maybe there’s some reserved expectations that worked to its favor but I truly got a consistent amount of grins, guffaws and outright laughs out of this. Also, I think I somehow relate more to the Amy & Molly duo more than I did with Seth & Evan of Superbad. (2/2)
• 🔄 Rewatchability: I would definitely watch it again, especially if it means others will give it a chance. I think I’d laugh again at a few parts, too. (2/2)
• 🤔 Thinking: Made me think about things that have changed and haven’t changed between generations of teenhood. Seems less dank? 21 Jump Street had a good bit about this. (Dammit another Jonah Hill reference. Sorry!)That’s about it though. (0/2)

Bottom Line:

Yes, yes, it seems like a girl version of “Superbad,” and that’s not an entirely unfair comparison. But! But, it does enough things, and does them well, to feel fresh and stand on its own merits (IMHO). Also, if you’re the type that gets turned off by the sheer obnoxious crudeness of some teen comedies, I think this one you don’t have to worry. Not to say that it’s clean, but it’s mostly good-natured.

Stream/Buy/Rent:

Streaming currently on Hulu
Rent/buy on Amazon, iTunes, YouTube, Google Play, and Vudu.

6. “Uncut Gems” (8/12)

This is how he wins.

What you need to know

He may be known for his stupid comedies (certainly some classics as well) but every once in a while, Adam Sandler dabbles in more dramatically rich opportunities. This is one of them and may be his all-time best. Reportedly, the script was written with him in mind. Speaking of, this one was written and directed by the Safdie brothers. It’s their sophomore directorial effort following “Good Time” featuring Robert Pattinson. The Safdies are rising talents and made a powerful statement with this film, widely regarded as this year’s biggest Oscar snub. They are becoming known for grippingly tense stories set in the seedy underbelly of New York with a stunningly authentic gritty realism.

Sandler manages to make the batshit crazy believable. (source)

Director+Screenwriter: Josh and Benny Safdie (aka the Safdie Bros.)
Starring: Adam Sandler (50 First Dates, Punch Drunk Love, The Wedding Singer, Happy Gilmore), LaKeith Stanfield (Knives Out, Sorry to Bother You, Atlanta, Get Out), Idina Menzel (Frozen), Kevin Garnett
Genre: Drama

Ratings:

• 🎥 Filmmaking: There’s a certain slimy claustrophobia in the Safdie’s New York. It’s not at all the NYC you want to be in but it feels remarkably authentic. I could completely believe that to some this is the New York they know: suffocating yet manic, look over your shoulder sort of heavy air. The bit characters feel like man-off-the-street. (2/2)
• 🕺💃 Performances: Sandler at his all time best — arguably among the best of the year. He fits like a glove in this role and yet it’s a side of him you’ve never seen before. He channels his bumbling neurotic energy perfectly. Also, former NBA star Kevin Garnett puts in some solid acting. Much of the small roles also feel very very real. (2/2)
• ✍️ Storytelling: There were countless “grander” stories in 2019. War, intergalactic conflicts… none of them create the weight of heavy stakes you get enraptured into with a seedy jeweler desperately trying to gamble his way out of the pit he digs himself into. Part of that is due to the manic dialog. There’s a ton of talking but barely anyone is having a conversation. Much of it is people talking at — not to — each other and it’s a stressful mess… but a carefully calibrated one. (2/2)

Casting director deserves so much credit. (source)

• 🤩 Feeling: This is quite possibly the most tense thing I’ve watched all year. It’s downright fucking exhausting. But it’s a damn marvel how it grips you. Ironically, it is in that way somehow refreshing, given how many large scale movies fail terribly in making you internalize what’s at stake. Few this year had me so conflicted: wanting the protagonist to succeed but also realizing he’s such a spiraling mess, he’ll never learn if he wins even once. (2/2)
• 🔄 Rewatchability: Absolutely nothing against this movie but I don’t think I can handle this again. It’s great, unquestionably…just too much for a frail heart like mine. (0/2)
• 🤔 Thinking: Not a lot that personally resonated with me beyond the initial viewing. I did think during the movie about how I wanted things to end. Does Sandler’s character deserve to get what he wants? (0/2)

Bottom Line:

I so so advocate for this movie. I think it’s a must see but I admit, it’s might be a bit much for some. You may want to be in the right mood to handle the weight of it. Only a few time have I ever felt the need to take a break or a breather from a movie but also compelled to see it through.

Stream/Buy/Rent:

If you’re outside the US, streaming on Netflix.
Buy or rent on Amazon Prime Video, iTunes, YouTube, Google Play, and Vudu.

5. “Once Upon a Time… In Hollywood” (9/12)

What you need to know

This is Quentin Tarantino’s ninth (and possibly penultimate) film. For those who are unfamiliar, Tarantino is the man behind icons of contemporary American cinema like “Pulp Fiction,” “Kill Bill,” “Inglorious Basterds” and “Django Unchained.” He’s stylish, bombastic, eloquent, obsessive, provocative, controversial, unapologetic, detailed… and one of a kind. Tarantino’s work may not be everyone’s cup of tea but there’s nothing quite like what he dreams up. Even when full of flaws there’s something interesting and uncannily remarkable. A living legend at 56, he has garnered 10 Academy nominations for what might be his most personal yet extravagant film yet.

Two elements of historical context may be worth pocketing before going into this. First, some consider the 1970s the opening of a new age of Hollywood, putting the classic era behind it in the 1960s. Tarantino places us around a transition point — from a golden era of romanticism and a particular period of excess in the 60s to an era of international influences, grittier subjects and the blockbuster. The second thing is the murder of actor Sharon Tate (and eight others) by members of a cult led by Charles Manson. The counterculture cult committed high-profile murders and profoundly shook the American consciousness. Morbidly, Manson and his cult became a notorious pop culture icon of America’s dark underbelly. Like a few of his previous films, Tarantino exacts some alt-history justice.

Wowweee what a duo, amirite? (source)

Director+Screenwriter: Quentin Tarantino (in addition to those mentioned above, The Hateful Eight, Reservoir Dogs)
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio (The Wolf of Wall Street, Django Unchained, Inception), Brad Pitt (Money Ball, Inglorious Basterds, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button), Margot Robbie (I, Tonya, Suicide Squad, The Wolf of Wall Street)
Genre: Comedy, Drama

Ratings:

• 🎥 Filmmaking: Look, no other movie on this list, or all of 2019, looks or feels like this one. In addition to stylistic quirks, inventive shots, playful homages and a killer soundtrack as Tarantino is known to do, there’s a side that’s lovingly detailed and patient. Perhaps more than any of his past works, Tarantino gives you moments to soak things in, to immerse in some classic serene mundanity — by Hollywood’s standards, of course. (2/2)
• 🕺💃 Performances: Glorious. I mean, Brad Pitt cleaned UP. He got nearly every Best Supporting Actor award on the circuit. And while Leo didn’t quite sweep, it might’ve actually been the best acting he’s ever done. Every damn scene with the guy I could watch again and again. Shit’s brilliant. There was some controversy with Robbie as Tate and a general lack of anything really happening. But that seems to be the point. What little she has, she sells. Also, a smattering of familiar faces and new ones come in for a few moments (Al Pacino, Kurt Russell, Timothy Olyphant…) and it’s just a joy.(2/2)

Cliff (DiCaprio) is such a great character. My favorite Tarantino character. (source)

• ✍️ Storytelling: Despite the subject matter involving cult leaders and alt history, this one’s less about big adventurous plot and more about character. I didn’t quite get this the first time. But I soak in the character moments and it’s so colorful and full. Tarantino is known for his amazing dialog and, while not as chatty as some others, this one has great interactions.(2/2)
• 🤩 Feeling: For me, there were great moments — anything with the leading duo together was fun. But overall, the first time around I had trouble grasping where any of this was really going. The Manson family thing and Sharon Tate also mostly draws a blank for me so the half of the underlying ethos didn’t hook me as much as maybe some others. (1/2)
• 🔄 Rewatchability: My first go, I was like: “This is not nearly my favorite Tarantino.” But something nagged at me, like maybe I was missing something. I ended up seeing it again on a plane. The good moments were still good, if not more appreciated. I came to realize it was more about characters at a crossroads than about a dynamic plot. (2/2)
• 🤔 Thinking: Maybe because I’m not reminiscing about my peak or particularly fascinated by Manson or his ilk, not much sunk in thematically for me. (0/2)

Bottom Line:

Not as straightforward an adventure as Tarantino’s last few but the leading duo is just too good to miss.

Stream/Buy/Rent:

Buy or rent on Amazon, iTunes Store, YouTube, Google Play, and Vudu.

4. “Little Women” (10/12)

For me, the trailer didn’t quite sell it to me. But I trusted Director Gerwig would have something in store for us.

What you need to know

“Little Women” is a semi-autobiographical novel and treasured American classic by 19th-century author Louisa May Alcott. The story is widely influential and has been adapted countless times on stage, television, animation, and audio broadcast. Just as a feature film, it has been adapted on seven occasions, most recently in 1994. That one was pretty widely well-received and it had a stellar cast. So why again? Why this one?

Well, this time, it’s Greta Gerwig at the helm. The also-actor director-screenwriter herself instantly as a director with her debut in “Lady Bird” (2017) — which also starred the wonderful Saoirse Ronan (and supported by another prodigious young talent, Timothee Chalamet). With this sophomore work, Gerwig got placed among a shortlist of peers of her generation that make up the new vanguard that cast their names in this decade and will likely command the next. Many considered Gerwig snubbed for a Best Director nomination. However, it did get six other Academy Award nominations.

Even if you don’t know Greta Gerwig, the cast itself is a good reason to give it a try (source)

I have not read the original story. But if you have and you are apprehensive of adaptations, know that noted reviewers far more qualified and better read/viewed than I have called this one a “kindred spirit,” faithful enough but inventive and independent in its own right.

Director+Screenwriter: Greta Gerwig (Lady Bird)
Starring: Saoirse Ronan (Lady Bird, Brooklyn, The Grand Budapest Hotel), Florence Pugh (Midsommar, Fighting with My Family, Lady Macbeth), Emma Watson (Hermione of Harry Potter, Beauty and the Beast), Eliza Scanlen, Timothee Chalamet (Call Me by Your Name, Lady Bird), Laura Dern, Chris Cooper, Meryl Streep
Genre: Drama, Historical Drama, Coming-of-age

Ratings:

• 🎥 Filmmaking: Contrary to expectations of a stuffy period-drama, Gerwig’s direction injects fresh contemporary energy. Part of the energy is in the story and in the performances but I think Gerwig is visibly responsible for upending expectations built into the subject matter. The excellence here is closely tied with how she constructs this classic story. More on this later. For now, suffice to say Gerwig was snubbed for a director nomination. (2/2)
• 🕺💃 Performances: Expect Ronan (Jo March) and Pugh (Amy March) to increasingly become forces to be reckoned with in the 2020s. While they are clearly having a lot of fun, it’s more than the sheer comfort of execution that serves to show why these two young women were given acting nominations. Some of the ideas Ronan and Pugh are asked to sell resonate due to their skillful wielding of the brash as well as tender. Lesser performers may well have induced eye rolls. A deep bench of supporters round out the cast with another daze-y Chalamet and a scene-stealing Meryl MF Streep. (2/2)

• ✍️ Storytelling: While I found this story to be a rich text, how much is the credit due to author Alcott and from adapter Gerwig? I must admit that a significant part of appreciating the mastery director Gerwig brings is in grasping the specific context surrounding the source material. Little Women may have been semi-autobiographical, but the director takes that element further to meld Louisa May Alcott’s own real frustrations getting her story published with her avatar Jo March. Considering Gerwig’s context as a filmmaker and her thematic preoccupations, Jo March is certainly also a reflection of the director. Suspecting a transitive relationship here? You’re right, via Gerwig herself: “As a child, my hero was Jo March. But as an adult, it’s Louisa May Alcott.” Through Gerwig’s imaginative structure, nonlinear narrative interweaving (also reminiscent of Jo arranging her manuscript) a three-way double-meta soul meld of personas occurs. It happens much more subtly than I make it sound. This deserved Best Adapted Screenplay. (2/2)
• 🤩 Feeling: I had a great time watching this. There were compelling ideas. I think my appreciation for this movie gestated upon discussion, learning more about the story and understanding Gerwig’s approach. (1/2)
• 🔄 Rewatchability: I may come back to this. But honestly, I’m not in any rush to. I think if it were on certain scenes on TV, I would stick around for it. (1/2)
• 🤔 Thinking: Perhaps some of the ideas are simply new to me because I am not familiar with the source material but there were several ideas that latched onto me. Most relatable to me was Jo March’s struggle between principle and the very real urges of loneliness. (2/2)

Bottom Line:

Gerwig’s iteration of “Little Women” is equal parts resolute in its perspective and warmingly joyful. Even with elements that may be — mistakenly or otherwise — associated with “chick flicks,” I see that the film is both unabashedly embracing what feels true to it and defiant against imposed bounds. Perhaps that’s how you seize true control over your narrative. It is a refreshing entry that puts the trend of hollow cinematic pandering to shame. Again, would make an excellent double feature with “Portrait of a Lady on Fire.”

Stream/Buy/Rent:

Rent or buy at Amazon, iTunes, YouTube, Google Play or Vudu.

3. “Marriage Story” (10/12)

Well cut trailer, I must say.

What you need to know

As one of Netflix’s major awards contenders, it was widely nominated. And nominated broadly, at that — including for its performances and writing. Laura Dern’s supporting role as a divorce lawyer was the only area where it cleaned up. IMHO, it is one of the most underrated movies in 2019 for this reason. I’ve heard some worry that it’ll break them emotionally or that it might be tough to watch with your SO. It is heartbreaking but I think it’s more balanced and nuanced than one might expect from a break-up movie. It’s ok, just go for it.

Director+Screenwriter: Noah Baumbach (Frances Ha)
Starring: Adam Driver (BlacKkKlansman, Kylo Ren in Star Wars, Girls), Scarlett Johansson (Her, Lost in Translation, Jojo Rabbit, Black Widow of MCU), Laura Dern, Ray Liotta
Genre: Drama

Ratings:

• 🎥 Filmmaking: It’s not particularly flashy because so much of it is so close quartered. But I think Baumbach chooses to let the writing and actors make the scene. He gives them ample room and if you pay attention there are a number of remarkably long takes. It’s not the “balletic” as long takes tend to be, but illuminates our intimacy with the characters. (1/2)
• 🕺💃 Performances: The leads are phenomenal. Johanssen and Driver bring tenderness and humanity in Nicole and Charlie. Like great musicians, they know when to take it soft but still have a deft emotive grip in the silences as well as dial it up into emotional explosions that are beyond just loudness and energy. Every supporting and bit role is excellent as well. No one questioned Laura Dern’s awards sweep.(2/2)

If they can’t make it work, who can? (source)

• ✍️ Storytelling: The thing I love about this script is how emotionally entangled it gets you with the characters… and yet it’s incredibly clear. The artist Baldessari quoting W H Auden once said: “Great art is clear thinking about mixed feelings.” I suppose few things are quite as messy as love. Baumbach’s stunningly lucid lines cut through honest chaos. (2/2)
• 🤩 Feeling: I was sold from the opening moments, pretty choked up at its peak, and in a melancholic daze by the end. I was fucking moved, man. Despite being a movie about a relationship falling apart and a heavy emotional fight at its climax, I didn’t feel as wrung out as I expected. I think it’s because ultimately you don’t really despise anyone–perhaps even the lawyers. You might hate the machinery they are a part of but no one is really truly terrible. There are terrible mistakes but you empathize with both Nicole and Charlie. It’s complicated but not because it’s a dumpster fire. (2/2)
• 🔄 Rewatchability: I am sure I will eventually watch this movie again. The performances and writing are outstanding. Some key scenes I would stop to watch the rest if I were to find it playing. I think there are also meaningful lessons on relationships worth revisiting. (1/2)
• 🤔 Thinking: This might be me, but despite not having been married before — or perhaps for that reason — this made me think a lot about how a relationship between even mostly good, loving people can fall apart. And it’s not a dismal, love is fake/doomed type of idea. It’s still scary because it depicts how hard things can be even when everything seems to be going right. As often as communication is touted as central to a relationship, the matter is it is simply easier said than done even with the best intentions. However, it is not hopeless. It does not deny truth in love. It just warns that no matter how talented and kind you are, a relationship needs continued growth, mutual respect, and emotional equity. (2/2)

What looks like cinematography and blocking now looks like good social distancing etiquette. (source)

Bottom Line:

Despite a sense of dread of how things will go, I was sold by the tenderness in the opening scene. Even though you know things will get sour, it gets you to cling to the hope that they’ll patch it up… because these things don’t happen to good people, right? Right? You learn that they’re still human, but I think it’s in a way that offers to the rest of us that are just trying our best that that’s just how it is and that’s ok.

Stream/Buy/Rent:

Streaming on Netflix, exclusively.

2. “Knives Out” (11/12)

What you need to know

The first thing that’s got to catch the eye is that cast. My guess is, even if you’re not a movie buff, you’ll recognize quite a few of the faces in the trailers and posters. If not “oh she’s that character from that movie,” at least a few “oh I’ve seen that guy in a lot of things.” Usually, casts are not necessarily a reliable signal for quality, but when you have a bench as deep as this one, there’s some willful participation here.

They’re probably here for one of the most oddly divisive yet promising up and coming directors of his generation: Rian Johnson. He helmed the penultimate film of the Star Wars saga. Quite a few hated it–loudly at that. I and many others thought it was maybe the best thing to happen to the franchise since Empire Strikes Back. Prior to that drama, he was seen as a rising star with imperfect but nonetheless exciting entries like Brick (2005) and Looper (2012). What you need to know about this guy is that he’s known to be a perceptive deconstructionist. He breaks down conventions and employs them to realize exciting ideas that challenge and tease your expectations.

Many familiar faces. (source)

Having said that, it’s a good ol’ whodunnit. Anyone who has loved mystery and detective stories may feel an immediate intrigue in what’s in store. That’s why it’s exciting for a deconstructionist to handle a genre rife in its conventions and tropes. It’ll be the most detective-y of mystery stories but in a way that throws it on its head. You’re in for a ride.

Director+Screenwriter: Rian Johnson (Star Wars: The Last Jedi, Looper)
Starring: Daniel Craig (James Bond of 007), Ana de Armas (Blade Runner 2049), Chris Evans (Captain America of the MCU, Snowpiercer), Jamie Lee Curtis (Halloween, Freaky Friday), Michael Shannon (The Shape of Water, Man of Steel, Boardwalk Empire), Don Johnson (Watchmen), Toni Collette (Hereditary), LaKeith Stanfield (Uncut Gems, Sorry to Bother You, Atlanta), Christopher Plummer
Genre: Mystery, Crime

Ratings:

• 🎥 Filmmaking: First, the production design and costuming. The set is a treat for the eyes. You’ve got your classic mystery novel manor densely adorned with all the hallmarks. Then there’s the cast of characters that are colorful — literally as well as figuratively — that reminds you of boardgame Clue. The way shots are composed, characters blocked, and scenes cut clearly borrow much from its inspirations but also poke fun and subvert what we expect from stories in the Agatha Christie tradition. Ultimately, I think it’s remarkable that throughout a twisty plot and packed spaces, you have a sense of spatial orientation and a grasp on each “suspect.” (2/2)
• 🕺💃 Performances: There’s no “tour de force” type of acting going on in this movie. But fuck it, movies don’t have to be like that all the time. Sometimes there’s just joy in watching skilled actors clearly having a fun time in their roles. This ensemble is full of such things. There’s especially a joy in seeing actors play against type or in contrast to their previous roles. Here you find Captain America being a d-bag, the freaky woman from Hereditary essentially playing Gwenyth Paltrow, a typically imposing and intense Michael Shannon being feeble and sniveling, James Bond making more use of his borderline ridiculous new Southern accent, and more. (2/2)
• ✍️ Storytelling: Ah, the true star of this movie I believe is Johnson’s deceptively clever, and at times audacious, script. Despite the overt homages to conventions so locked in you can sense if Scooby Doo is all the mystery you’re exposed to, it feels fresh as it constantly undermines those rules. But you can tell even the wry irony and splashes of humor that it is all in admiration and love for the genre. Forgive my abstract doting; I couldn’t spoil the fun for you by divulging details. But here’s the thing: it’s a THICC, intricately threaded plot, but you’re rarely if ever lost. There’s also a good amount of quippiness and energy to its pacing that makes it anything but a bore. (2/2)

CSI: KFC — Daniel Craig having too much fun. (source)

• 🤩 Feeling: Best film? No, no. Most fun? Quite possibly! Look, I’m a sucker for the whodunnit but I had just a gloriously engaging theater experience and an undeniable smile of satisfaction on my face as I came out of this. I have yet to have mentioned this, but it’s also quite funny, yet has some good ‘ol suspense and subtext in its back pocket, waiting for you to unravel it. God, it’s just a joy. (2/2)
• 🔄 Rewatchability: Mysteries can often be hamstrung by its own conceit of knowing who done it. Thanks to how Rian Johnson structured and planned out the plot, I believe resolving the mystery doesn’t sap it of its potency. In fact, the realization of how sneakily Johnson hid things from you in plain sight may make it worth a revisit. I surely did. (2/2)
• 🤔 Thinking: Johnson is mostly sparing in thematic subtext or high-concepts. You’ll notice a few jabs sprinkled here and there at our colorful caricatures that does have a nice culmination. I thought it was interesting in its own mostly understated way. Again, will say no more. (1/2)

Bottom Line:

If you’ve ever loved detective stories and mystery novels, I guarantee you will have fun with this. While the film is clearly full of homages and identifiable tropes, in ways big and small, Rian Johnson as director and screenwriter playfully interweaves them with deft control. It’s easy to follow yet also obviously brilliantly crafted to where you want to go back and rewind.

Stream/Buy/Rent:

Buy or rent on Amazon, YouTube, iTunes, Google Play, and Vudu.

1. “Parasite” (12/12)

The original poster design still throws me off, NGL.

What you need to know:

Yes, my no.1 film of the year. There’s been enough buzz around this at this point post-Oscars so I wonder what more my testimony will do if you haven’t given it a shot already. If you haven’t seen it yet, please please do yourself a favor. Look, I can attest as a bilingual Korean-American, the subtitles were done outstandingly if that’s the problem. If you have seen it and don’t quite get what all the fuss is about, I invite you to take an extra step towards it because there’s so much to uncover and few films are so rewarding.

There are many insightful reviews and essays that illuminate the countless “hidden” meanings, visual poetry, calibrated decisions, and nuanced details of this wonderful film. Here are a few YouTube video essays I would recommend to anyone interested: “Parasite’s Perfect Montage” (Nerdwriter), “Exploring Visual Language and Symbolism in ‘Parasite’” (Film Radar), Thomas Flight’s essays (Editing, Cinematography and Visual Architecture) on Parasite, “How Parasite (And Every Bong Joon-ho Film) Critiques Class” (Just Write), and “Parasite, Ending Explained — Stairway to Nowhere” (The Take).

Ratings:

• 🎥 Filmmaking: Every decision in this film is full of intentionality. Not a frame is wasted. The camerawork is precise and meaningful. The set design is obviously outstanding. There is enough there for the casual moviegoer to understand but countless layers to dig into for anyone willing and curious. In this movie, Bong has been described as a master of his craft, a certifiable genius, and a filmmaker of surgical precision. (2/2)

Cho Yeo Jeong is spot on in that persona. (source)

• 🕺💃 Performances: Unlike usual, Song Kang Ho is not the centerpiece of his movie. His mastery is called upon in key moments but he is more steady fulcrum than propulsive force. And this is appropriate for a truly ensemble-driven film. We may have got Cho Yeo Jeong’s best as a scarily convincing rich Korean housewife. Also, Lee Jeong-eun is one of my favorites. Park So Dam owned every scene she was in. The Screen Actors Guild awarded ‘Parasite’ Best Cast in a Motion Picture. (2/2)
• ✍️ Storytelling: I think the international reception despite Bong’s initial reserved expectations of his decidedly Korean film is a testament to how sublimely it resonates. The precise thematic balance–of being obvious but not nearly as blunt as his past two features–while being so remarkably of-the-moment makes it a truly special story. I remember being astounded about the story first and foremost as I walked out of the theater the first time. And who else shifts tones and plays with genre like Bong? Masterclass. (2/2)
• 🤩 Feeling: I had laugh-out-loud moments. I literally said “oh shit” at the reveal following the turn. I was at once aware and astounded by the craft as well as enraptured by the unfolding story. I walked out nearly ashamed of my own mortal mediocrity in the afterglow of such greatness while also inspired by the sheer imagination and intricacy in such a contained story. (2/2)

ipTime vibes (source)

• 🔄 Rewatchability: I went to the theater again to see this movie. I wouldn’t say no to a third. I don’t doubt I will watch this movie again. There are countless details to be caught upon repeat viewing. (2/2)
• 🤔 Thinking: I thought a lot about the ending for a while before seeking more intelligent takes. As simplistic as the rich v. poor, poor v. poor, dynamic may seem in Bong’s character dynamics, some choices and details were more complex than they seemed the second time around. Piecing together a rather morally indiscrete picture was a most rewarding puzzle. (2/2)

Bottom Line:

As good as movies can get. Certainly a masterpiece. Possibly a magnum opus though I hope we’ll get more from Bong. One of the best of the decade and perhaps definitive at the turn to a new one. Essential viewing.

Stream/Buy/Rent:

Streaming on Hulu starting April 8 (Wed)
Buy or Rent on YouTube, Google Play, Amazon, Apple TV, and Vudu.

That’s it folks. I know it’s quite a lot. Like I said, I don’t expect or intend for anyone to read through all of this in one sitting. I hope, though, that you find it a guide worth returning to if you ever wonder, “what should we watch next?”

Again, if you’re looking for my top 11–15 picks and an explainer on the ratings, you can find it here.

Stay in, stay safe. Wash your hands. Settle in, and watch movies.

Read the Top 11–15 picks.