This year, I decided to watch the 12 highest-rated films I hadn’t previously seen on the American Film Institute’s list of the 100 greatest American movies ever as part of my annual 12 Movie Challenge. I understood that there would be one or two films that I probably wasn’t looking forward to watching. I realized they were all likely to be great films – but some, due to their subject matter, wouldn’t be enjoyable to watch.

Steven Spielberg’s 1993 war classic, “Schindler’s List,” No. 8 on the AFI list, was the film at the forefront of my mind. I knew it was going to be horrific. How could a realistic film about the Holocaust not be horrific?

The majority of the film will rip your heart out – and often anger you because you know these events actually took place (and if you’re one of those who doesn’t think that, go fuck yourself). I can’t believe nearly 90 years later, we still have people who idolize and even want to be Nazis.

Ultimately, “Schindler’s List” is an important film. Spielberg has directed more American classics than any other director who has ever lived, and he’s on record as saying, “It’s the best movie I’ve ever made.” It’s certainly the most important film he’s ever made.

There are far too many devastating and horrific moments to recount – the use of Jewish POWs as target practice, the looting of Jewish suitcases, the train accidentally taking members of the list to Auschwitz, and certainly the girl in the red coat. But there are also uplifting moments, which I suppose is why such a tragic film also wound up on AFI’s list of the “Most Inspiring American Films,” like the tenacity and strength of the Jewish people and the fact that Oskar Schindler would stick his neck on the line to save as many people as he could.

Who knew Liam Neeson could act? That scene at the end, when he’s breaking down over being disappointed he couldn’t save more lives, is one of the most heart-wrenching moments of a film filled with them, and undoubtedly the singular moment that garnered Neeson the only Academy Award nomination of his career.   

One of the great aspects of Spielberg’s film, Neeson’s performance and Steven Zaillian’s script is that you never really know if this was Schindler’s plan all along or if he was just a shrewd businessman who, as the war went on, grew to view the Nazi’s atrocities as something too disgraceful for the world and set out to do his part to combat them. There’s reason to believe he may have just been a shrewd businessman until seeing firsthand the liquidation of the Krakow ghetto.

Few have ever portrayed evil as well as Ralph Fiennes as SS officer Amon Göth, but after watching the performance and knowing Göth was a real person, he must’ve been one of the evilest folks to have ever lived. Or potentially, he was just your average Nazi.

“Schindler’s List” is undoubtedly one of the hardest films emotionally I’ve ever seen, but it’s one I think should be seen by everyone, especially with how the world is today, with so many countries turning nationalistic and against “others.” It could potentially go a long way in changing some minds.

Director: Seth Worley
Starring: Bianca Belle, Tony Hale & D'Arcy Carden 
Rated: PG (scary action, some violence, thematic elements, language & rude humor)
Runtime: 1 hour & 32 minutes 

I recently canceled a couple of my streaming subscriptions to make way for paying for a new one called Angel. The studio is known for its Christian-themed films and programming that parents can feel good about their children watching. I am not one to feel like I should shield my children from the world we live in, but I wanted this option to feel like my children were learning more about what it means to be a good person for God in this world. That is why I was so excited for the new film, “Sketch.” It was the first big release from the studio since I had obtained the subscription, and my daughter was beyond excited to see it.
 
“Sketch” tells the story of 10-year-old Amber Wyatt (Bianca Belle), who is grieving the loss of her mother. Amber finds solace in drawing monsters in her notebook. One day, her notebook gets accidentally dropped into a nearby magical pond. The monsters from her notebook come to life. Her father, Taylor (Tony Hale), brother Jack (Kue Lawrence), and Taylor’s sister, Liz (D’Arcy Carden), are all along for the adventure of escaping from the monsters that are taking over the town and returning to their ordinary lives. The family all learn a major lesson in the need to deal with grief and how they can be stronger as a family by being there for each other. This is a strong and positive message that I believe all kids need.
 
The problem with this film is that it is unclear who the intended audience is. It could have been a bad marketing move, but it appeared to be a movie for kids of all ages. The truth is, though, that my seven and eight-year-old daughters were scared during the film. The film had as many jump scares as the most recent ‘Jurassic Park’ movie, and the score for the soundtrack feels like it belongs in an adult thriller. It did not feel like the film was as family-friendly as it was marketed.
 
“Sketch” is a good movie. I found it to be moderately entertaining and was invested in the story and where things were headed. It was cool to experience this world where drawings could come to life and walk amongst us. The film was even humorous at times. I just wish it had fleshed out the story more between the family so that the emotional payoff at the end would have been more effective. Films, nowadays, seem so set on getting to the excitement that they aren’t making sure they set the world up completely yet. What separates great films from good films is their ability to take their time to let the story unfold organically.  
 
“Sketch” was a good film that could have been great with more effort put into the storytelling. I think the film would have also been more effective if it had seemed to know who its audience was supposed to be. It certainly wasn’t my daughters.

Director: Adrian Molina, Domee Shi & Madeline Sharafian 
Starring: Yonas Kibreab, Zoe Saldana & Remy Edgerly
Rating: PG
Runtime: 1 hour & 38 minutes

 
When Pixar first made its debut with 1995’s “Toy Story,” it was evident that the studio knew how to sell an animated feature that appealed equally to children, their parents and their grandparents. Pixar had a winning formula of telling relatable stories with interesting and complex characters, beautiful and visually stunning animation, stories that touched us and made us think about what it means to be human. The first 11 films from the studio spanning from 1995 to 2010’s “Toy Story 3” were perfect films. It appeared that Pixar could do nothing wrong.
​
Their first misfire was 2011’s “Cars 2.” It just prioritized gimmicks and relating to action heist films and lost its overall heart. Pixar still mostly has produced high-quality entertainment over the years, but for every “Inside Out,” there is also a “Lightyear.” When reviewing Pixar films, it is almost impossible not to think about the high standards they set when they first began releasing films. It makes every release have so much more to prove than features from other studios.

Pixar’s most recent film, “Elio,” tells the story of Elio, a young boy who dreams of being abducted by aliens and going to space. Elio’s parents have died, and he is now in the care of his Aunt Olga, who is an Air Force major who gave up her dreams of being an astronaut to raise Elio. Eventually, Elio gets his wish and meets aliens. They mistakenly believe he is the leader of Earth and want him to join the Communiverse, but he must prove himself. He eventually befriends an alien named Glordon. He must bring peace to the universe to be accepted. Will he get to stay with the aliens, or will his dreams remain unfulfilled?

So, is “Elio” a triumph like “Inside Out” or a clunker like “Lightyear?” The answer is that it is neither. The issue that really keeps it from being an “Inside Out” is that “Elio” truly is a beautiful film visually, and Pixar’s ability to transport us to new worlds is on full display. The biggest issue is that Elio’s home life is not thoroughly explored enough for the film to achieve the emotional payoff it hoped for. The relationship between Elio and his Aunt Olga appears to be so chaotic and free of genuine affection for each other. The contrast here would be Disney’s “Lilo and Stitch.” While Lilo and her sister Nani are contentious with each other, the script still gives us moments where we see that they do love each other underneath it all. Without showing us some of the love Elio and Olga have for each other, the audience does not feel as invested in the outcome of that relationship.

Besides this major issue, the film does manage to deliver a visually stunning epic adventure. Pixar truly succeeds in transporting us to this new world that is exciting to live in for an hour and a half. When Elio is with the aliens, we genuinely feel joy for him as he gets to live out his dream. It prompts us to consider what it would be like to live our dreams. How exciting is that? The film makes none of us want to return to Earth. Pixar truly succeeds in this. While the story is not original by any means, it still manages to be a truly entertaining one of good overcoming evil and people re-examining their belief system. We truly are challenged to think: why not? Why can’t we live our dreams? What is truly stopping us? In that aspect, it truly delivers the magic of a Disney-Pixar film.

While “Elio” is not a call-back to the near-perfect films in Pixar’s history, it delivers a visual spectacle that takes us to a new place full of possibilities and invites us all to continue dreaming. 

Director: Matt Shakman
Starring: Pedro Pascal, Vanessa Kirby & Ebon Moss-Bachrach
Rated: PG-13 (action/violence and some language)
Runtime: 1 hour & 54 minutes

 
‘Shang-Chi’ and “The Eternals” didn’t need to be the next “Iron Man.” “The Marvels” nor Anthony Mackie’s Captain America never stood a chance at being such given the climate they were released into (not to mention their generally poor quality) whereas “Thunderbolts*” needed to do a lot of things but it didn’t necessarily need to turn over a new leaf or define the next generation of super hero films in the way 2008’s “Iron Man” did. This third iteration of "The Fantastic Four" in 30 years, though … it did need to be the next “Iron Man”; not necessarily in terms of look, feel or execution, but by doing what that film did for the genre upon its release: revitalizing it. The challenge facing “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” is that it needs to feel fresh, a departure from the MCU thus far, signaling a change in the tide, while retaining audience investment in the future of the universe at large. Herein lies the issue, as ‘First Steps’ is essentially a self-contained, single-issue comic book story that introduces, entices and entertains - all good things on their own merits - yet it still feels uncertain how convincing the film is at persuading casual viewers that they should follow Marvel’s first family into the future.
​
The simplicity and practicality of Marvel’s approach to the introduction of this version of “The Fantastic Four” echoes through the story, the design of Earth 828 where the film takes place, as well as extending to the mentality of all of the characters; what is right and wrong not only seems evident to everyone but it is purposefully communicated the majority are on the same page -- tensions only arising once the nuance of Galactus’ ultimatum does and even then, humanity trusts The Fantastic Four enough not to question their methods. Director Matt Shakman began with Marvel on “WandaVision,” so his hiring for this retro futuristic take on the superhero family makes sense, and to him, the editors and the screenwriter’s credit, the film efficiently conveys not only the context within which this team exists but the place they occupy in society and in the world.

The natural chemistry between the core four is certainly present. The screenplay attempts to interrogate each member on a more personal level. Still, Ebon Moss-Bachrach’s Ben Grimm/The Thing draws the short end of the stick despite being the most conflicted. At the same time, Vanessa Kirby’s Sue Storm feels severely underdeveloped and mostly a plot surrogate throughout the first two acts, especially considering what the third asks of the character. In reality, Joseph Quinn’s Johnny Storm is the character most easily dismissed, which seems to have compelled the screenwriters to make this a part of his arc as Quinn spends much of the movie trying to prove himself to his brother-in-law by piecing together the mystery of Julia Garner’s Shalla-Bal, AKA Silver Surfer. Ralph Ineson as Galactus is genuinely epic when experienced on the scale of the IMAX format and Garner, despite concerns over the CGI, pulls off the aura of this "herald" imposing stakes and authentic emotion onto the two major set pieces with the effects-driven sequence featured as more or less the centerpiece of the film is one of the most exhilarating moments of any MCU movie period. It is Pedro Pascal’s Reed Richards who receives the most attention in terms of examining any of these inherently silly characters’ psyches, though, as we learn at the onset of the film that he and Sue are expecting a child after many years of trying with no success. Richards, known as the smartest man in the world, seeks to cope with the idea that his child isn’t an equation he’ll be able to figure out with ease and who will live in a world of factors he can’t control. When he is asked to trade that child for the guaranteed safety of the rest of the planet, his mathematical and emotional intelligence are unable to compute, leaving said smartest man in the world unsure of the correct answer. 

With the chemistry between the actors palpable, the aesthetic of the sets and production design near-perfect, the score from Michael Giacchino being especially noteworthy, and the villains a smart balance of purposeful and menacing the largest complaint is that the relationship we’re able to form thus far with these characters is neither as distinct as the immediate impression of Robert Downey Jr.’s Tony Stark or as impactful as Chris Hemsworth’s Thor. In a similar territory of earnestness in which this very Jack Kirby-esque version of The Fantastic Four operates, I recall not instantly being taken with Chris Evans’ Steve Rogers either. This only makes the idea of jumping straight from this introduction into a two-part ‘Avengers’ story more daunting than exciting, as it would seem more beneficial to the team as a whole and especially the characters as individuals to have another self-contained, solo excursion in order to develop their arcs further before becoming the lynchpin for all of the MCU.

Maybe the idea of comparison, no matter how built into the DNA of the genre, isn’t fair and ‘First Steps’ should be taken solely for what it is and not as part of what these characters inevitably will be. It’s difficult not to consider such things though, when despite trying to allow one’s self to become wrapped up in the moral dilemma Reed Richards faces -- this idea of what is right being that you should probably sacrifice one life, your own child’s life, for that of billions of others -- still comes in second to whether or not they’ll show RDJ’s face as Dr. Doom in the stinger. This isn’t any fault of the movies; it’s the fault of the studio, but it’s an inevitable symptom of the cinematic universe. Would I have enjoyed the film more if it were a stand-alone story with no ties to the greater MCU? Probably not. I currently have a six-month-old at home, so the parental anxieties and infant peril really hit home, regardless of the inclusion of any mid or post-credit scenes. I (obviously) look forward to what might be teased next to reel me back in no matter the verdict of what was just witnessed but something is happening in the MCU specifically as this was the first time, in some time, where the desire to see why these pieces are being put in place is the same as wanting to see more of these characters to flesh them out and affirm what is suggested. I liked this movie a lot, actually, and am trying to reconcile why I feel conflicted, one of the more singular films the MCU has given us since its inception, is still obligated to be a part of this larger story. To put it another way, as I experienced the film, I was impressed by how involved I became. I would easily crown it among one of the better MCU origin stories. Yet, I worry about what might come after the next five years; what if it re-contextualizes this team in such a way that the promise of this initial film isn’t fulfilled? As with the Archimedes quote utilized here, we can only hope ‘First Steps’ is an example of leverage applied at the right time, illustrating how a smaller force can be used to move or propel the larger MCU back to, if not what it once was, what it still so clearly has the potential to be.