#also Disney is you make Jake the villain I’ll hang you

[lo-fag]

thing I want most out of s2 is domesticity (and jake lockley). marc going shopping to let steven sleep for longer. layla kissing both of them without caring who it is. talking to each other and feeling less self conscious about it. mirrors placed all over the flat so they can see each other. kindness. hugs. neither of them knowing how to fucking cook

[speckledbears]

Thoughts on “Far From Home”

SPOILERS FOR “Spider-Man: Far From Home”!!!!

this is for you anon

ok so basically i thought that it would have been good if it wasn’t a Spider-Man (“children’s”) movie.

Like, I think Quentin (Jake G) was such an interesting character, and an amazing villain but, I hated that his entire reason was because he wanted to be the New Iron Man. It bugs me to NO END that THATS the reason. Tony stole the projector tech he made, made fun of him (even if the audience didn’t know), and fired him. I think that’s a much better reason than wanting to be the next Annoying, Mean, Rich Rich Rich So Fucking Rich Metal Guy. The tech was so fucking cool? Like, projectors that seemed so lifelike,,, that’s so cool (also i kinda feel like you could relate it to how disney is only using GCI now but the russos are dumbasses). And like, the story Quentin and his team put together for Mysterio, and all the planning and the production value (if you can call it that lol) was so interesting and I was so intrigued. If there was a movie for him, and he didn’t fucking suck, I would pay to see it. His issue is that he’s so hellbent on killing Peter, MJ and Ned that I was put-off from like, half the movie. It’s kinda terrifying that someone can say, “I’ll just have to kill the kids myself,” and NO ONE IS CONCERNED??? And the fact that he was willing to kill innocent civilians just to make headlines, that’s fucked (and modern). Also, I think the directors missed out on a big opportunity for Peter to have a new father figure. Peter looked up to Quentin, trusted him, seeked him out for advice, like he would a father. I don’t remember him ever doing that with Tony. Peter was always too worried he was bothering him, and Tony seemed to brush him off a lot. Sure, Tony picked him and placed so much faith in him but, in the end? I feel Peter became more of a toy for the Avengers than an actual team member. If Quentin had been a good guy, doing this shit for the “right reasons” (idk like, taking the burden of becoming Iron Man off Peter, and maybe mentoring him) he could’ve been AMAZING. I still love him (except his dumb reasons) but, y’all missed out!!!!

Next: The whole deal with Peter being chosen by Tony to be the next Iron Man. Fucking hate that shit!!!!! Peter is a CHILD, he’s 16, and obviously he’s not ready for that responsibility!!!! In the movie, he’s manipulated by Quentin (which i lowkey also hate and explained above) and he just!!! gave EDITH to him!!!!! He’s a good kid, but not mature or responsible enough to handle having access to that kind of tech. I mean, dude almost killed a classmate?? Literally called a drone strike on the kid, couldn’t figure out how to cancel it, and destroyed the drone himself. Let’s not forget that this responsibility was FORCED ON HIM BY TONY???? Like, there was this scene where Peter literally told Quentin that he didn’t want EDITH!!! He didn’t want that kind of responsibility that came with being Iron Man!!! All he wanted for the summer was to hang out with his friends and kiss the girl he likes!!! Peter just wanted to be a normal child for one summer and, apparently, that was too much to ask for. Also, in the scene where Happy and Peter are in the jet talking about Tony, Peter says that he doesn’t know if he can be the new Iron Man. Happy doesn’t even hesitate when he says, “No, you can’t. No one can replace him.” Like hello!!!! And then they immediately forget that little nugget of wisdom, and Peter starts playing with Tony’s tech and literally everyone with eyes can draw the parallels between Peter and Tony. It’s frustrating. I hated how Tony was treated after his death. I completely understand mourning a character, especially one as important as Tony Stark, but it didn’t feel like mourning. It felt like worshipping. Tony had become a martyr, and he fucking knew it (EDITH = Even Dead, I’m The Hero 🙄) and people are still licking his boots. It’s just so weird that, even though he’s supposed to be dead, he’s still a main character and RDJ isn’t even in the movie!!!!!!!! When a character dies, that’s it, they can’t directly influence the story anymore, and yet Tony is still the reason for everything Peter does? He doesn’t have his own initiative. He lived and breathed in Tony’s shadow, and he’ll live in it forever. He’s being forced to become the next Iron Man. And believe me, I love Tony. I grew up watching the “Iron Man” movies with my parents and brother, and I remember watching one in the theatre and laughing till I cried. Guys! He’s dead! He’s done more than enough! It’s Spider-Man’s turn now.

I really hated Nick Fury in this movie. I grew up watching the OG Marvel movies and I loved Nick, but holy fuck. This dude hounded Peter, a CHILD, for help against those Elementals when he could’ve literally asked anyone else (side note: he shot Ned with a tranquilizer dart like? dude he’s a child calm down-). He gave a shit ton of excuses for why he couldn’t get in contact with the other Avengers but, I call bullshit. This dude is like, one of the most powerful men in the world (Quentin’s words, but it’s also been proven in other movies). He managed to track down Peter, how is it THAT HARD for him to find an adult??? Then he hijacked the school trip so that Peter would be in Prague, and he KNEW that once Peter was there he would help. It’s manipulation. Never mind the scene like, 5 mins later where Peter says he’s worried about his friends getting hurt (and having EDITH but not really understanding her), and Nick exploded on him. LIKE DUDE??? he’s a child. I’m also super pissed off at the fact that Nick manipulated Peter using his Avenger status. OOOOHHHH you whore!!! Literally everyone knows that Peter loved Tony (🙄🙄) and he used him against Peter! ASK AN ADULT FOR HELP YOU HAVE AN ENTIRE TEAM OF THEM????? Oh also, the bitch KNEW Quentin was evil. There’s a scene that proves it. It’s right after their first meeting where Peter says no, and leaves. Nick and Maria (the brunette lady hes always with, im surprised i remembered her name) share a knowing glance. They fucking KNOW. And yet?? They let Quentin do whatever the hell he wants?? He literally tried to kill 3 teenagers, and planned to kill hundreds of civilians in London (and i’m not sure if anyone did get hurt or died but, i wouldn’t be surprised). But the most powerful man in the world can’t stop him, apparently. He wants a 16-year-old CHILD to do it for him. It’s ridiculous!

The romance was also a bit hit-or-miss for me. Like, Ned and Betty?? It felt so forced and contrived? It literally only existed so that MJ could take Ned’s place. Y’all notice that Ned basically ditched his best friend for the entire movie for some girl he barely knows? Also, the fact that they “fell in love” on an eight hour flight. Hate that. It’s such a trope and it’s ugly. The romance with Happy and May was kinda weird, too? I mean, I don’t know their past together. I didn’t watch “Infinty War” or “Endgame” but, it also felt forced. Especially at the end, when Peter asked if they were dating!! May said no and Happy said yes!! I’m assuming that’s supposed to be comedy?? ig??? Anyway, I didn’t really like the romantic rivalry between Brad and Peter? (btw no shit i almost called peter “tony” i’m telling y’all they’re synonymous now). Like, Brad’s logic in using the photo of Peter stripping to “expose the truth” about Peter to MJ was so weird and awkward? The entire scene felt forced and I was so uncomfortable watching it. Also, MJ would’ve stuck up for Peter anyway, so it didn’t even matter, and the rivalry was dropped so easily after the opera in Prague. I did actually like the romance between Peter and MJ, even though I wasn’t expecting to. It’s a bit weird how quickly he got over Liz, but whatever; he’s a teenager. (I was going to comment on the necklace thing but, that’s actually kind of in character for him so, y’all get ONE (1) pass). I thought their hug and kiss at the end of the battle with Quentin was super fucking sweet and innocent, and it was refreshing compared to most teen romance movies where they act like adults instead. I was in LOVE with that scene, and it was one of the only scenes I honestly loved.

Ok, I wanna go back to Quentin for a bit. This dude absolutely destroyed the Peter Parker we were given in HOCO, and at the beginning of the movie. Yeah, Tony already had him as a puppet, but Quentin took his innocence. Y’all saw how easily Peter trusted people before him!! Like?? When he found out Quentin manipulated him, he lost almost all his faith in other people, except for MJ and Ned. For example, the scene where Peter calls Happy to pick him up because he’s in a holding cell in the Netherlands? Love that scene BUT! As he’s limping over to Happy, so obviously fucked up and hurting, he makes Happy prove it’s really him. THAT FUCKING HURT LMAO!!!!! I hated that. And that last battle with Quentin on the bridge? He maneuvered so easily through the drones, it was impressive, and he’d only fought against them once before (seems impossible but whatever). And watching the projections dissolve away into just pixels and a scared little bitch in a fish bowl helmet? Classic Theatre. But, he was traumatized by previous experiences fighting Quentin. Peter’s growth made the movie good but, his loss of innocence really made this movie kinda suck. Sure, his innocence still there—the scenes later with MJ prove that—but he’s still lost his easy trust in other people. It hurt to see. And, like, I’m not saying he can’t be more mature but, he didn’t even trust Happy!! He’s so paranoid that he’ll find his loved ones replaced by Quentin’s illusions!! It sucks!!!! Peter isn’t Peter without that sense of childlike wonder, curiosity, and helpless faith in others.

Anyway, I wanna talk about that Netherlands scene again because, holy shit, I loved it. After Peter was hit by that train (i actually screamed but the cinematography inside the train? *kiss*), he wakes up in some holding cell in the Netherlands with a band of friendly locals, and the guard, who’s talking on the phone with his pregnant wife. I don’t know why but, that scene was one of the first to make me smile? Like, it was so sweet how the other men were so happy for the guard and his wife, how they gave Peter a spare shirt because he looked cold, how Peter just broke the lock and left? How the guard was wearing Peter’s mask???? I’m in love. The next scene I liked was literally right after, of Peter limping through the tulip field, and Happy landing the jet nearby. Without dialogue, that scene is so pretty?? The petals stirring in the wave the jet left as it landed?? The HUG???? UGH! I fell in love. Another scene I loved was the scene when Peter went to Berlin to meet with Nick Fury and Quentin manipulated it with the projection technology. Even though I knew it was fake, I was worried about what was going on outside the projection (he got hit by a fucking train so,,,,,, iwas right to be worried-). Watching Peter so helpless and trying to stay vigilant was so heartbreaking, yet I was lowkey impressed. Like? How many other mean ass men could pull that off? None, next question. I can’t even think about how to explain it. I watched that scene at least 3 times, and was amazed every time, my only thoughts anxiety for Peter.

Okay, lastly, I wanna talk about the tech. I thought it was so interesting and unique. Like, I’ve played with the idea of projection in stories, or with characters as magic but, never considered applying it through technology, especially tech as capable as it is. And every scene where the projections were being used were amazing. I mean, obviously it’s CGI, but in the context of the MCU, it’s so interesting and cool to see tech like that used in a very public way. And no one knew!!! The whole system (along with Quentin and his team) was so good at camouflaging that I was fooled at the beginning of the movie. I seriously believed in the Elementals and Mysterio’s ruined Earth. It’s part of the reason I really enjoyed his character. And, like I said earlier, Peter was fooled by it too; everyone was. He learned it, eventually. But not before Quentin could manipulate the situation one last time and claim Peter called the drone attacks on London, and revealed his identity.

All in all, I didn’t have fun watching “Far From Home,” and it’s mainly because it didn’t feel like a Spider-Man movie. I enjoyed “Homecoming,” so much more. The villain was far more relatable (even though you could see it as demonizing the poor), Ned and Peter’s friendship was so wholesome and sweet, the entire cast was fun, and it was more enjoyable than watching some angry rich white man trying to kill children so he can get richer.

[ahouseoflies]

The Best Films of 2016, Part III

Part II is here. Part I is here. PRETTY GOOD MOVIES 74. Life, Animated (Roger Ross WIlliams) The film hits most of the marks that it needs to, but it sort of backs into drama in a way that doesn't help it. It starts with an adult functioning with autism, then flashes back to the subject's more uncertain, perilous childhood, then tries to push into his future with lower stakes. I'm not sure what other structural option it has though, and it does manage a depiction of a loving family and a few laughs. The animated sequences add nothing. 73. Mike and David Need Wedding Dates (Jake Szymanski) There are just enough laughs to overcome the formulaic nature, the whole "I sell liquor with my brother, but what I really like to do is draw." What struck me the most is that the four principals are all dumb characters, and the film never wavers on that. There's no straight man, which kind of makes the audience the straight man. The best laugh is when Anna Kendrick stitches together a lie about being a hedge fund manager without having any idea what hedge funds are. Or when Adam Devine admits that he uses the word "assuage" and hopes that no one asks him what it means. None of the other characters roll their eyes, and their sincerity presents the viewer with an interesting dynamic. 72. Hush (Mike Flanagan) Hush is kind of a trifle, and the dialogue isn't going to win any awards. But it takes you on quite a ride in 83 minutes, going for extreme without ever being far-fetched. The best movies of this type resist explaining a motivation for the killer, and I was glad this one didn't try to give him any kind of a connection to the protagonist other than his own sadism. It helps that John Gallagher Jr. excels by playing against type.

71. Sunset Song (Terence Davies) Almost pornographically obsessed with the passage of time, Sunset Song is a good story told well. If that sounds like faint praise, it is. I wish I saw the yearning, creative beauty that other people have--my reaction to The Deep Blue Sea as well. To me, the film works best when it holds its nose and sinks into the melodrama (PTSD HUSBAND PTSD HUSBAND PTSD HUSBAND). When it's more concerned with stateliness, I started to get bored. And by "get bored," I mean "mimic the dialect of every 'nae,' 'bonny,' and 'bairn.'" It's an addictive game. 70. 13th (Ava DuVernay) 13th is a briskly-paced, logically-structured doc, and the ending was downright moving. But, as unkind as this might sound, I think it's ideal for a woke high school kid, not a discerning adult. Is the only goal of the film to teach me something I didn't know? Is that a fair thing to judge on a rubric for a documentary? All I know is that it felt entry-level to me. 69. A War (Tobias Lindholm) Eventually the film approaches a tense question of ethics, but it sure does take a while to get there. The setup is yeoman's work, a necessary evil, but I struggled to stay involved. I say that I want a war film in which every life matters, but in practice it ends up feeling small in both focus and scope. Once the film becomes a courtroom drama, however, it's absorbing--possibly because we can concentrate on the stoic but desperate adult characters and leave behind the badass child who pulled down the homelife scenes. Definitely because the courtroom scenes are efficient and understated, unlike every Hollywood courtroom scene ever. Denmark seems like a chill place to live, even for the working class. 68. The Shallows (Jaume Collet-Sera) The Shallows has some nice thrills and a bit more character motivation than the audience usually gets. Blake Lively has a heartfelt scene with a GoPro late. But relax if you think it invents or subverts anything. Collett-Sera seems to be making a habit out of impossibly tidy denouements. I was going to modify "denouements" with "Can I take you out for coffee sometime?" But then I realized that his previous film literally ended with "Can I take you out for coffee sometime?"

67. Pete’s Dragon (David Lowery) I give a lot of credit to David Lowery for providing a filmmaking signature to one of these Disney live-action remakes for the first time. The epilogue is just as lyrical as anything in Ain't Them Bodies Saints, and I'll take any Leonard Cohen song I can get in a movie of this type. There's a maturity to the picture--it starts with a five-year-old's family dying--that places it as a film for an underserved audience, someone eight-to-eleven. At the same time, it's a bit pleased with itself, too complacent to be funny at all, too brusque to develop the supporting characters beyond "What a jerk, right?" (Eight-to-eleven is the perfect age to ask your parents, "Why would boo marry a guy she doesn't like?") And the dragon himself traipses the uncanny valley in a way that makes the close-ups look right but the long shots look fake. Finally, shout-out to Robert Redford for starting a truck with a pocketknife on some Jean Reno shit. 66. Zootopia (Byron Howard, Rich Moore, Jared Bush) A "yeah...but" movie if there ever was one. Yeah, it's unassailably cute with detailed world-building, but then it devolves into plot overdrive in the final third like all of these movies do. Yeah, it's probably an engaging enough half-genre movie if you've never seen one, but the clues seem arbitrary if you've watched hundreds of detective movies. Yeah, the overall message is one worth making, but it's the least subtle film I've seen in some time.

65. Kubo and the Two Strings (Travis Knight) I had my usual reaction to Laika animation: impressed but a bit distanced. The storytelling is efficient here, with most scenes standing in for literal steps of the hero's journey, but the emotional beats work a lot better than the action, which is amazingly fluid but takes away from some of the weighty qualities that I liked about stop-motion animation in the first place. Gone also are the dense, cluttered environments that I liked so much in The Boxtrolls. As always, the studio has produced a film that is not quite for adults and not quite for children, but they have undeniably pushed the medium forward. 64. Holy Hell (Will Allen) The footage on hand, twenty years of videography of a cult, is almost too good to pass up, even if the material from the present can't fully support it. I'm glad that something came of the decades of manipulation and abuse that the director went through. Every once in a while, one of the talking heads will mention something chilling, like that he didn't have a bank account or that the cult leader forced her to have an abortion. By the end of the film, it's difficult to even look at Michel, who is such an absorbing villain that, were he not real, you wouldn't believe him. But those chills are few and far between. Especially at the beginning, which could have used some titles to provide context, none of the victims stand out. In fact, the film almost correlates that all of the victims were weak-minded in the same way. I doubt that's the point, and who am I to judge the people themselves? But I did think I would have had more empathy if any of these people stood out by expressing anything other than regret. The movie's subjects aren't capable of the insight that would take the film to the next level. 63. War Dogs (Todd Phillips) "You like the new [Todd Phillips]?" "The early stuff. The new stuff, he's trying to be [Scorsese]. He should be himself." Good performances and a bit of that blurry line between satire and admiration overcome terrible needle drops and a tired, bear-at-the-door voiceover structure. If you laugh at Jonah Hill calling the young Jordanian translator Aladdin, then you're more on the diverting side than the derivative side. I laughed. 62. The Edge of Seventeen (Kelly Fremon Craig) Plenty funny and plenty poignant, but rarely at the same time for me. As usual, the movie sort of settles into itself once it discards voiceover. Steinfeld's performance is the real star here since it takes what could have been a whiny character and imbues her with real anguish in a way that sort of makes up for some writing shortcuts. She's angry and sexual in ways that we don't often see in cinematic teenage girls. I was puzzled by the Erwin character, a nice dude who comes and goes whenever the film needs him to. He's more of a device to measure Nadine's growth than he is a full character treated fairly. Then it occurred to me, this being a film written and directed and starring women: He's a female vision of the manic pixie dream girl that I've seen in countless movies designed by men. Nicely done with his blankness, ladies. I get it. 61. Author: The JT LeRoy Story (Jeff Feuerzeig) If you hang out with a crazy person for an extended period of time--and as a person who has spent time in New Orleans bars, I feel confident speaking on this--there's a pattern that emerges. At first, the crazy person is interesting and funny just because his thought process is so much different from your own. He quickly becomes tedious, and you feel guilty because, even though you're engaging with him genuinely, the conversation is starting to feel like a game. Maybe the problem is you and your straight life. Then you become worried for the person, who might be dangerous. At a certain point, you can't wait to get out. You start planning your escape. Then, once you extricate yourself, you feel pretty grateful for this bizarre encounter that you learned from. Laura Albert, the subject of Author: The JT LeRoy Story, is a crazy person, and I went through that same journey with this documentary. Celebrity marks in order of how silly this movie makes them look: 1. Gus Van Sant (always) 2. Asia Argento 3. Michael Pitt 4. Matthew Modine 5. Winona Ryder 60. Morris From America (Chad Hartigan) Slightly lacking in scope, especially for taking place in such a grand setting, Morris From America still offers a poignantly realistic father-son relationship and a few heartbreakingly intimate moments. (We've all made out with a pillow, but how many times have you watched someone else do it?) Since it has similar ambitions to Chad Hartigan's previous film This Is Martin Bonner, I'm wondering why my response wasn't as enthusiastic. I think it has something to do with the stakes created by the characters' pain. Morris is written with pathos here, but it's hard not to believe that a thirteen-year-old boy living abroad is going to figure things out. A man in his sixties, played by a haggard-looking dude, might not. 59. 10 Cloverfield Lane (Dan Trachtenberg) At the exact moment I was supposed to be amazed by the expansion of the film's world, I tuned out. Up until that point though, I really liked the cautious ratcheting of the conflict, as well as the attention to detail on the set design. It's refreshing when the woman-in-peril makes decisions that are as smart as what the audience would do in the same situation; I'm pretty sure Winstead's Michelle is even smarter than the average viewer. 58. The Invitation (Karyn Kusama) People who love this film probably relish how long it builds tension to get to the real horror stuff. People who hate it probably resent that it takes so long to get to its inevitable conclusion. I'm somewhere in the middle. It's certainly no surprise where the film is going, and the characters' roles are a bit contrived--this one's the jokester, these are the lusty gay guys. But the script takes great care with the escalating details.The culty organization at the center of the dinner party is rooted in a grief that the film takes seriously. The flashbacks are loud fragments with the overwhelming quality that a memory has in real life. And the final shot before the black out both ties the movie to its genre tradition and expands the scope in a juicy way. 57. Embrace of the Serpent (Ciro Guerra) For most of its running time, Embrace of the Serpent asks textbook questions about colonialism, and the parallel stories seem unbalanced. (About forty-five minutes in, the 1949 story comes back, and I had almost forgotten about it.) The black and white photography works but only as a sort of corrective to how these things are usually shot, not as a statement itself. Then, however, in the final thirty minutes, everything deepens. Karamakate, the Amazonian guide character, bristled earlier in the picture about a photograph of him, considering it an empty copy of his spirit. When the film expands, it's because he's levying the same idea at Evan, the dumb American who seems like a copy of the earlier White explorer. It's the sort of relative mysticism that the film had been working for all along.

56. Nerve (Ariel Schulman, Henry Joost) The ending's moral imperative left me rolling my eyes, but Nerve was a fun ride until that point. I give a lot of credit to the filmmakers for not belaboring the rules and limits of the game at the film's center; after some painful "I used to have a brother" exposition, they just wind the machine up and let it go. There are a lot of different pieces rolling at one time with solid balance, and some compelling ideas surface, such as the game's manipulation of its players with their own acknowledged preferences. The entire idea of the game's demands escalating is silly--the evil neutral of the Internet would ensure that the second dare would be "kill your parents." But the stars sell the silliness until the movie works because of it, not despite it. 55. The Club (Pablo Larrain) A searing, urgent, intimate drama that inquires honestly about the origins of perversion. Yet anyone who has seen it can tell you the exact moment that it goes off the rails. 54. Hidden Figures (Theodore Melfi) The type of crowd-pleasing crowd-pleaser that pleases crowds on a coldest nights of January. Melfi's hand guides the film past a clumsy opening and a structure that all but separates the three leads into a television-style A-B-C plot. There are a few too many record-scratch, "I didn't think you would be...a woman..." moments for my taste, but the biggest payoffs, like a real tear-jerker of a proposal scene, are less telegraphed. I think Hidden Figures is a film that is clean--inoffensive, slick--but not sanitized. Most of the bits that illuminate institutional racism, such as Katherine's half-mile trek to the nearest "colored" bathroom, still hit. There isn't a weak performance in the bunch, but Janelle Monae is a Movie Star, and Kevin Costner shines as a secretly great type of movie character, the dude who is so concerned with excellence that it, like, never occurred to him that racism existed. Huh. Weird. 53. Finding Dory (Andrew Stanton, Angus MacLane) I liked a lot about this movie. I liked Ellen DeGeneres's vocal performance, a demanding role that she nailed. I liked the animation of the interiors, which Pixar keeps getting more photorealistic with--I caught myself reading the warning on the side of a coffee carafe. I liked most of the emotional beats that came from the valuable subtext of raising a special needs child. I liked the bit with the sea lions too. However, at what point is the emotional manipulation too much? I'm okay with these films being engineered to make people cry. It works most of the time. But how far is too far? Is it watching the equivalent of a handicapped girl struggle as she comes to terms with probably being lost from her parents forever? Are we close? I'm just asking. And as much as the film straddles those emotional boundaries, it also strains at the logical stuff. Not to WELL ACTUALLY a children's movie, but an octopus drives a car. If Pixar movies are supposed to be evaluated on the same scale as adult movies, then I can't just let that go.  52. Nocturnal Animals (Tom Ford) Tom Ford the writer kind of holds back Tom Ford the director with this intriguing but awkward riddle of a film. The screenplay feels like a first draft, laced with suggestions of a theme about art as a product versus art as an intention, but without the elbow grease to give the characters inner life. Once the action of the present begins to overlap with the action of the past and the action in Edward's novel, the film gets more playful, but that just reveals how unfinished it feels. (Is Edward's novel supposed to be trashy? Is he objectively a bad writer, despite the effects the novel has on Susan? Is the novel's tone so different from the main action because he's trying on a sadness that Susan owns? I'm not sure Tom Ford knows the answers to any of these questions.) And it's a shame because the direction is pretty assured for someone with as few reps as Ford. He takes the stateliness and melancholy of A Serious Man, then scuffs it up a bit with the more handheld Texas sequences. And of course all of the clothes are pretty, which I don't think will ever go away with him. That well-worn "I could watch her read the phonebook" line extends to watching someone read a book, pull it close to her, and stare sadly out the window. Amy Adams is really good. In fact, all of the actors are selling characters that are just kind of types on the page--sometimes purposefully in the story-within-a-story--and imbuing them with charm and foundation. Except for Armie Hammer, who is on some "I'm a businessman. I have to make this important deal happen. Business." 51. Other People (Chris Kelly) In the first scene, a family has just watched life drift away from its matriarch. Stunned in the bed with her, they refuse to answer the ringing phone, thinking it might be undignified at such a profound moment. The solipsistic voicemail interrupts "I heard you were sick" with a Taco Bell order, and we see that Other People wants to look at a family's journey with cancer in a way that is off-center and irreverent. Most of it works in that regard, and there are some honest, smart moments that sell what feels like the writer/director Chris Kelly working out personal issues with a focus that is tart but not tormented. I especially liked the conversations between Jesse Plemons's David and his confidant Gabe. But Jesse Plemons is miscast in a way that seems to sink the movie. His greatest strength is his natural presence, which doesn't translate to a character uncomfortable in his own skin. Before realizing that Plemons was playing a gay man, I asked, "Is he doing 'gay stuff'?" because of his fidgets and squints. Maybe not a good sign in 2016 if the actor has to sell you, believing that gay people look and act a certain way. For every relationship that feels real, like the one between David and his on-again, off-again boyfriend, there's one that seems contrived, like the one with his father. I suspect there are just too many relationships in general for a film of this length to serve, but that's a better problem than not having enough to develop.

50. Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping (Akiva Schaffer, Jorma Taccone) The obvious point first: The Conner4Real character is supposed to be a star with beloved music who falls from grace because he starts making terrible music. But all of the movie's music is kind of good and funny because it has to be, and there definitely doesn't seem to be a difference in quality from when the music was "good" versus when it is supposed to be "bad." That's a point that you just have to get past. That's the most uneven aspect of the film--and, yes, it's a dumb critique--because most other elements work well. A character with as little self awareness as Conner is difficult to write, but Samberg sells him with rare charm. His nervous, "there must be a mistake" smile as he's reading reviews won me over. Conner manages to be a totally specific kind of musician (and the screenplay understands the fickle nature of modern fame) without taking aim at one specific person. The Hunter character is obviously Tyler, the Creator, but Conner is kind of Bieber, kind of Timberlake, kind of Nick Jonas, even a little Robbie Williams. He's a type but still unique. Especially near the end, you kind of get the sense that The Lonely Island guys are shooting fish in a barrel, but this is an outrageous, endearing film. If I wrote any more, I would just be ranking my favorite jokes and spoiling them. 49. Fences (Denzel Washington) Another perfect example of the stage and the screen not being the same thing. Fences is one of the greatest plays of the 20th century, but there is no denying the theatricality of the piece. August Wilson shows his work: In a way that cinema doesn't really forgive, he spells out connections between stadium fences and backyard fences and chain-link fences and the more figurative fences that guard human emotion and the even more figurative fences that keep racism alive. I don't care that Washington keeps 90% of action in one location instead of opening it up. That's usually what people mean by "stage-y," but this is something else. It's an artifice of storytelling that does not translate when projected across a fifty-foot screen. Some things just work better in a play. And by that I mean, "metal plate brother metal plate brother metal plate brother metal plate brother." Luckily, the emotion is not artificial. Washington probably has more lines of dialogue in the first twenty minutes than he had in his previous four films, and it's just a pleasure to hear the music of the guy's voice. There's an important speech about how Troy fills the rooms that he's in, and Washington fills the screen similarly in a performance that is free of vanity yet full of pride. Stephen Henderson, a great That Guy, gets the juiciest role of his life as Bono, a man just as trapped by friendship as Troy is trapped by his past. 48. The Purge: Election Year (James DeMonaco) These movies continue to be low-key great. There's enough mythology now that the film can play with elements on the margins like murder tourism or Purge Night insurance hikes. DeMonaco and his DP Jacques Jouffret use so much direct light that it's distracting, but it sometimes results in demented imagery that can't be replicated.The movie's political subtext is simultaneously obvious and undeveloped, but it's notable that these movies, like the best grindhouse flicks, are made for the working class and minorities. There are entire characters who are there to be the voice of the raucous, untamed audience, there to feast on ultraviolence in the same way that the characters are. I normally would have been upset about the seven-year-old playing with an iPhone when he wasn't watching people be decapitated, but, for once, that's the perfect companion for this movie.