The very existence of “Come Morning” is a testimony to a love of cinema that transcends the routine Hollywood formula. It’s the same deep appreciation for film and process that independent filmmakers have been showcasing for decades as they plow their own paths to tell their own stories. For writer, director, cinematographer, and editor Derrick Sims that love for the form oozes out of every frame of his movie.

The film’s production is an inspiring story in itself. It was shot in just twelve days and with a crew of only ten people, many of whom tackled multiple roles. Sims shot on location near his childhood home of Kingsland, Arkansas during a chilly early winter and with the bulk of the scenes taking place at night. Yet despite the limitations of an extremely tight budget, Sims never allows for himself to be handcuffed creatively.

This Deep South suspense thriller is set in 1973 rural Arkansas. Frank (Michael Ray Davis) prepares to take his grandson D (Thor Wahlestedt) out for an afternoon hunt amid the cryptic protests of his concerned wife (Elise Rovinsky). It’s clear to us that her worries are rooted in something deeper than an old man and a young boy going hunting. But Sims doesn’t tell us everything. Instead he wisely allows up to pick up bits of information along the way.

As we stubborn men tend to do, Frank ignores the pleas of his wife and takes D to their spot in the woods. Believing they have shot a deer, the pair discover they have accidentally killed Marion Mitchell (Thomas Moore), a trespassing neighbor with the volatile history with Frank’s family. D wants to call the police, but Frank decides to hide the body deeper into the woods, one of several complex moral decisions with hefty consequences.

As the story pulls Frank and D further from home a sense of dread settles over the film. We know things are not going to go well. As with before, Sims doesn’t spell everything out for us. Instead the backstory takes form through small pieces of conversations and a handful of flashbacks, some more effective than others. And as things steadily grow darker, we watch young D’s innocence being chiseled away in one scene after another.

Adding to our overall unease is how Sims deftly creates atmosphere and tension. Much of it is through the arresting cinematography. Again, the bulk of the film takes place at night yet despite that potential hurdle Sims is able to create a convincing sense of place. It is especially seen in the landscapes which are visualized in such a way as to be both beautiful and foreboding. And when accompanied by Justin Slaughter’s striking and understated score, it’s all the more effective.

“Come Morning” tells a simple yet compelling story while pulling us into a place shrewdly realized through Sims’ camera. And despite being patient with its reveals, the film maintains a crisp and economical pace throughout within its taut 80 minute frame. There are instances where the money constraints can be felt, but the film shows that even miniscule budgets can’t overthrow a good story especially when it lies in the hands of a confident filmmaker with a clear vision.

“Come Morning” is available on Amazon Prime. Give it a look and tell me what you think.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

Paradox: (noun) a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.

Cloverfield: (noun-ish) a kooky yet cool concoction from J.J. Abrams featuring a series of movies seemingly revolving around the same cataclysmic event. Kind of. But not really.

What started in 2008 as a simple yet effective found-footage horror movie has blossomed into a surprisingly successful feature film franchise. The original “Cloverfield” was followed by 2016’s “10 Cloverfield Lane”. Now two years later we get a third installment, “The Cloverfield Paradox” and a fourth is due out in October.

One of the fascinating things about these movies are how each (so far) are from different horror movie sub-genres. “Cloverfield” was a monster horror movie while the second film was a psychological thriller. “The Cloverfield Paradox” is a straight science fiction horror movie taking place mostly in space. All three are openly influenced by other films but are unique within their franchise. But defining the franchise as a whole, well that’s a bit tricky.

“The Cloverfield Paradox” takes place in 2028 which immediately separates it from the previous movies. The earth has been crippled by a global energy crisis and nations have joined together to launch the Cloverfield space station. The station is manned by a multinational crew of technicians and scientists who are preparing for an experiment which could lead to an infinite energy supply for the entire planet. But tin-foil hatters warn that the experiment could rip a hole in the space-time continuum allowing all sorts of bad things to happen.

On earth, communications officer Ava Hamilton (Guga Mbatha-Raw) reluctantly leaves behind her husband Michael (Roger Davies) to join the Cloverfield mission. The station’s crew consists of several good faces: Daniel Oyelowo, Daniel Brühl, Zhang Ziyi, Chris O’Dowd, John Ortiz, and Aksel Hennie. Each come from different backgrounds and have their own perspectives about the mission and the chaos down on earth. Sometimes the planetside political tensions bleed over onto the station and the film smartly explores that dynamic. Perhaps not as much as it could have.

Needless to say the experiment doesn’t go exactly as planned and the crew begin noticing a series of creepy anomalies. At the same time officials on earth have lost contact with the Cloverfield and the situation on the ground has worsened. The film tries to juggle time on the space station with Michael’s time on earth, but it’s Michael’s side that feels a little underserved. For the crew it turns into a survival horror story as they try to undue what their experiment has done.

“Paradox” operates much differently than its predecessors. At the same time its story rhythms and some of the character treatments lean heavily on the movies that inspired it. You can’t help but notice it. There are times when the familiarity and predictability are a bit much. Also you can see potential in some of the story threads they begin but do little with. Still, I tend to have a soft spot for these types of genre pieces so the issues weren’t hard to get past especially considering all the movie does well. It stocks a good cast and the performances hit there marks. The production design and special effects are impressive and Bear McCreary’s score hearkens back to 90’s era adventures – big and persistent but fitting. Most importantly, “Paradox” sprinkles in some clever clues as to how it is connected to the overall “Cloverfield” franchise.

Director Julius Onah and writer Oren Uziel have been attached to the project since 2012 when it used the developmental title of “God Particle”. It was eventually confirmed to be the next Cloverfield film but faced numerous delays. The true stroke of advertising genius (and guts) came February 4, 2018, Super Bowl Sunday. A teaser trailer debuted proclaiming the movie would be available immediately following the big game. No press tour or pre-release trailer campaign. It marked a new attention-getting approach for the industry.

So where does “The Cloverfield Paradox” fit in? Let’s just say you could call it a prequel. That’s my take on it and I enjoyed how this film brought me to that conclusion. But many people have left it with a much different reaction and with their critical guns have been blazing. Sure, it’s a traditional sci-fi horror picture that doesn’t break new ground outside of its slick advertising trick. But is it really trying to break new ground? I would argue it’s trying to make a fun, intriguing “Cloverfield” installment. Speaking for myself, mission accomplished.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

A mere 40 miles south of Indianapolis is the quirky city of Columbus, Indiana. In many ways Columbus is like any other modestly populated city – it has its schools, churches, and key industries as its financial backbone. But this city of 45,000 people sports one unique distinction. It is the home for an amazing variety of modernist art and architecture.

This provides the setting for the aptly titled film “Columbus” – the impressive debut feature from Kogonada. Known only by his first name, the Korean-born Kogonada previously worked as a video essayist spotlighting legendary auteurs from cinema’s rich history. A quick gander at his website reveals not just an understanding of his subjects (Bresson, Godard, Kubrick just to name a few) but also a genuine passion for their visions and techniques.

Kogonada brings that knowledge and affection to “Columbus” which he directed, wrote and edited. His appreciation for the city’s architectural heritage is just as evident and it’s captured in nearly every frame. Whether Kogonada is shooting Columbus City Hall, North Christian Church, Irwin Union Bank, or the Robert Stewart Bridge, he and cinematographer Elisha Christian use each modernist structure to subtly establish personality and emotion.

But this isn’t simply a Travel Channel city tour. Kogonada’s use of architecture is full of purpose, but the heart of the film is found in the two main characters – two polar opposites bruised by their own personal circumstances. Casey (Haley Lu Richardson) is a Columbus native and recent high school graduate who works at the local library. She’s bright and ambitious but her dreams are tossed aside because of her obligations to her troubled mother (Michelle Forbes). Jin (John Cho) works as a literature translator in Korea but is called to Columbus after his estranged father falls into a coma.

Clearly influenced by Linklater’s “Before” trilogy and with the minimalist strokes of a Jarmusch film, the story has these two strangers meet and a relationship is slowly formed. Similar to Jesse and Celine in “Before Sunrise”, Casey and Jin are cracked open through a series of conversations that occur as the two stroll across Columbus. Between their musings on Saarinen, Pei, and Weese are the more personal and revealing exchanges that gradually endear them more to each other and to us.

While the framework may not sound highly original, the film avoids all of the traditional story beats you might expect. It’s sometimes tempting to allow our expectations to get ahead of a story, but Kogonada doesn’t leave much room for that. There is always a hint of uncertainty with these two characters and their unique relationship. This leaves the audience guessing.

One thing that differentiates “Columbus” from the “Before” films are the scenes when Casey and Jin are apart. More than mere filler, these moments give form to the conversations the two have together. We get a better understanding of Casey through her modest and worrisome home life with her mom or her discussions with her neurotic friend and co-worker Gabriel (nicely played by Rory Culkin). For Jin its the quiet alone time wrestling with how he should be feeling or reflections with his father’s longtime assistant (Parker Posey). These scenes are elegantly composed and never feel false or contrived.

But the most potent ingredients are the two lead performances. Cho is a natural at subtlety – somber, reserved and authentic at every turn. But it’s Richardson who steps out as a true revelation. She’s an incredibly expressive actress and we never see her overplay a scene or oversell an emotion. She conveys an effortless charm and sincerity that instantly captures our sympathies. It’s an eye-opening performance.

There is a soulful longing in both Casey and Jin – two hurting people from very different places forced to put their lives on the back burner. In one scene Kogonada has them wrestle with the question – is there a healing power to architecture? What seems like an absurdity may not be so far-fetched. It’s architecture that first connects these two wounded souls and it lingers in the background during each of their conversations.

Perhaps Kogonada’s camera answers that question for us. There is a therapeutic quality to his perspectives. His camera rarely moves and he communicates plenty through every carefully composed shot. And while “Columbus” highlights the allure of architecture, it just as much showcases the fine art of cinema in what is one of the most striking debuts in decades. Kogonada is a filmmaker to watch.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

Nestled somewhere deep inside of “The Circle” lies an interesting concept for a movie. Maybe it was bad creative choices. Maybe the Dave Eggers novel didn’t translate well from book to screen. I’m guessing it’s a combination of both that shortchange this film adaptation. There are certainly some filmmaking decisions that don’t pan out and you would like to think the tech-heavy story is better explored in Eggers’s novel (which I haven’t read).

“The Circle” is directed by James Ponsoldt who also wrote the screenplay along with Eggers. Their story tinkers with modern themes of privacy, interconnectivity, and even Information Age totalitarianism to a degree. It all sounds nice a relevant. Problem is it’s all squished together in a half-baked of soup of clumsy execution, unbelievable story angles, and underdeveloped relationships.

Emma Watson plays Mae Holland, an aimless twenty-something stuck working a crummy job, driving a crummy car, and with a crummy social life. Things perk up when her best friend Annie (Karen Gillan) gets her an interview at The Circle, a Silicone Valley tech corporation in the mold of Apple, Google, etc. Mae gets hired (to what position I still haven’t figured out) and is soon grafted into the company’s cultish hipster culture.

Tom Hanks plays Eamon Bailey, the company’s Steve Jobs-ish CEO who has his predominately millennial employees under his charismatic spell. He opens the door for Mae to climb the corporate ladder by becoming the face of his push for more control of the world’s information. Mae’s rise makes her a celebrity on campus but distances her from her family and friends.

A key conflict in the film pits Mae’s old personal life again her new life of success and popularity at the Circle. The film struggles to make Mae’s personal life worth caring about. Her parents are played by Bill Paxton and Glenne Headly, the two genuine characters in the entire movie. Paxton’s Vinnie struggles with MS while Headly’s Bonnie is his strong supportive caregiver. They are easy to care for but much of that comes from the real life circumstances. Both Paxton and Headly died this year adding an extra emotional punch to these final performances.

“The Circle” tries to offer up a thought-provoking critique but ultimately it’s more goofy than provocative. First off it’s simply impossible to believe in The Circle as an actual organization and it’s even harder to believe in the many characters who bought into it. And in this world don’t underestimate the power of the frownie face emoji in foreign policy. And then you have Mae stepping out and becoming ‘transparent’. It’s meant to be a big deal step forward when it’s nothing more than a souped up YouTube channel

Several other things stand out. Ellar Coltrane (“Boyhood”) plays Mae’s shy childhood friend. They do some interesting things with his character before it runs off the rails but it’s hard to enjoy it because Coltrane’s performance is so bad. And then you have John Boyega, a welcomed addition but he the story completely wastes him.

Despite its many sour notes “The Circle” isn’t unbearable. It moves along pretty well and it keeps your attention. But I wonder if that’s due to good filmmaking or to my bubbling curiosity that just couldn’t wait to see where this mess would go next. Regardless of what it teases, “The Circle” doesn’t really go anywhere and that may be its biggest flaw – lots of potential, practically all of it wasted.

VERDICT – 2 STARS