Pete Davidson is a comedian, comedy-writer, a star on Saturday Night Live, and an actor that is one-of-a-kind. In Judd Apatow’s The King of Staten Island, Davidson delivers a witty, lethal, and charming performance that is probably one of the best comedies I have watched during this pandemic. I saw Davidson do stand-up live which made me an even bigger fan. I find that his humor and character traits make The King of Staten Island a heartfelt film that many fans will cherish.

The film focuses on a man in his mid-twenties named Scott (played by Davidson as himself). The character has struggled with addictions due to his habits of experimenting with drugs and smoking weed which help him get by due to the mental health and anxiety issues he has faced for years. His struggles are impacted by the fact that his father died when he was a young boy. His mom, Margie, and his sister, Claire (Marisa Tomei and Maude Apatow), feel that Scott needs more motivation in his life, but with his altered mind-set he keeps becoming distracted. While he has artistic skills as a solo tattoo artist and wants to open a tattoo business, he still lacks many skills to achieve that goal and become successful. Scott has no filter in conversations, is negative without realizing it, and prone to making poor decisions based on his lifestyle which includes consistently smoking weed.

Davidson is so true to this movie because it is based on two real aspects of his own life. His father was a firefighter and died on 9/11 when Pete was young.  Also, the film takes place in Staten Island which is where he grew up. The film is faithful to those two elements and Davidson is brave to perform a role based on heavy issues that he has faced in his own life. He has never been afraid to be fierce by turning despair into hope for himself. Many will see that in his stand-up comedy, his Saturday Night Live performances, and in The King of Staten Island. In this film, he makes the conflicts revealing, but then also features joyful resolutions.

I loved The King of Staten Island. It is the perfect role for Pete Davidson. The fact that Tomei and Apatow play key roles makes it even more special. They both have charming personalities that add light humor to the film’s subject and the concerns around their son and brother.   Davidson’s character does a fantastic job at always finding excuses to not be successful.  In the absence of Tomei and Apatow, the film is would not be nearly as inviting and would leave the  audience wondering if there would ever be positive outcomes to the crazy scenarios created by the hysterical mindset of Davidson. I give The King of Staten Island four stars.

A few days ago, I joined a Zoom meeting focused on the documentary film, Life Itself. This film speaks to me because Roger Ebert is my idol as he first inspired me to write movie reviews. I even attended the Roger Ebert Film Festival in 2015.  During this recent program, there was a discussion and a Q and A with the director of the film, Steve James, and Ebert’s wife, Chaz. The discussion was one of the most thought-provoking and in-depth virtual discussions I have watched during this whole pandemic. After the Q and A, I watched the film again (after almost four years of waiting to watch it a second time). In the Q and A, I asked what Roger’s favorite film locations were in Chicago, and the response from Chaz was Music Box Theatre, but that Roger also had many favorite movie palace locations in other states. Her comments spoke to me the most and left me wondering how Roger would have lived during this pandemic especially given his health issues.

The plot of Life Itself goes way back to the start of Roger’s career and what led him to be the most beloved movie critic around the world. The film starts by showing his routines, and jumps back and forth (in a structured way) showing his love of films, his style of writing, his partner in crime, Gene Siskel, and how Roger continued to be a film critic pioneer even when disease limited him from speaking. I remember seeing this documentary the first chance I had on the big screen at Landmark Century Centre Cinema in downtown Chicago, and I walked out with tons of mixed emotions. I felt positive, yet sad, but also felt more encouraged. I will admit that this pandemic has had me experiencing ups and downs and feeling discouraged with cinemas not being open. But, watching Life Itself again, and attending the Zoom discussion with Chaz and Steve made me feel the same way I did when I first saw Life Itself, i.e. uplifted. The signature thumbs up and thumbs down logo by Roger has spoken to me since I was a kid and to this day it still does.

As I watched Life Itself again after the Q and A, it really made me wonder what Roger would have gotten out of this pandemic. I believe he would have written with passion, discipline, and honesty about how the films that are now streaming, instead of in theatres, made him feel. Many of us are frustrated with being cooped up in our homes, but Roger was already cooped up with his disease. However, he kept his inspiration alive, and even though he lost his ability to talk, his writing was like hearing him talk based on the writing style he would use to write his reviews. That is why I admired Roger and still do. He never wanted to give up on his followers and I don’t want to either as I continue with writing my film reviews.

If Roger was still here, I believe he’d be inspiring many of us now. He would be inspiring us to use the technology to find our voice. He once said, “Your intellect may be confused, but your emotions will never lie to you.” I have felt that way during this pandemic, but I am sure many cinema enthusiasts have felt this way about their intellect as well. I still carry Roger’s words and encouragement with me to progress on to a more productive life (even in the worst of times).

Life Itself is a documentary that I will always cherish.  It reminded me again of how Roger got to where he was as a film critic and what to consider in the film industry. The film will make viewers laugh and cry, but in the end emerge feeling more positive. Roger has always spoken to me. While I remember many times I may have disagreed with his review, but by sharing his emotions about the movies, he motivated me to grow to write my own reviews better. Four stars for Life Itself.

From director, Benedict Andrews (who directed Una in 2016 and two National Theatre Live events), comes what I thought was going to be an intriguing adaptation that was going to intrigue me.  Instead, I ended up thinking the film was mediocre on many levels. Seberg has a captivating plot, strong cinematography, and great acting, but the film is not focused. Kristen Stewart fits the role of Jean Seberg, however, she her portrayal does not seem to care much about the background of Seberg or what would grab the attention of most audiences. This was one of the films that I almost saw at the 2019 Chicago International Film Festival. And now that I’ve seen it, I will stick to my own rule of not being overly negative even if I dislike a film. Alternatively, I believe in elaborating on why a film fails to speak to me and that is what I will do with Seberg.

The focus of the film which is set in the late 1960s gears on the French New Wave Icon, Jean Seberg.  During this time frame, the FBI targeted Seberg because of her relationship that had political implications with Hakim Jamal (played by Anthony Mackie). This raised a concern because of Jamal being a civil rights activist. Two detectives, Jack Solomon and Carl Kowalski (Jack O’Connell and Vince Vaughn), go on a deep spy investigation watching the relationship between the two which they believe is a conspiracy. The investigative moments are the primary intention of the film’s plot.

As I said earlier, Stewart is brilliant in her role, however, the film lacks displaying the importance of Seberg herself. The film does gear on her luxury lifestyle and briefly on former relationship conflicts, but barely mentions her historic background. Instead the film drags as it turns into a crime thriller focused on humiliating her and Jamal due to their discreet relationship. That is a disappointing plot for me, because as a cinema enthusiast, the French New Wave era speaks to me. Unfortunately, the film failed to focus on that intriguing subject matter at all. Instead of picking up other important events or accomplishments of Seberg, it is over done with annoyances faced by the detectives trying to humiliate her based on their investigations.

The film that revolutionized Seberg back in the day was Jean-Luc Godard’s Breathless. There was no focus in that film on the sensational or the steps that Seberg took to become a high-profiled actress. With Seberg as the title of the film, I expected a little background development of the FBI conspiracies. And, the FBI conspiracies could have still been the plot, but it should have been built up to it, instead of jumping into that focus entirely. The lack of plot development is why I was not fond of Seberg.

Due to this, I am giving just a solid two stars for Seberg. There was great acting and cinematography, but a structure that was rushed. I believe this is one of those films that should be true to what is important to an icon like Seberg. If there was a chronological setup from her earlier days, the film may have had a chance at being more engrossing. It was a watch once for me, but if film aficionados want to watch this and see for themselves, then go for it.