Anyone who examines the history of Disney will see that their film output goes in cycles. Since their first animated feature film -Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs- in 1937, Disney has had four periods which produced predominantly good films (which I call Golden Ages) and three periods where their film output was less than stellar (which I call Dark Ages). The current Fourth Golden Age began in 2009 with The Princess and the Frog, and every film they’ve released since then has been excellent. I’ve been looking forward to Moana since it was first announced several years ago, and I am happy to report that the Fourth Golden Age is going strong as strong as ever.  
​
The hero of this story is a young woman named Moana (voiced by newcomer Auli’i Cravalho), who lives on an island somewhere in ancient Polynesia. Ever since she was a child, she has gazed with wonder at the endless ocean surrounding her home, stoked by stories told by her grandmother of ancient adventures. But her people, particularly her father (the village chief), refuse to venture into the open sea, fearful of violent storms and the terrible monsters said to dwell there. But when disaster strikes the island and her people face starvation, Moana’s grandmother tells her the truth: their ancestors were skilled seafarers who set sail in search of new lands to settle, until the demigod Maui (Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson) stole a powerful magical artifact which angered the gods and made the seas too perilous to sail. To save her island, Moana must embark on a quest to find Maui and help him return the artifact he stole. 

Nowadays Disney films tend to alternate between more ‘contemporary’ adventure films, such as this year’s Zootopia, and their more traditional fantasy musicals. Moana is in the latter category, and out of the ones released in the current Golden Age (along with The Princess and the Frog, Tangled, and Frozen), I think this is probably the best one. Although it to some extent follows the same formula as those other films, it always feels fresh and fun and never stale. 

The first reason for this is the core aspect of every Disney musical: the music. It certainly has the best music out of all the newer Disney musicals. The three songwriters for the film are all incredibly talented musicians: Mark Mancina (who previously worked with Disney on the music for Tarzan), Opetaia Foa'i (lead singer of the Polynesian band Te Vaka) and Lin-Manuel Miranda (creator of the cultural phenomena Hamilton). The performances are incredible as well; Auli’i Cravalho, a sixteen year-old acting novice from Hawaii, is absolutely amazing both in her voice acting and her singing. The directors (Ron Clements and John Musker, who previously directed The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, and The Princess and the Frog) auditioned hundreds of women from across the Pacific until eventually finding Cravalho, and boy did they make the right decision. Her singing is incredible- Lin-Manuel Miranda better cast her in whatever he makes after Hamilton. Also, The Rock sings a song called “You’re Welcome” about how awesome his character Maui is, and it’s just as cool as it sounds. In short, after watching the film you’ll want to buy the soundtrack and listen to it on repeat for at least a week.

Secondly, Moana is visually stunning. Although I was originally a bit disappointed that the film was changed from 2D to 3D animation in early production, after seeing the final product I can see it was the proper decision. The Pacific Ocean and the Polynesian islands are animated in such lush and stunning detail that they’re simply spellbinding. It actually seems like Disney’s 3D films are catching up with Pixar’s- Moana’s oceanic environment is at least the equal of this year’s Finding Dory. 

Finally, Moana’s characters and plot are some of the best out of all the recent Disney films. A good part of this is due to Cravalho and Johnson’s incredible voice work, which bring Moana and Maui to life in a way that few other Disney voice actors have managed to do. Some of it is due to the film’s story, which strikes a perfect balance between the familiar Disney fantasy tales we all know and love while still being fresh. Moana is a complex and nuanced character, who struggles between her responsibilities as a future leader of her tribe and her desire for adventure. Maui is a deeply flawed but ultimately sympathetic character who at his core simply wants to be appreciated and loved. The movie continues Disney’s recent tradition of self-awareness regarding itself- at one point Moana and Maui have an argument about whether or not she counts as a princess. And not to be overlooked is the fact that Moana is a story deeply-rooted in Polynesian culture and mythology, a culture which is nearly always forgotten by mainstream society. Having an additional strong, non-white female protagonist is a good step for Disney, and seems especially important at this moment in American history.

In short, Moana is an impeccably well-crafted film which keeps the current Disney Golden Age going strong. It has a classic fairy tale storyline, a unique cultural setting, well-written protagonists who are people of color, fantastic voice acting, and absolutely incredible music. Basically, it’s everything you could ever ask for in a Disney movie, and I believe it will stand as one of Disney’s strongest films for years to come.

Grade: A+

I have a quick confession to make before I get into this movie. When I was younger, around middle school age, I was a Harry Potter fiend. I owned multiple copies of each of the books (because I read them so much that they started to fall apart), knew all of the pointless trivia (Dumbledore’s full name is Albus Perceval Wulfric Brian) and saw the last three of the Potter films at midnight screenings with the wand my dad carved me out of a twig in my backyard. I was a self-proclaimed member of the Harry Potter fandom and, though that has worn off since my middle school years, the residual excitement about anything Potter still hits. Thus, when I heard that a film based on Newt Scamander’s Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, a textbook in the Harry Potter universe, was in development with J.K. Rowling back at the helm, I was elated. My excitement only grew when I heard that the film would be taking place in 1920s New York, giving the audience a chance to experience a different side of the wizarding world. And, for the most part, the film follows through on its promise of a new look on a beloved universe.
​
The film follows Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne), the future author of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, on his first trip to the United States. The dark wizard Grindelwald has just begun terrorizing the wizarding world, and wizard communities are cracking down trying to locate him. Scamander has come to New York with a suitcase full of magical creatures, as he is studying them in an attempt to prove to the wizarding community at large that they are not to be feared. But some of Scamander’s creatures get loose, bringing him into contact with a Muggle named Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler) and a wizard cop named Porpentina Goldstein (Katherine Waterston). Together, along with Porpendia’s sister Queenie (Alison Sudol), they attempt to get Scamander’s creatures back and understand some of the strange disturbances that may reveal the wizarding community to the Muggles.

Even as I write this review, I am fairly conflicted regarding this movie and my opinion of it. There are elements that I found excellent and exactly what I wanted, but there are others that are poorly paced and not nearly as interesting. I think I can break the movie down into halves, one which is insanely well put together and intriguing and one which is kind of dull and mediocre in comparison. 

Let’s start with the dull half: the beasts. One would think that the most interesting part of a film with this title would be the mythical creatures, but most of them just end up failing to impress. Lackluster CGI creatures fill certain scenes and though at the surface Scamander’s quest to make wizards understand the beauty of these creatures seems interesting, it feels like lighter fare compared to the rest of the movie. It lacks the whimsy of many of the original Potter films, feeling tacked-on and lacking in weight comparted to the film’s darker scenes. This goes, to some extent, for the four protagonists as well. Though all four actors bring in good performances, the characters feel too similar. They are all wacky misfits, each with similar quirks that make them somewhat indistinguishable. The movie lacks a straight man, like Harry was in the original series, to anchor that side of the plot.

Fortunately, when the film chooses to focus on the darker side of the 1920s New York wizarding community, things start to get a lot more interesting. The dark magic forces that have been making disturbances in the city caused a movement called the Second Salem, a group of Muggles who believe witches and wizards do exist and seek to eradicate them. The scenes which focus on the aurors (wizard cops), the Second Salem group and the sinister magic that is terrorizing the city is far darker and more fascinating than the material involving the beasts. Add the references to Grindelwald (whom huge Harry Potter fans will recognize from the Deathly Hallows novel) and elements of the 1920s environment like wizard speakeasies, and you’ve got a creative and interesting look at the Potter universe. These segments of the film were excellent, reminding me of why I was excited for this movie in the first place.

Do you understand why I am conflicted? I wanted to love every aspect of this film. I wanted to come out head-over-heels in love with the Harry Potter universe again. And, to some extent, I did. There are elements of this film that are absolutely spectacular, really proving that the universe has a lot more to offer outside the original series. But there are also lengthy segments that I found mediocre and completely lacking in depth. Luckily, the great bits probably see a bit more screen time than the mediocre bits, but it doesn’t make those segments any less ‘blah’. I think the positives outweigh the negatives in the case of Fantastic Beasts, but I can’t say I didn’t leave the theatre wishing that the film had focused more on the dark and deep than the flashy.

Grade: B

​As I near my twenty-first birthday, I feel myself becoming more distant from ~teen culture~. A lot of the movies and television shows and YouTube videos and music that is geared towards teenagers feels so different than what was out there when I was fifteen or sixteen. It doesn’t seem like something I could connect with, even if I was still that age. Because of that, I tend to avoid entertainment that is marketed as “teenaged.” As a huge fan of James L. Brooks, however, I put aside my adult maturity (if you can even call it that) and saw The Edge of Seventeen. Hailee Steinfeld stars as Nadine, a socially awkward high school student who is struggling through her junior year. It seems like everything is working against Nadine, except for her best and really only friend Krista (Haley Lu Richardson). Krista is Nadine’s saving grace, that is, until Krista starts dating Nadine’s popular older brother Darian (Blake Jenner, Everybody Wants Some!!). 

Regardless of age, any viewer can find a character or a message within this film that resonates with them. Personally, I relate to Nadine in more ways than I care to admit. Her insecurities, teenage existential dread, and self-loathing are something that I struggled with in high school and still do on occasion today. Steinfeld portrays an imperfect character who, because her story is such a reflection of negative experiences and feelings you may have experienced in high school, you root for. Nadine can be stupid and gets in her own way more often than not, which is frustrating because you can see that in yourself. Her character is painfully true-to-life, especially for those of us who have only recently entered young adulthood. 

The family dynamic exemplified in the film, though demonstrated by a mother with an older son and a younger daughter, can pertain to any number of different models of families. Nadine’s mother Mona (Kyra Sedgwick) is just as confused by Nadine’s attitude and actions as Nadine is. The relationship between Mona and Nadine reflects common strife between a mother and a teenage daughter. They both feel helpless, angry, and unappreciated. Nadine and Darian struggle with being similar in age, but socially in totally different stages. Their relationship is tenuous, as is possible with siblings, but the deep, however distant, love for each other is clear. 

The relatability of this film is amplified tenfold by its R-rating. It allows the dialogue to be witty, raw, and uncensored, which makes it feel like you’re watching real friends talking about day-to-day high school struggles. Nothing is softened. What you watch is something that you can imagine happening to you at that age, or maybe something that actually did happen to you. The film harkens back to the time when films made for high schoolers were actually about high school, not about vampires or zombies or whatever other escapist entertainment happens to be popular that year. I have not seen a movie like this in a long time -- one so smartly written, so well acted, so not made for an arthouse audience, but could appeal to one just the same. 

All in all, The Edge of Seventeen is a sweet story of growing up and (excuse the cheesiness) finding yourself. It’s realistic, darkly funny, and one of the only genuinely good movies geared toward high schoolers that I’ve seen in years. Though the story is one of high school, the themes are pertinent to people of all ages: life can suck and it will pass, but surrounding yourself with good friends makes it a hell of a lot easier. It is difficult to say whether this film will join the ranks of high school classics like Sixteen Candles and The Breakfast Club, but it definitely has the potential to do so. 

Grade: B+

As I have previously discussed in my This Week in Movies series, I am a pretty big fan of the boxing movie. Though I don’t think this has anything to do with the sport itself (I don’t find watching actual boxing matches entertaining), there seems to be a wonderful and poetic artistry to the life of the boxer. Boxers are usually determined and powerful figures, whose strength and character are what drive them to the top. Be they stories of real or fake athletes, boxing movies seem to always have characters who keep the audience invested in what can be a fairly repetitive story structure. Unfortunately, Bleed for This lacks the strong characters and dialogue necessary to keep audiences invested through a story that they have likely heard a dozen times before.
​
Bleed for This is based on the true story of Vinny "The Pazmanian Devil" Pazienza, a boxer based out of Providence, Rhode Island in the 1980’s. The movie follows Pazienza (Miles Teller) as he begins to rise to fame under his new manager, Kevin Rooney (Aaron Eckhart). Pazienza is a determined and ferocious boxer, who prefers taking a bunch of hits before he lays it on his opponents. Under Rooney’s training, Paz becomes a world title winner, finally on top of the world as one of the best boxers around. Tragically, a nearly fatal car accident leaves Paz with a broken neck, unsure if he will ever walk again. Paz, however, refuses to have his spine fused, convinced that he will recover and return to the sport he loves so much.

Watching Bleed for This made me realize how similar the plots to most boxing movies are, without really doing anything to distract me from the fact that I feel as though I’ve seen this exact movie before. The story of a champion who falls on hard times and is forced to crawl their way back to stardom and redemption is not a new one, and thus the movie required great characters and performances to make the generic story interesting. Unfortunately, Paz and Rooney don’t feel like new or interesting interpretations of this story. I understand the movie is based on facts, but the dialogue that these characters are given does little to distinguish them from similar characters in other boxing films. Every part of the plot and character writing seems same-ish, and though the performances from Teller and Eckhart are good, the material they are given is not enough to make the story interesting.

Fortunately, some aspects of the editing and sound design make the movie fun to watch. The film employs quite a bit of interesting choices regarding how things are pieced together, especially in a sequence early on where Paz ends up in the hospital after a fight. The punch that knocks him out and sends him to the ER rings in Paz and the audience’s ears as the scattered and jumpy editing shows the cobbled together moments of his trip to the hospital. Creative editing and sound design-based moments like these keep the movie fresh, even though the sums of its parts is fairly familiar and overdone.

Bleed for This has basically everything one would expect out of a boxing movie, but not in a particularly good way. Aside from some good sound design and editing, the film follows the same beats as most other, frankly better, boxing films. And while many aspects of the film are not poorly done, the generic nature of the story and characters makes it difficult to recommend. If you are interested in seeing a film that follows all of the regular conventions of a boxing movie, check it out. But, if you are looking for innovation on the genre, there is little here that will leave you feeling satisfied.  

Grade: C+

Arrival is a movie that requires your undivided attention. I’ll be honest in saying that I didn’t fully understand certain ideas and plot points. It is a story about determinism and the need to communicate with those around us. The film is a slow-burn building to a powerful revelation that leaves a somber but ultimately hopeful message. When twelve mysterious spacecraft descend upon various locations across the globe, world leaders race to find answers as nations teeter on the verge of global war. Linguistics professor Louise Banks (Amy Adams) is enlisted by the military to communicate with the extraterrestrial visitors. What she experiences on this journey will change her life forever. 

I’ll keep this short. Go see this movie but keep your expectations in check. Do not go into this anticipating a typical run-of-the-mill alien invasion story. Arrival is more reminiscent of Contact and Interstellar than anything else and strives to leave you with thought-provoking questions. It unfolds like a mystery thriller that happens to be set in the backdrop of a science fiction drama. The supporting cast include the likes of Forest Whitaker and Jeremy Renner but they feel a little shortchanged. They serve as expository characters who are needed to hit specific beats. Amy Adams is front and center here and does not disappoint. She plays Banks with great sincerity and is easy to sympathize with because of the extraordinary circumstances taking place. Banks’ memories of her daughter give us some insight into her past and is often drawn upon as she learns to cope with the present. 

The alien life forms, nicknamed the Heptapods, possess two distinct variants of communication. One is a spoken language while the other revolves around complex singular symbols. Comprehending the manner in which these two languages work in tandem and relate meaning is central to the mystery and nothing short of enthralling. Banks takes a holistic approach to breaking down the communication process by using simplistic visual cues to relay complicated ideas to the Heptapods. Ironically this bewildering communication dilemma proves to be the lesser of two evils. Escalating tensions reach a tipping point as violence begins to break out. Humans devolve as uncertainty takes hold. Are these beings here to wreak havoc? What is their intention? The answers to these questions are delivered in profound and unexpected ways. The film is well paced but picks up in momentum with an infinitely more interesting second half. The potential of the story hinges on Banks’ discoveries and what they mean for mankind. The film’s opening voiceover takes on an entirely different interpretation by the end and the final scene is quite heartbreaking. I felt like there were creative liberties taken in order to cross the finish line but it’s a minor gripe in an otherwise memorable third act. The score is hauntingly beautiful and the cinematography helps land the the narrative’s emotional punches.

Denis Villeneuve’s latest feature film is worth the watch as it explores high concept ideas revolving around human connection. A few plot inconsistencies emerge but they are forgivable in a film that will lead to much discussion and debate. If you are a fan of unique sci-fi works, this is right up your alley. 

Grade: A-

From the first scene, Loving establishes itself as a period piece of human connection. A similar phrase was applied to last year’s Carol, a dramatic historical experience that most importantly documented longing between two women. Loving entirely focuses on the relationship between Richard (Joel Edgerton) and Mildred Loving (Ruth Negga), with some court cases and legality issues here and there. Director Jeff Nichols’s (Mud, Midnight Special) decision to feature a near-sighted vision is a refreshing one, because it strays away from the politics and melodrama to present a truly human story.

For those unaware, the Loving couple were involved in a landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case, Loving v. Virginia, that invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage. Getting to this point was not easy; the Lovings endured prison sentences, dirty looks, restraining orders, and covert operations just to live. Though it was set in just the late 1950s, the America the Lovings lived in feels far different from the one we have now. Adam Stone’s camerawork glides over the acres of land in rural Virginia and fixates on the time period’s bulky cars, manual labor construction, and large wooden estates. Such a setting makes the Loving’s relationship all the more romantic, as scenes where Richard and Mildred simply hold each other on their front porch for solidarity become some of Loving’s most memorable moments.

Really, there’s not much to say regarding Loving’s story or bold choices because it’s simply an impeccable portrayal of humanity through those sentimental moments. Loving ditches exposition and overproduction for a hushed two-hours of complex and imperfect leading characters. I argue this method hits the mark by cogently communicating the injustice of the Lovings’s situation as two developed and imperfect humans just trying to live. Not only is Loving’s delivery effective, but it’s highly accurate, as the Loving couple in real life avoided the press and even sat out their court cases to spend time with each other and their children. Though they lived quietly, their relationship made powerful strides in American history that will continue to reverberate for generations.

So it’s in those moments where the Lovings watch their mixed-race children play, or in the trailer where Richard tells his ACLU lawyer Bernie Cohen (Nick Kroll, who performs excellently in a much more serious role than he’s used to) to “tell the judge I love my wife” that Loving stunningly excels. Nichols proves that you don’t have to have manipulating scenes of four black girls in an exploding Birmingham church or a montage of slave lynchings set to Nina Simone’s “Strange Fruit” to make a statement. Edgerton and Negga deliver two of the year’s best performances, Negga especially because she even expertly captures the identity questioning that Mildred faced in real life (backstory: Mildred identified as part Indian, part black, and part white). With this in mind and the film’s heroic subject matter, Loving definitely seems like a shoo-in for the Oscar nominations, a status it absolutely deserves. Loving may not be the most entertaining film out there, but it’s compelling nuances are worth the engagement.

GRADE: B

In the past, I have been quite open about my general apathy towards superhero films in general and Marvel films in particular. Although there have been a few exceptions, most notably the excellent Guardians of the Galaxy and this summer’s Captain America: Civil War, on the whole I find Marvel films to be generic superhero action flicks at best. Fortunately, it seems like Marvel and Disney are slowly learning from their past mistakes. Doctor Strange is not the best film that Marvel has released (that honor is still claimed by Guardians), but it is a significant improvement over most of their past iterations. 
​
The (eventual) hero of this story is Doctor Stephen Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch). He was not injected with a super serum, he doesn’t have any fancy gadgets, and he is not an alien or a Norse god. He is a neurosurgeon, an extremely skilled and wealthy neurosurgeon, a fact he takes enormous pride in. Unfortunately, he is also arrogant and very selfish, a fact that drives most people –such as his former girlfriend Dr. Christine Palmer (Rachel McAdams)- away from him. But one day he crashes his car while driving recklessly, which leaves him with major and irreparable damage to his hands. Faced with the prospect of losing his career, along with the wealth and fame that he has attained from it, he tracks down a formerly-paralyzed man who made a seemingly miraculous recovery. Following a trail of clues to Nepal, he meets a mysterious woman called the Ancient One (Tilda Swinton), who opens his mind to a much greater world than he ever conceived: the world of magic. 

The first thing to keep in mind is that Doctor Strange is not a superhero film. Much like how Guardians exists as a space opera in an otherwise superhero-based franchise and The Winter Soldier draws on elements of the espionage genre, Marvel has continued the diversification of their franchise by making a straight-up fantasy film. The magic that Strange learns really is magic, with all the tropes and concepts that entails. In fact, this movie has so little to do with the other characters and plots from the previous films that it’s easy to forget that its even part of the Marvel franchise. Which, in my opinion, is all for the better. To be fair, I’m biased because I like fantasy films more than I like superhero movies, but branching out will delay the inevitable superhero movie fatigue significantly. 

The best way I can sum up this film is that it is one part magic viewed through the lens of Eastern occult practices, one part insane mind-bending visual effects, and one part witty Marvel dialogue. The magic as shown in the movie is less Harry Potter and more Buddhist mysticism mixed with a healthy dose of infinite alternate dimensions and pseudo-quantum mechanics. Some of the more crazy magic is illustrated by visual effects which are by far the best that have been seen yet in a superhero film. It’s like if a special effects artist went to see Inception while they were on an LSD trip, and then decided to replicate what they saw with CGI. To be honest, I didn’t realize how, well, bland most superhero films look until I saw Doctor Strange. Definitely make sure to see it in IMAX if you get the chance. And, of course, it has the cool one-liners we’ve all come to expect from Marvel films, but it is (thankfully) toned down a bit from The Avengers. 

The film is not perfect though. Probably the most serious problem is with the pacing of the film. When Strange is learning the mystic arts, there is surprisingly little shown of his actual training, making it seem like he transitions from arrogant, disbelieving doctor into powerful sorcerer nearly overnight. It annoys me that the filmmakers missed a perfectly good opportunity for a cool training montage, particularly since an early scene established that Strange has a vast knowledge of old pop music. But the fact that the film clocks in at a comparatively short 115 minutes is likely the root of the problem- I felt like it could have benefitted from another 20 minutes or so. 

So is Doctor Strange the best Marvel movie ever? No, but it is certainly one of their best. I strongly believe that the more diverse the Marvel Cinematic Universe becomes the stronger it will become. There is more than enough room in the franchise for superhero movies, science fiction movies, and fantasy movies to live side-by-side. And just as importantly Strange continues Marvel’s slow but steady improvements from simple superhero action films to a much more complex, diverse, and nuanced franchise. I can only hope that the writers and directors of future Marvel installments will keep this in mind.

Grade: A-

P.S. And yes, of course, there is a mid-credits scene and an after-credits scene that you should probably stick around for. 

​Covered in bruises and cowering from a guidance counselor who can’t help but push legal advice, Chiron painfully responds, “You don’t even know.”

Moonlight follows Chiron through three chapters of his life: youth where he’s miserably nicknamed “Little” (played by Alex Hibbert), adolescence (played by Ashton Sanders), and adulthood where he goes by “Black” (portrayed by Trevante Rhodes). The first time we see Little, he’s being chased and threatened by school bullies. Eventually Little runs fast enough and finds refuge in an abandoned apartment, but the yells of “faggot” and “weak” sound louder than ever when he’s hiding by himself. In a setting troubled with an unspoken masculinity complex (AKA my beautiful homeland of 18 years South Florida), Little struggles with his identity and classifying it. It’s not like Little is outwardly homosexual at his age, but his classmates make fun of his small size, his aversion to playing football and his inclination to actually express himself in dance class.

So when neighborhood drug dealer Juan (Mahershala Ali) finds Little hiding in that empty apartment, it’s like a lifesaver thrown in to save Little from the drowning expectations of manhood. Juan offers a home with warm food, clean bedsheets, and most importantly safe from judgement. It’s also got one less drug-addicted mother (Naomie Harris), who haunts Little’s nightmares all the way into his adulthood. Little avoids going home as much as possible to get away from his negligent junkie of a mother, but it’s tough when she’s the only being he really has.

So when Chiron, now in high school, struggles but finally achieves that “You don’t even know” in a whisper to his guidance counselor, it’s truly resounding. That guidance counselor, Juan, Chiron’s mother or we as an audience will never know what Chiron is going through. Director Barry Jenkins, a graduate of FSU film school with his cinematographer James Laxton and also raised in the South Florida area, has uncanny control over this idea, crafting every shot of Moonlight to be as sympathetic as the last. He not only pushes the conventions of masculinity through Chiron, but perfectly captures the absolute endeavor of crystallizing an identity, especially one that feels so unconventional. Personally, watching Chiron struggle in a setting that I endured for 18 years, where I constantly questioned my sexuality and even my personhood because I wasn’t some sexy beach go-er, where I listened to Frank Ocean’s channel Orange nonstop for some kind of retreat, where I never felt fully satisfied with my friends because I never felt understood- it struck a chord with me that no cinematic experience has ever done before.

Fast forward some years and Chiron has chiseled up to the adult man that everyone refers to as Black (it’s even on his license plate, as well as “305,” the area code for Miami). He didn’t really pick the nickname this time either; it was assigned to him by his best friend Kevin (Jaden Piner -> Jharrel Jerome -> Andre Holland) in grade school, someone he hasn’t connected with in years. When they are inevitably reunited, watching Black actually feel comfortable with someone who really knows him is a relief. Throughout Moonlight, Chiron speaks very little but so does every character, and Jenkins focuses on those silences to convey some of the film’s most powerful moments. It’s similar to last year’s Carol, where these characters aren’t given the words to express how they feel under society, and that Jenkins could achieve director Todd Haynes-level mastery by his second film is nothing short of amazing. I admittedly had a difficult time writing about Moonlight because I wanted to talk at length about it’s politics and unafraid blackness, it’s setting that I relate to so heavily, it’s main character development divided into chapters that reflect realistic growth, the incredible acting done by ALL, the gorgeous blue-hue throughout… at this point, I can only let Jenkins’s masterpiece speak for itself. 

GRADE: A+

​Help me get one more. This was the fundamental essence of a remarkable individual who went on to win the Congressional Medal of Honor for his bravery in WWII. Hacksaw Ridge is a celebration of one man’s unbreakable spirit and a powerful reminder of what it means to be human. The film recounts the real life experiences of U.S. army medic, Desmond T. Doss (Andrew Garfield) who refused to bear arms on the battlefield. Labelled as a conscientious objector, Doss faced ostracism for his pacifist beliefs but proved his worth after saving more than 75 men in the Battle of Okinawa without firing a single bullet. 

If there was ever a “true story” that needed to be seen by audiences, look no further than this incredible picture. Director Mel Gibson has achieved nothing short of cinematic wonder helming this moving war film. Like Braveheart, this movie’s legacy will undoubtedly stand the test of time. There are some great renditions from the supporting cast which includes Vince Vaughn, Luke Bracey, Teresa Palmer and Hugo Weaving but even their combined efforts can’t match Andrew Garfield who turns in the performance of his career. He bares his soul as Doss and brings interesting nuance to this unique character. Doss has deeply held religious beliefs that stem from a troubling incident during his childhood. This microcosm of a moment is crucial as it explores the darkness he has learnt to suppress. The undying love that Doss has for comrades and enemies alike is incomparable to anything you’ve ever seen before. His philosophy is one that we don’t have to necessarily agree with but appeals to the basic tenets of compassion. Doss is vulnerable and idealistic to a fault but follows through on his convictions and that is all we should ever ask of anyone.

The movie is impressively well paced with some genuine light hearted sequences that transpire in the first third of the running time. Doss’ blossoming relationship with his girlfriend Dorothy springs to mind. Her presence is felt throughout because of an important item gifted to Doss that only strengthens the overarching themes of the film. Vince Vaughn’s introductory scene as Sergeant Howell is an absolute riot as he relentlessly tears down the mental fortitude of his soldiers. It is this incredibly difficult balancing act that makes the movie work. Not many movies manage to explore every glimpse into the human experience. There is always a well-deserved reprieve following the merciless violence. But make no mistake; there is nothing that will prepare you for the unsparing bloodshed when it comes. The jaw-dropping action stands on equal footing with legends like Saving Private Ryan. The cinematography is particularly impactful as the low angle shots of the war-tom combat zone are ripe with the decaying and disease-ridden remains of the fallen. The battle sequences are expertly choreographed and somehow depicts the overwhelming nature of war while ensuring you are never unable to follow what’s going on. Words don’t do justice to some of the beautiful imagery on display here. No shot lacks clear intent as the movie is stunning from beginning to end. It is actually the final shot, one of peaceful suspension in the air that stuck with me, especially when contrasted against the first brutal frame of the film.

As audiences, we’ve been conditioned to view the triumphant cheers of the crowd as the validation of an enjoyable movie. There are several instances of that transpiring during the screening I attended but it was the long stretches of silence that spoke volumes. When the gentle stirring score picks up in the midst of an impassioned exchange of dialogue or a wordless sequence of ferocity, you can’t help but sit in silent awe. I don’t know how movies like this are made but I’m eternally grateful that they are. With all of the moving parts, you’d think something would come undone. It is miraculous that everything from the work of the makeup artists to the fearlessness of the stuntmen pay off and deliver one hell of an emotionally satisfying ride.

Hacksaw Ridge is Mel Gibson’s directorial return to the big screen after a decade and sets the bar even higher than Braveheart already did. I urge you to see this picture for the chance to have a truly meaningful movie going experience. It is the one of the best war films in recent years that is both heart-rending and uplifting and earns the right to be a contender for Best Picture. 

Grade: A+