My top 10 favorite movies of 2019 (with caveats!)

I've said this before but it bears repeating -- 2019 was a fantastic year for movies, maybe even the best of the decade. There were some magnum opuses from some of my favorite directors, daring genre movies and one of the most legitimately funny comedies I've seen in years.

I haven't seen every movie from this past year that I intend to see -- for instance, I've yet to see Sam Mendes' World War I film 1917, which could very well make this list -- but for now I can only go off what I've seen, and I'll admit to having seen a lot this year.

These are my favorites -- they may not be the best movies (some of my choices are very divisive) but these are the ten movies I enjoyed the most. And before I get started, I wanted to say a word or two about The Rise of Skywalker.

It just missed the cut of my list. I can't defend it as a great film -- its flaws are pretty self evident to both Star Wars fans and non-Star Wars fans alike, and yet, it was chockfull of moments I loved and yes, moments I've always wanted to see (call it fan service if you like, I'm a fan). I haven't been following the debate I am sure is going on about the merits of that movie, but for now I am just going to continue thinking of it fondly and will put in a separate category from the rest.

There will be more to say about that movie later. But without further ado, here's my 2019 faves:

10) Midsommar - Director Ari Aster is just one of the rising star filmmakers of the last few years (his debut was the haunting Hereditary) to avoid having a sophomore slump. Here he makes a bright, shiny scary movie set with a bizarre cult-like community in Sweden. The first half of the movie is darkly funny, as a stellar Florence Pugh (who may be the breakout star of the year) tries mightily to keep a crumbling romantic relationship afloat amid her own unspeakable tragedy. Once the film leaves the states, it becomes a master class in creepy dread. Alternately shocking and fascinating, this is a movie I will never forget and will think about often.

9) Joker - Liking this movie kind of means having to defend it. I think it's simply not a movie for everyone, which is ironic since it is one of the highest grossing films of the year (which is surprising in its own right). It's a relentlessly bleak look at the chaos that can ensue when the social safety net disappears (Michael Moore has the right take on it). This is not a pro-incel movie and it's not suggesting we should revere Joaquin Phoenix's tragic take on the Joker. It's an admittedly not very subtle shock to the system of a movie, its meant to scare us and provoke us. And it, as well as Phoenix's committed, unforgettable performance, did both for me.

8) Little Women - I didn't know what to expect from Greta Gerwig's version of the classic Louisa May Alcott's beloved novel having never read it or seen any previous adaptations. But what it turned out to be is a deeply moving, romantic, funny, feminist and even thrilling interpretation of a work that could have been stuffy and cliched. Gerwig has made a grand Hollywood epic with incredible production values and a genuinely novel non-linear approach which rises above being a gimmick to serve a profound running commentary about itself. I've never seen a period movie like it and it had me bawling like a baby.

7) Knives Out - One of the most entertaining movies of the year and sweet revenge for writer-director Rian Johnson after he was raked over the coals by toxic fanboys for his attempt to do something new with the Star Wars franchise. Here he updates the star-studded who-done-it genre to make a incredibly clever, politically relevant and very funny crowd-pleasing thriller. Daniel Craig is having a ball. So are Chris Evans and Don Johnson and Jamie Lee Curtis and Michael Shannon -- you get the idea. And the breakout star -- Ana de Armas -- gets a real opportunity to shine in a role that could have been a dud, but she makes it dynamite.

6) Uncut Gems - Adam Sandler somewhat improbably gives one of the greatest performances of the year (and the best in his career) as a pathetic gambling addict in the Sadfie Brothers' relentless and riveting crime film. It's both fiercely funny and frightening at nearly every turn, with non-actors like Kevin Garnett and The Weeknd mixing it up and coming across totally credibly. A profane, rough New York movie that solidifies the Safdies as major directors to be reckoned with (coming on the heels of Good Time). Without spoiling it -- this is one of those movies that ends on the perfect note and will stick with you long after you leave the theater.

5) Hustlers - Yes, Jennifer Lopez is a revelation as a veteran stripper who helps hatch a scheme to bilk Wall Street jerks out of money -- but the movie is terrific too. I've never seen a 'women's picture' that is never saddled with a forced romance or any male character of consequence. Amid the mayhem and comedy (and yes, very sexy dancing) this is a movie first and foremost about the relationships between Lopez, the movie's lead Constance Wu, and the women in their lives. When the film ends you're struck with how much you've grown to know these people and care for them. Plus, it's a killer time capsule of the financial crisis. A time we never want to relive but is intriguing to visit.

4) Booksmart - The most criminally under-seen movie of the year -- an uproariously funny comedy that is a fantastic showcase for its stars Beanie Feldstein and Kaitlyn Dever and its first-time director, actress Olivia Wilde. It's so much more than a coming-of-age comedy -- it's a deeply touching movie about friendship, about burgeoning sexuality and about living in the moment. I have no doubt it'll find its audience and a fanbase over the next several years, its laughs have staying power. In fact, the movie is so unassailably good that you can almost forgive Wilde's problematic performance in Richard Jewell for it.

3) Once Upon a Time in Hollywood - Quentin Tarantino's most personal and in a strange way -- human movie. Yes, it's full of all his indulgences -- ultraviolence and ladies' feet. But it's also a spot on period movie and love letter about the idyllic late 1960s in Hollywood, which were so full of promise and generational change. Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt are perfect together and apart, in roles that manage to show new shades of the star personas I never thought existed. If Tarantino really does retire after his next movie (which he keeps threatening to do), this may go down as his masterpiece. He's always been a movie lover at heart and this is his most movie movie to date.

2) Us - A brilliant horror film that was unfairly downgraded in comparison to Jordan Peele's debut Get Out. This is actually an even more sophisticated film. It's a complex treatise on class and full of mystery and striking imagery. It's a movie I have watched and obsessed over repeatedly since I first saw it and I find something new to appreciate every time I do. One thing that can't be missed is Lupita Nyong'o's Oscar worthy dual role -- the best of her career so far -- which dominates the movie and helps make it the tantalizing treat it is. It's scarier than Get Out, but it's also got more world building and symbolism. I can't wait to see what Peele does next.

1) The Irishman - Martin Scorsese has floated the idea that this may be the last film of his storied, consistently great directing career -- and if it is, it'd be the ideal ending. It's his last word on the genre he is best known for modernizing -- the gangster movie. But instead of going for flashy glory, he spends nearly four hours showing you the tragic underbelly of being a cold hearted macho man and I loved every second of it. He got career capping performances out of DeNiro and Pacino, both of whom have been slumming it for years, and gave us the gift of Joe Pesci's quiet, compelling performance. "It's what it is" -- It's a bonafide masterpiece, and one that hopefully people will keep revisiting on Netflix for years to come

Honorable Mentions (in no particular order) : The Rise of Skywalker, Queen & Slim, The Beach Bum, Amazing Grace, Jojo Rabbit, John Wick 3, Avengers: Endgame, The Lighthouse, The Farewell, My Name Is Dolemite, Ad Astra, Toy Story 4, The Last Black Man in San Francisco, Doctor Sleep, Lorena, The Art of Self-Defense, Spider-Man: Far From Home, The Report, Climax, and Beyonce's Homecoming

Clint Eastwood squanders fascinating story in 'Richard Jewell'

Ever since Clint Eastwood's disastrous performance at the 2012 Republican convention, I haven't been able to make heads or tails of his politics. He seems to have a conservative, libertarian streak to be sure, but has shown some measure of progressive sensitivity in flawed movies like Invictus.

His recent work, while inconsistent, is remarkable if for no other reason that the man is still making top notch productions into his late '80s. For instance, his last film -- the enjoyable and eccentric The Mule -- grossed over $100 million, this is simply unheard of.

Still, Eastwood's begun to let his legendary status (and the final cut privileges he enjoys at Warner Brothers) steer him towards some troubling self-indulgent flourishes, leaving many of his recent works, however well-crafted, sullied by a kind of simplistic jingoism, where villains are broadly sketched bureaucrats and shrill, heartless members of the 'elite.'

This tendency was evident in two of his biggest hits -- American Sniper and Sully -- both films that purported to be based on true stories but either made glaring omissions or invented conflicts to prove his point, rather than to serve the story.

Perhaps if these stories were fictional, the cynicism of what he is doing wouldn't be so problematic, but with biopic movies they often have the either the final or most influential word on how their subject is remembered (most people think of Joan Crawford as a monster now, thanks in no small part to Mommie Dearest, for example).

In Richard Jewell, Eastwood turns his hero worship sight on what appears to be a very worthy subject. The late security guard was responsible for finding a bomb planted at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, and he saved many lives because of his actions on the scene. However, he was quickly seen as a suspect (if the movie is to be believed, for very thin reasons) and was left to be a media pariah while the FBI struggled to prove their hunch right. Jewell was eventually exonerated and became a poster child for the dangers of trying people by the media.

It's an incredible story -- one that doesn't need a lot of editorializing or embellishment. Eastwood had the good sense to cast the terrific character actor Paul Walter Hauser in the lead, instead of going with a major movie star. And he is very sympathetic as the somewhat socially awkward and naive Jewell. He is matched by Kathy Bates, in a very moving performance as Jewell's mother, and Sam Rockwell in a likable turn as his attorney. So far so good. But the movie's heavy handed take on how and why Jewell was railroaded keep eroding all the movie's strong points.

The worst element it the correctly controversial handling of a conniving reporter character played by Olivia Wilde in an over-the-top, aggressively unlikable performance. It might be one thing if her character is meant to be an amalgam or several others, but she isn't. She is based on a very real (and now deceased, so she can't defend herself) reporter who broke the story that the FBI saw Jewell as a suspect.

Where do I begin. Not only does the movie take great pains to make her off-putting from the start, but also takes great pains to establish that she was an unethical journalist, even overtly saying that she wasn't above trading sexual favors for a good story.

It's rather galling to see Wilde in this role on the heels of her triumph directing the feminist comedy Booksmart, especially since this is one of the most overtly sexist characters I can remember seeing recently. Literally, she is called out at one point for being "ambitious" as if that's a bad thing, and after some effort is thrown in to redeem her a bit towards the end, there is no real resolution to her character. Eastwood wants audiences to not just hate her, but hate what she represents, when the truth is that the tragedy that befell Jewell had many authors, and perhaps one of them may have been the man himself.

The movie sort of glosses over what character flaws, if any, Jewell had and never allows for any justification or explanation for how the FBI jumped to their conclusions about him. Now, perhaps it really was as thin a case as it appears to have been in the movie (the authorities came to suspect Jewell planted the bomb himself to become a hero for finding it), but I found myself not trusting much of it, especially because of the way the Wilde character is handled.

The film also misses an opportunity to deal with the reality of who really committed the act of domestic terrorism over 20 years ago. The real bomber is named, but the fact that he was motivated by anti-gay, anti-abortion zealotry is conveniently overlooked.

What could have been an exciting, nuanced thriller -- the kind that Eastwood himself has proved himself capable of in movies like Mystic River and A Perfect World -- turns into an over the top screed, a finger wagging movie that suggests that 'real heroes' are often penalized for doing what's right.

Jewell deserved a better movie than this. The Hauser performance is so good that it almost feels like a part of a different movie. And the entire sequence where the bombing occurs is generally suspenseful, but I couldn't help but feel cheated out of what this movie could have been. Had Eastwood stuck to the facts, instead of setting up convenient paper tigers to knock down.

'Rise of Skywalker' ends a one-of-a-kind saga on the right note

Late in The Rise of Skywalker, I found myself tearing up during not one, but two scenes featuring a giant man in a fur costume (and it was then that it dawned on me: when you watch the same movies for over thirty years, you're going to form a bond with those characters, a bond that can feel really special.

In a way, the heroes of this sequel trilogy -- Rey, Finn and Poe -- were always at a disadvantage, since we've only been living with them for four years, while just a line from Billy Dee Williams' rich baritone as Lando can give me goosebumps.

Additionally, this new trilogy didn't have the benefit of a singular creative force behind it. Even if George Lucas didn't direct every episode, he conceived the story arc for Episodes IV-VI and that's part of why their is a comfortable synergy between the three installments.

The Rise of Skywalker has an almost impossible task that I wouldn't envy. Director J.J. Abrams had to reconcile his buoyant and reverent The Force Awakens with Rian Johnson's riskier, more polarizing The Last Jedi. And while fans were divided over those entries, critics weren't. They were light years ahead of the prequel trilogy in terms of writing, craftsmanship and acting. And even though they were part of a money making franchise operation, there was enough creative spark there (and fresh performances from the likes of Adam Driver and Daisy Ridley) to justify their existence.

This film almost inevitably is a bit of a clumsier affair. The criticism that is overstuffed is not wrong. The way Leia's character is handled (Carrie Fisher died before shooting her role, so the filmmakers used some camera trickery and old footage to cobble together a performance) is respectful but distracting. Whether you liked her or not, the Rose character has been Jar Jar Binks'd --relegated to the sidelines in a way that's arguably a bit disgraceful.

And some of the film's revelations -- particularly the villain's existence --are confusing (at least upon first viewing).

And yet there is so much to enjoy here. Some genuinely funny laughs (C-3PO almost steals the movie), some fantastic set pieces (including perhaps the most epic space battle in the history of the series and it's surprisingly emotional, maybe more than its two predecessors.

That is certainly in part because this does feel like an ending, both a fitting and a welcome one. As much as I've enjoyed these films, the story of Skywalkers had to end eventually if for no other reason because it was and is in danger of becoming redundant and creatively bankrupt. The Mandalorian has demonstrated that the can be new world building within the framework of Star Wars and I'm curious to see how much these films can remain viable without links to its iconic past. But I think it'll be interesting to see what Disney cooks up next.

I for one have been largely happy with the work they've done to really redeem this brand. With all do respect to George Lucas, who was enough of a genius to create all this, but he has clearly lost the chops or the ambition to make movies that weren't simply a technical exercise.

These films were invested with real heart -- when some of the heroes have a long embrace towards the end of this movie, you feel it, because these characters had real relationships -- unlike say Obi-Wan and Anakin in the prequels, who were only friends because we were told they were.

It'd be impossible to please everyone -- from fanboys to casual viewers to the critics -- and third installments are always burdened with having to tie up too many lose ends. And Abrams does himself no favors by introducing and then not really resolving a few. I won't be surprised if this film becomes the Return of the Jedi of this series, imperfect but still beloved. The audience I saw it with sure liked it -- and so what if you wanna call it fan service. This whole sequel franchise was fan service from the very beginning.

This all doesn't deserve to be taken so seriously. These are movies not films. They are supposed to be rousing, exciting, a little hokey, funny and ultimately escapist. And this film achieved all those goals for me. I am a little curious who this whole series would have come together had the vision been singularly Abrams' or Johnson's, or if Fisher had lived long enough to fully inhabit her role in this third one. In the same way Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is a bit of a mess but I still love it, and I love this one too.

Come at me bros.

"The Lighthouse' is remarkably ugly and beautiful at the same time

Willem Dafoe has one of the great faces in movie history. He can look menacing and angelic depending on the way he is shot. It's incredibly expressive and as he gets older his already distinct features have become even more exaggerated to the degree where he wouldn't need a mask now to portray the Green Goblin.

You see a lot of his weathered face (and Robert Pattison's) in The Lighthouse, the strange new film from director Robert Eggers (best known for The Witch), and that's a good thing. Both actors are put through an intense physical ringer in this movie which is basically about two people quickly going insane while isolated in a lighthouse amid what seems like a brutal, never-ending storm.

Early scenes play like something out of silent film (it reminded me a bit of All Is Lost), and then eventually Dafoe and Pattison (whose backstories are a mystery) fall into rigid roles -- the older man is a cranky taskmaster, treating Pattison like his personal servant, the younger man is the dogged employee who is one more slight away from losing it. So far, so ok -- but then things get really weird.

There's a touch of David Lynch in this film -- the black and white cinematography is gorgeous and the surreal moments are played with such a stark frankness, they feel almost real. It can be a challenging movie -- its claustrophobia and sometimes hysterical tone may be off-putting to some who are looking for a more conventional narrative -- but if you look at this movie as more of an art film than a strictly straightforward story, you might enjoy it a lot.

It definitely provides a lot of room for Dafoe and Pattison (who's matured into becoming a really interesting actor) to chew a lot of scenery and play beautifully off each other. It must have been a hell of a shoot, especially for Pattison, who spends much of it getting pummeled in the face with torrential rain.

The movie itself reaches a truly bizarre crescendo that I couldn't even begin to explain and ends on a darkly ironic note that feels just about right for a movie like this.

It's kind of amazing that it's a studio release -- albeit an indie specialty brand like A24 -- but it's the kind of movie that might be relegated to streaming now because it is so decidedly uncommercial. It's funny to be seeing it on the eve before I see the somehow already polarizing Rise of Skywalker which, whether it's good, bad or somewhere in between, is guaranteed to be profitable because of its being part of a franchise with extremely high brand awareness.

If you try to convince someone to see this movie -- if the ask what is it about -- it's a tough sale. Two men's dissent into madness doesn't pack them in the seats, but boy am I glad there's directors like Eggers who are still willing to give ambitious two-handers like this a try.

The five Oscar acting nominations I'm rooting for in 2020

The Oscars are bound to break your heart, every year they miss something terrific that's either too edgy for them or doesn't fit some pre-ordained narrative (like Renee Zellweger's comeback with Judy). I know many of my favorite movies won't make the cut and the same goes for some of the year's best performances.

But a boy can hope right?

What's difficult about the Academy Awards when it comes to acting is you only get five nominees -- and in years like this one, when there are so many excellent performances that will just miss the cut or not even come near it (like Brad Pitt's work in Ad Astra, although he'll certainly make the cut for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood).

There are five nominations I am really hoping to hear when they're announced on January 22nd next year (which feels very far away).

Lupita Nyong'o, Best Actress for Us: In what was easily the most acclaimed performance of the first part of this year, her work in Jordan Peele's hit horror film has seen a resurgence -- winning several critics awards in a race that has been treated like a Zellweger coronation in some circles. It remains to be seen whether the early release date and genre bias will ultimately keep her out of the top five, but I sincerely hope not. This is my favorite performance of the year in perhaps my favorite movie of the year, so naturally I want it be recognized.

Eddie Murphy, Best Actor for Dolemite Is My Name: This sweet and hilarious performance as the earnest and endearing Rudy Ray Moore is rightly being hailed as a comeback for Murphy -- but it's more than that. There's something so liberating about seeing Murphy shed his vanity (he put on significant weight for this role) and his cool guy image to play a sincere schlub with dreams of being something more. This is one of the more feel-good movies I saw this year and the infectious joy of Murphy's performance is the biggest reason why.

Jennifer Lopez, Best Supporting Actress for Hustlers: Of the five potential nominations I'm hyping, this one feels the most likely to actually happen. I actually believe the movie Hustlers as a whole has been absurdly under-appreciated (although it was a hit at the box office). It manages to tell both a moving and exciting crime story from an entirely female perspective-gaze (something I don't think I've ever seen). And Lopez, at 50, is a revelation. Sure, she's beyond stunning -- but she's also just so present in her role as Ramona, a woman who could have led an army if she set her mind to it but instead conspires with fellow strippers to exact righteous revenge of Wall Street bros.

Adam Sandler, Best Actor for Uncut Gems: Probably more than any other actor with let's say an uneven filmography that's in contention this year (this would include Murphy and Lopez), Sandler's history of horrendous mainstream comedies may have permanently poisoned the well when it comes to his remarkable performance in this Safdie brothers crime film. He's an incredible livewire here -- unapologetically unlikable and manic -- and he's brilliant in almost every scene. This is no fluke, the man is talented, and hopefully he'll keep making more movies like this one.

Joe Pesci, Best Supporting Actor for The Irishman: Martin Scorsese's expansive and ambitious epic about the toll a life of crime can take is being justly heralded for its trio of pitch perfect performances from its legendary leading men: Robert DeNiro, Al Pacino and Joe Pesci. But the performance that I thought was the most fascinating and surprising was Pesci's. He completely upends his volcanic persona to play a quiet, smooth operator -- the kind of person who doesn't raise his voice ever because he doesn't need to. It's the kind of specific character work that isn't showy and sometimes gets snubbed. I'm pulling for Pesci who rarely makes films anymore and had to be coaxed into doing this one.

'Uncut Gems' truly is a tour de force for Adam Sandler

There's been a lot of fuss made about how abrasive and well, 'stressful' the new Safdie brothers movie Uncut Gems is and it's true -- they amp up the pressure cooker atmosphere they so effectively created in Good Time and they have a truly tour de force performance from the mercurial Mr. Adam Sandler at its center.

Yet despite its propulsive soundtrack and expletive laden script -- it's a compelling character study at its core and impeccably well-crafted even if it seems like pure mayhem is breaking out on screen.

This is a frequently shocking and unpredictable movie -- one that might try some audiences' patience (it's less tightly plotted than Good Time was), but if you surrender to its wild wavelength you'll be endlessly entertained.

First off, this is a deeply funny movie. Sandler can be hilarious and maddeningly lazy depending on how engaged he is in a film. Punch-Drunk Love had been the high water mark of his career as an actor but his performance here is even richer and more layered. He's more than just a gambling addict -- he's a real jerk, too -- arguably an irredeemable one, and yet strangely likable in his own unconventional way.

I kept thinking of Jack Lemmon's classic nervous loser characters -- always trying to talk their way out of desperate, doomed circumstances -- they were like a human car wreck, you wanted to look away but you can't. The same goes for Sandler's perfectly named Howard Ratner.

He does nothing but make bad, reckless decisions and somehow, like his mistress (the lovely Julia Fox, who ought to become a star off this movie) you somehow kind of love him for it.

The Safdies, who I'm told drew upon the life of their father in real life, have such a feel for a certain kind of underbelly of New York City. It's not specifically cultural in the way Scorsese's work usually is, even if this film puts Ratner's identity as a Jew front and center. The movie is teeming with all sorts of colorful characters -- from Lakeith Stanfield as a uneasy partner of Howard's to a surprisingly terrific Kevin Garnett as himself and NY sports broadcasting staple Mike Francesca, who's a lot of fun as an exasperated bookie.

As Howard's schemes -- he starts out the movie already in debt and seems content to keep digging himself a bigger hole -- get more an more perilous you too feel like you're plunging into an abyss and when the film reaches its genuinely shocking conclusion you may have to catch your breath. It's that riveting.

Not only have the Safdies made a really original, curious work -- they've laid claim to an auteur mantle that proves their previous success is no fluke. Every needle drop and performance in this chaotic movie feels on point and even if its very rough around the edges, its also irresistibly funny when it wants to be.

Sandler plays to all his strengths here as a performer -- the pathetic vulnerability, the volcanic rage the nervous energy. He could be and should be a major actor, if he just abandoned the lazy high concept comedies that have come to define his career.

In this year's extremely competitive Best Actor race, Sandler should be a shoo in but I worry that his past will cause snobby voters to shy away from allowing the phrase Academy Award nominee Adam Sandler to ever be uttered. But, awards or not, this is a major breakthrough for him and an ambitious firecracker of a film for the Safdies.

'Marriage Story': Baumbach picks up where Woody Allen left off

I have always struggled a little with writer-director Noam Baumbach's work. I know people who are obsessed with him and certainly critics typically go apeshit for his comedy-dramas which usually feature affluent, hyper-literate but hopelessly neurotic characters kvetching over distinctly first-world a.k.a. white people problems.

So Frances Ha, for instance. fell flat for me. I think Greta Gerwig is a terrific actress, but I remembered resenting the fact that a white actor-director duo could get a movie so slight (it's essentially about how a late twenty-something child of privilege can function on her own without being bankrolled by her parents) made.

The Squid and the Whale (as well as his immersive doc about Brian DePalma) was an exception for me -- I think because it was genuinely funny. I quite liked his The Meyerorwitz Stories movie, although I haven't felt compelled to revisit it since my first viewing. Again, his films feel slightly out of touch to me and a little too hipster clever for their own good.

That's part of why I was apprehensive about Marriage Story. Just like a lot of his films -- it seems semi-autobiographical -- it yet again centers around a fairly simple conflict of a divorcing couple wanting their child to live on opposite coasts. It's getting rapturous acclaim, particularly for its lead performances and making a lot of top 10 lists alongside undeniably more ambitious films like The Irishman and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.

The good news is, that with the exception of a few very indulgent flourishes, this is a good Baumbach film. I am not sure it deserves the critical bombast its getting, but its certainly a warm, frequently funny and sometimes quite insightful take on the dynamics of divorce.

Adam Driver and Scarlett Johansson are both reliably terrific. Driver especially has evolved into one of the most interesting leading men working in Hollywood today. It's not just his unconventional looks and bearing (his Lurch-like frame is used to great effect here) but its his vulnerability, which creeps up on his face at the most disarming moments of the movie.

I see why he is in the thick of the Best Actor race. It's not quite a showy performance, but its a sneakily sophisticated one that lingers with you when the film is over. Johansson probably earns slightly less screen-time and although she gets some meaty monologues to chew on, the center of the film is really Driver, who seems to be having the harder time coping with the end of their marriage.

Driver is clearly a stand-in for Baumbach here and the film is most likely inspired by his split with actress Jennifer Jason Leigh (in the film Driver is a theater director and Johansson his muse/star). You'll leave this film maybe feeling a little icky about that. While the movie hits home that Driver's character is selfish and stubborn, he is ultimately the character you feel yourself rooting for and the movie's arc is really his.

There are some colorful performances around the periphery from lovable character actors like Alan Alda, Ray Liotta and Laura Dern. Although, as much as I love Dern, this performance convinced me that Jennifer Lopez is the more deserving Oscar winner for Hustlers. Besides one very funny barn burner of a rant towards the end of the film, I feel like Dern is essentially just doing a riff on her Big Little Lies character.

It felt a little overlong to me -- it's well over two hours when two would have sufficed -- and as well-acted as it is it often could feel like a play more than cinema. And then it hit me -- this is essentially a West Coast bound Woody Allen movie. There's no creepy older man/younger woman romance in it, but it still has the same seriocomic rhythms and the sharply observant moments about human frailty.

Many of his films we're exactly relatable, yet got at some universal truths and had enough compelling content to justify their existence. In other words, Marriage Story's rapturous response is no Green Book/Bohemian Rhapsody style tragedy -- it just only scratches an itch for a certain kind of viewer in a certain kind socioeconomic bracket.

But it's worth a look for Driver and Johansson, who both give some of their best most emotional performances, and for Baumbach its certainly a confirmation that his singular voice will continue to endure for better or worse, for many years to come.

'Ghostbusters: Aftermath' trailer is already a culture war proxy

Somehow the Ghostbusters franchise has evolved from a beloved 1980s comedy touchstone to the center of the culture wars. If you liked or didn't like 2016's all-female reboot that's supposed to suggest something about your character or your politics.

And in that same vein, your impressions of the latest iteration, Jason Reitman's 2020 edition, that's supposed to be some sort of tell, too.

I am an enormous Ghostbusters fan (yes, I even like the second one). It was a childhood favorite or mine and some of the misogyny aside, the original still holds up as one of the best comedy movies of all time and certainly one of my all-time favorites.

My position has always been that there is no need for new Ghostbusters movies. Perhaps a third film could have worked in the 90s when all the original actors were still with us but in fighting shape, but they and America moved on.

When the 2016 film dropped I was sort of mixed on it but I saw that it value, especially for young women and girls who had four heroes to root for in one of the more iconic movie franchises of the last several decades. I think the movie could have and should have served them better, but I didn't think it was this debacle, just a little forgettable.

Perhaps unfairly, this new version has been getting hyped up as some sort of attempt to course correct. It appears to have been co-opted by a lot of toxic people for the wrong reasons (with a presumption that men were taking the franchise 'back'). And then there are the 2016 movie's defenders, who feel like this take is a slap in the face. And now that the Stranger Things-esque first official trailer has dropped its getting hit on all sides from fans and people who think it looks derivative and unfunny.

Basically, not unlike Star Wars, I think this is a series that has come to mean way too much beyond the actual films themselves, and there will be no pleasing anyone. There are the people who think the original is overrated, commercial junk. I've even heard my liberal friends knock it as some sort of pro-business, anti environmental screed. I am sure this new one will inspire its fair share of haters. And the loser will inevitably be the Ghostbusters IPO which will now not so much be fondly remembered for being fun, but more remembered for being shockingly divisive.

How could making a movie starring four women in roles previously played by men be so controversial? Honestly, that should have been a sign that Trump would win.

All I can say is I am a fan. I love that first film so much that I'd be open to anything that could rekindle its special mix of spectacle and laughs. I am doubtful. But I also acknowledge that this is one of Sony's most valuable, recognizable properties and so it behooves them to make more.

I am going to ultimately judge Ghostbusters: Aftermath on its own terms. It's impossible not to make comparisons to earlier editions though. For instance the production values seem very high, higher than the last installment. But it also seems to be going for a much more serious and reverent tone, which I am not entirely sure is a good thing. I like the deliberate attempt to link it to the universe from the first films (although I would have liked to have seen a familiar face -- perhaps Sigourney Weaver's Dana Barrett). I actually like the choice to make the protagonists kids -- and of different genders. It'll be impossible to brand this films as either only for men or for women.

That being said -- the Stranger Things aesthetic is getting a little played out for me. It reached its peak with It: Chapter One and now I feel like I am not sure what more can be done with it. It doesn't help that the same young actor  -- Finn Wolfhard -- is appearing in all of these properties. He's a fine, funny young actor, but certainly there could have been a new fresher face to feature here.

Also, as welcoming as the presence of Paul Rudd is, the trailer doesn't really have any legit laughs in it -- it's seemingly almost more of a fantasy adventure, which is a choice I guess. But I always loved these movies for their humor, not their mysticism. If I wanted to be transported like that I'd probably opt for an Indiana Jones film. To me, Ghostbusters was about the one liners and the attitude played off of the chaos, which is a tone that I thought the 2016 version mostly got right.

Still, as always I will wait for the reviews and wince while people debate whether their childhood managed to be ruined for a second time all over again.

'No Time to Die' trailer gives me goosebumps about the 007's return

The first official trailer for the final Daniel Craig Bond adventure -- the 2020 release No Time to Die  -- is finally here and unsurprisingly, I have thoughts. First off, it's always amazing to me how giddy this franchise can still get me. Only Star Wars trailers generate the same kind of goosebumps for me.

Bond movies were really the first films that got me passionate about cinema, and while many aren't anywhere near masterpieces, when they're good they can feel like game changers. At least two of Daniel Craig's four entries as 007 would qualify for that pantheon: Casino Royale and Skyfall. I didn't despise his last outing, Spectre, as much as a lot of other people but it definitely wasn't a top tier 007 film.

There's been plenty of speculation about Craig departing the series and who should play Bond next and meanwhile the series has laid dormant for nearly five years.

I for one am thrilled to see Craig coming back for one last ride. He's now the longest serving Bond in history, if only because the features are no longer coming at a every two years clip. That probably makes sense given the scale of these productions now, but I have wanted proper closure with his iteration of the character, which has become over time my favorite one to date.

On the plus side, No Time to Die at least looks like a return to form. The film has had a notoriously troubled production including the hiring and firing of an Oscar winning director. Because of all the delays the film is coming out in April of next year, an unorthodox time for a Bond film and it may be the first bond film since Casino Royale that faces an uncertain fate.

That may be a good thing. Some of the best Bond films have arrived when it seemed like the franchise was the most 'on its heels'. When Pierce Brosnan debuted as 007 in Goldeneye people forget how much of an open question it was if people would still go see a James Bond movie. When Daniel Craig took over the role there was another backlash that was quickly snuffed out.

No Time to Die should do well because it promises the kind of incredible stunt work and intrigue that has defined the Craig era. He looks amazing -- any doubts that the over-50 actor might not fit the part anymore should be quickly dispelled. The new cast additions look really fun -- including Lashana Lynch, who may or may not be taking over the 007 mantle after this picture and Rami Malek as a particularly creepy looking villain.

Now here is what troubles me ... the movie seems to be doubled down on the idea of wrapping all the Craig films together into a single narrative (bringing back Lea Seydoux and Christoph Waltz from Spectre for what look like substantial roles). I think this is a mistake and a little disappointing. Part of the fun of Bond is that every adventure used to be a unique original. Sure, there were consistent beats like M and Q popping up, but I liked that you were sort of starting at 0 with every movie.

And while I like that this movie is acknowledging Craig's age and pulling Bond out of retirement -- I don't love that we're moving away from the kind of one-off storytelling that made probably my favorite 007 movie -- Skyfall -- so appealing.

Still, this trailer seems to be suggesting some major plot twists and maybe even a little more emotional depth, with a welcome dose of humor (I like the sardonic Bond, James Bond delivery in this trailer) possibly thanks to script contributions from Phoebe Waller-Bridge

Let's face it, if the movie is even half as good as it looks, it's going to be great. And there's nothing that's going to keep me away from seeing this baby in theaters next year. It's probably one of the only things in 2020 I look forward to!

'The Report' will hopefully force us to remember our role in torture

The Report is an unsensational movie about a sensational topic -- the exposure of the Bush era's torture tactics and how inhumane/ineffective they were -- and it feels especially timely given that prolonged attempts to rehabilitate the reputation of former President George W. Bush and his administration are already underway. There's a reason he's hanging out with Ellen DeGeneres in public, and not just because she's so nice.

Sanctioned torture was and is one of the most heinous aspects of the Bush presidency, but unlike Hurricane Katrina and the financial crisis -- it was largely something we heard described rather than witness or felt in our actual lives.

You can read that a terrorism suspect was waterboarded over 180 times and produced no actionable intelligence, but its another thing entirely to see it dramatized in stark, unromanticized living color. This is not a fun era to revisit, but it is a wholly necessary one.

For all its kinetic energy, Zero Dark Thirty -- to some -- left the door open to the possibility that these 'enhanced interrogation techniques may have occasionally produced valuable results, gratefully The Report leaves no room for any ambiguity. Its scenes of torture are particularly harrowing but also clearly nihilistic.

The film even takes a jab at how problematic that blockbuster movie was.

This is particularly important because we currently have a president who has not only praised techniques like waterboarding but has also proudly insisted that "torture works" -- this despite having no military or intelligence experience whatsoever.

You had people at the highest levels of government embracing the indefensible and then when the program was described as torture they simply redefined what torture was and lied about the results they were getting.

The Report does a very good, thorough job of conveying how outrageous all this was and is, not absolving the Obama administration either, although its heroes are Democrats. Meanwhile, Adam Driver is a terrific at channelling fury as audience surrogate Daniel Jones, a dogged investigator trying to get to the bottom of it, as is the always excellent Annette Bening, portraying the steely Sen. Diane Feinstein.

The movie itself is pretty workmanlike (and yes, a little preachy) -- it looks and feels like a very good television miniseries -- and perhaps its fitting that its a streaming Amazon release. This is not so much a thriller or a mystery as a sober reckoning for one of the worst chapters in our country's history.

It may feel smallish -- the drama centers on whether a blistering report on American torture tactics will get to see the light of day -- but it will hopefully inspire an important and necessary conversation about how we fail to learn from our mistakes -- across administrations.

In a way, a movie like this really makes the case for the value of A-list streaming content. It might never have found an audience in theaters -- but in the comfort of many peoples' homes, there will be an opportunity for viewers to really chew on what we did as a nation and why we failed to hold anyone accountable.