Sean Baker’s ‘Anora’ (2024) is a feature film that clearly proves what an underdog is. This is a well crafted, and masterfully marketed film with some stellar performances, while also being a powerhouse on the awards circuit. Sean Baker proved that his twenty years of filmmaking meant something, and still means something when looking at what is now a best picture winner. I was a bit flummoxed I will say, due to the crudeness and exposure of the entire feature, however, that does not negate the relativity of what this picture is trying to say. The message from this story is sincere but not obnoxious, and it divorces itself from sitting quietly and ignoring common issues. I enjoyed ‘Anora’ (2024) very much, and I found a deep sentimental humor in the film that is sometimes tough to find, but nonetheless, this art work has now been anointed as one of the greats. 

For a more conservative audience such as myself, the exploration of the human body can sometimes be unnerving to see on the big screen. Some films choose to use it as an erotic tool to help sell a feature, while other films use it to provide an ugliness of human nature. It’s a coin flip on whether or not a movie can appropriately include such imagery like that. ‘Anora’ (2024) manages to actually nail what it means to have this nudity on screen. Hardly ever used to provide an erotic look at this life, the sexuality of the film is often funny, and sometimes devastating, while still exploring how beautiful it can be at the same time. This is perhaps the finest line a film need to walk along to make that subject matter work. For those who don’t understand why nudity sometimes has to be in film, I implore you to observe ‘Anora’ (2024) to have it explained in the most graceful of ways. 

What is the meaning behind ‘Anora’ (2024)? What is Sean Baker trying to explore with us on this film? Much like ‘The Florida Project’ (2017), I believe all he wants to do is breakdown the idea of self worthlessness. The characters on screen are often never portrayed as anyone outside of the term “losers” and they all know it too. Morally they can be forgiven, but practically, there is little for these characters. I think a big part of what is trying to be said is how ruthless American culture can be on a hopeless romantic. With an opportunity that seems too good to be true, just for it to be the case, the film shows how hard a naive mindset can really destroy itself. Cynical? Sure, practical? For sure. 

With all of that being said, you might wonder going in, how light hearted would a film like this be? I can tell you, even though it’s a quote on quote “rom-com”, there is a lot more emotional rawness to the energy of the feature. You would be amazed how light hearted a good portion of the film really is, until you realize the point of no return is hit. The rawness to what is felt by the final moment of the film is very deep, and helps explain what the movie is honestly trying to say. Dejection of one’s self, failure to a society that doesn’t care, and hopeless romanticism all tie up together to create a feel of desolation for not only the characters, but the audience as well. That might not sound appealing one bit, but I promise it is done with such passion that anyone watching will be able to understand everything, and they will be able to connect even more so. 

Mikey Madison is absolutely killer in this feature. She manages to portray a very dynamic character in Ani, and her kinetic energy is very overpowering. Madison is of course known for her fun and exciting performance in ‘Once Upon A Time In Hollywood’ (2019), but now she will be remembered for this troubled yet emotionally charged character that centers an entire movie around. Madison is sweet and charming throughout the film, while also giving a light sense of humor and even witty aggression. At such a young age, Madison proves to us that she has real honest to god talent, and when working with some bright creators, can make some remarkable work.  

Sean Baker has been making his visions come to life on the big screen for the better part of twenty years. He’s helmed the title of director, writer, producer, casting director, and editor. All of this came to a head for his film ‘Anora’ (2024) and showed that he really makes what he loves. His previous works like ‘Tangerine’ (2015), ‘Red Rocket’ (2021), and my beloved ‘The Florida Project’ (2017) all seem to have the same core in common. The unapologetic nature of creativity. That is what flows through Baker’s films, and it’s intoxicating to a viewer like myself. I find myself adoring the lack of shyness in his movies, while also mesmerizing myself with the craftsmanship. Baker is not someone to forget anytime soon, and looking back at his previous works will also help define what a thoughtful and gentle creator he truly is. 

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the absolute powerhouse ‘Anora’ (2024) was during the 2025 awards season. Laying claim to many awards through the few months, then finally dominating at the academy awards. I will admit my shock is a bit heightened due to the subject matter of the film, but nonetheless, this is a deserving film for sure. With only a budget of six million dollars, it gives a great sentiment to what the direction of movies can go. On top of this, the film also led to the only time ever a single person has won four academy awards for a single film with Sean Baker manning most of the work. It’s impressive for sure to see a small film like this do so well, and it is a heart warming ideal to have proven. 

Now that the awards season is over, and time will continue on, it will be interesting to see what Sean Baker’s ‘Anora’ (2024) will be remembered as. This clearly has contributed a loud voice to the world of artistic freedom, and it has a lot to say with its run time. Whether you watch this for the consistent performances, or the remarkable writing, or even the craftsmanship with lighting and color and production design, you will most likely find something to enjoy out of ‘Anora’ (2024). Though the imagery might be lewd and exhibitionist all throughout, that doesn’t not damper for one second how thoughtful and tender the story really is. There is a really love in this movie that is poured into the viewers hearts, and very little could ever regret that.

After sitting down and watching Seijun Suzuki’s ‘Youth Of The Beast’ (1963) I decided to move on and watch his other classic genre piece, ‘Tokyo Drifter’ (1966). Whoa… what a treat both of these features were. I can look at movies like this through an analytical telescope all day, and observe how beautiful it is and the techniques used, but I can also just watch this as a real fan. I couldn’t help myself from just gushing over how much fun I was having with ‘Tokyo Drifter’ (1966). The visuals have stuck around in my mind much longer than I expected, and it truly gave me everything I asked for in film. Seijun Suzuki is a legend for sure, and this later 1960’s work just provides a slam dunk on that sentiment.

Much like ‘Youth Of The Beast’ (1963), ‘Tokyo Drifter’ (1966) is an absolute visual feast. the set designs used for the picture are just utterly remarkable, and give many senses, but can honestly only be exactly what the director wanted us to feel. The lighting and usage of color is harnessed in a way we hardly see today. This was back when filmmakers were unafraid to burst the screen with gorgeous colors, bright, and rich colors. Almost every sequence utilizes these tools in such a masterful way, and the film really never lets a lazy side show. If you find yourself as someone who appreciates the craftsmanship of cinematography, color grading, and production design, Seijun Suzuki’s films are the ones for you.

On top of this whole feature giving us a wonderful production design, it also carries highest marks for its usage of costume design. These are the sleek suits I look for, not only in my day to day life, but on the screen of the films o watch. I could never look as clean and garnished as these people do in the bright suits they wear. The attempt at putting on bright blues and reds are definitely a risk, and can lead to a film looking a bit silly and outlandish in the worst ways. However, for ‘Tokyo Drifter’ (1966), the purpose of the suits helps motive the world we’re watching. Just an absolute killer costume design through this entire feature, and it’s something classic while blending retro and contemporary all at once. This is where costume designs need to be first and foremost.

the best way to describe this crime flick is that it’s an honest work of neo-noir. Sometimes, a foreign Nation is able to harmonize the tonality that was sought out to be expressed in American pictures. That’s exactly what happened with ‘Tokyo Drifter’ (1966). The feature chronicles a classic revenge story, while blending the yakuza style to it. There is plenty of crime throughout that we look for in older and contemporary films, but a lot don’t nail it like Seijun Suzuki does. Even by the end of this project, where the sequence is moved to a snow laced landscape, the film still holds its own retributions on the crime genre. This is some great storytelling with loads of fun action packing it all together.

For those who don’t appreciate ‘Tokyo Drifter’ (1966) or the works of Seijun Suzuki, I say to you, do you not enjoy the art of coolness. The soul characterization throughout this picture of one man is, how cool can a single entity be? I promise you, Miles Davis didn’t understand what it could become. Tetsuya, the lead of the film, displays exorbitant amounts of confidence, and prowess. His sleek suits down only carry a significant stature, but a powerful attitude as well. We need to look towards films like ‘Tokyo Drifter’ (1966) to examine what “cool” really means. 

Seijun Suzuki has quickly made his way up in my list of directors to pay attention to. Though he passed in 2017, there is so much he left for the audience members. I am very grateful that I have the opportunity to go and watch this masters work, in some of the cleanest formats possible. Suzuki delivers a unique perspective to cinema, with a real blend of class on top of violence. Like I have been praising before, his understanding of color and lighting in his movies is something that is just getting missed so much in today’s world. The way he understands how to frame and block his shots are just remarkable. The fact Suzuki can masterfully tackle action and drama in his films just goes to show his dynamic touch, and his unforgettable ability to entertain us all. 

I cannot express how much I truly love both ‘Youth Of The Beast’ (1963) and ‘Tokyo Drifter’ (1966). I am truly lucky that I got to find both on criterion, and get to deliver a double feature of both. These movies are polished to a certain extent, while still having the grittiness we all look for in crime films. Seijun Suzuki exploits his own talent to the screen, and divulges everything he has in his pocket. Truly, do not let the fact this was made in the 1960’s hood you back from seeing it. I promise, ‘Tokyo Drifter’ (1966) is better than almost any crime film that has come out in the following sixty years, and it should not go unremembered.

I had a full sense of jubilation wash over me when I managed to find Seijun Suzuki’s ‘Youth Of The Beast’ (1963) and ‘Tokyo Drifter’ (1966) on the criterion dvd shelves at a local shop. Getting a double feature like this was just pure candy for me, and my excitement was insurmountable. Only knowing these films by rumor, I soon realized how remarkable ‘Youth Of The Beast’ (1963) truly is. With such a Shakespearean style of storytelling, while also being a gritty Yakuza crime flick, I was living happy. Suzuki truly is a master of the craft of filmmaking, and ‘Youth Of The Beast’ (1963) is one of the greatest examples of that. 

We have gotten a great fill of crime films since the beginning of cinema. Whether it’s a cowboy crook robbing a train, a group of Italian greaseballs, or violent and fear filled Russians, plus everything in between, we’ve gotten our fill. The Yakuza is one subset of organized crime in film that is always just so interesting when it’s explored. The mixture of either hand to hand combat, or crazy wielding firepower, or even sword fighting, we get a good mix. With ‘Youth Of The Beast’ (1963) we see an excellent example of this crime collective, and it is genuinely so much fun to see. With classic crime bosses being pinned against one another, this story really holds its own to other big crime flicks. This isn’t Coppola or Scorsese, this is Suzuki’s vision of cinematic crime, and oh is it glorious.

One thing you cannot miss in ‘Youth Of The Beast’ (1963) is how utterly unapologetic it is when it comes to the stylish nature. I was amazed seeing the flourished color all over the screen, with remarkable set designs. This whole film definitively looks like it comes out of the 1960’s but with its own polished touch. Even when the bombastic nature of the action is exploding on screen, there is still a layer of care to what the surroundings look like. It’s so specific to the culture, and its contemporary breath helps motivate more creativity throughout. I was honest to god so amazed at how great this whole film looked, and I never wanted to leave this world. 

One of Suzuki’s strong suits I realized watching this film was how purposeful he is while filming. I don’t just mean the spot on production design, but I’m talking more of how the camera flows, and what he chooses to show us. It’s clear that everything on screen is there for a reason, and I have no doubt it is exactly what Suzuki saw in his mind. Whether it’s the way multiple people are smoking and how it fills up a room, or the way someone strikes someone and the usage of blocking to angle it, it’s all so expertly crafted. This is the type of filmmaking that someone can watch and truly get inspired in ways they never knew they could. This is not just a thrilling example of a crime film, but it is a remarkably crafted work of art. 

Suzuki clearly is not shy when it comes to the violence portrayed in his movies. A film that reaches these extremes had no right being made in the early 1960’s. Because this was not a Hollywood production, the movie managed to explore what real violence on screen could be. There is an over abundance of firepower used in the film, and it isn’t very shy of showing what it can do. On top of this, the crimson gore displayed is also something very stark. Sequences of torture are shown, while other scenes just covey grisly action. This might not seem as big of a deal now, but for the 1960’s, it was revolutionary, and it still holds up today. 

I could not be more ecstatic that I own this and ‘Tokyo Drifter’ (1966) on criterion dvd now, because I fully expect I will be revisiting both again very soon. This is a pistol packed action film that has some beautiful imagery to add on. This is clearly a great example of what contemporary directors use to explore beauty out of violence, and it’s not a bad take on that. From the gore to the color embellishment of every sequence, this really is a renaissance painting in moving pictures. Director Seijun Suzuki has something to be really proud of when it comes to his work, because this is a timeless masterpiece.

Mario Bava’s ‘Kill Baby… Kill’ (1966) is going to be no where near as strong as much of the output the director has had in the past. This film is a bit choppy and lacks a strongly grounded story. Be that as it may, this is still a Bava film, and it still delivers some tropes we look for in the Italian directors work. This genre bending horror flick is fun for sure, but quite possibly not a great choice for an aging well film. There is mystery packed into this film, and it works along with the horror that the story strives to achieve. Again, this is no ‘Black Sunday’ (1960) or ‘A Bay Of Blood’ (1971), but I do implore you to see this fun little Bava feature.

Like many other Italian horror flicks, ‘Kill Baby… Kill’ (1966) messes around with other genres. From the mystery aspect of the whole story to different styles of horror. What would be perfected a few years later by Dario Argento, the Giallo film clearly has some roots in a movie like ‘Kill Baby… Kill’ (1966). Now, is this as good as what’s to come from the European nation? Certainly not, but seeing the genres blend from slasher to mystery, to thriller and so on is a fun exercise that helps keep the audience on their toes. 

Italian cinema is always such a treat. There is a different perspective of life from any foreign film comparative to the United States. Some great directors step from the big boot nation, and they all impact cinema in so many ways. There is a suave yet gritty feel to the style of Italian film. The small town feel seems embraced and comfortable, while also giving a sense of reserve. The world of Italian cinema is many things, but lazy is certainly not one of them. ‘Kill Baby… Kill!’ (1966) is a good example of even when a movie doesn’t necessarily work from there, it still has merit to what it wants to do. 

Mario Bava is a legend to the world of moving pictures. His craftsmanship as a director should never go unappreciated, and the lineage his family has given should not go unnoticed as well. What is even more remarkable about the director is the extent of his work. Not only does Bava direct his films, he also helms the cinematography, and the special effects department. Both of those jobs as massive to a film in their own right, and both give specifics to how a film looks. It’s clear Bava was a film auteur through and through, and his vision still entertains us today. 

‘Kill Baby… Kill’ (1966) helps wrap out the ladder half of the decade for Mario Bava, and what a fun way to go out on. This really isn’t an impactful or even important horror movie, and I truly understand why I never hear anyone talk about it. However, it has its moments, and it’s a true and honest genre piece that’s a nice try. This really has little influence on my movie going experience, and I have even struggled to find much from this picture that I feel is necessary to explore. I’m glad Bava made movies this late into his career, but sometimes they just fall flat like ‘Kill Baby… Kill’ (1966)

‘Opera’ (1987) is no joke. This is one intense and exciting slasher flick that delivers everything we want as viewers. I was a bit trepidatious going in and seeing this film, but I knew I would enjoy some aspects of it since it was from Dario Argento. I will admit though, I was thoroughly impressed by the whole picture. This psycho sexual slasher piece chronicles a story that’s been told time and time again over the decades, but takes its own disturbing and unique twists. Argento really strikes again with his rendition of Phantom Of The Opera, and I promise it’s something to really see. 

It’s no secret to say this film is heavily influenced by the classic ‘Phantom Of The Opera’ story. Through the years there have been many renditions of the story on screen, and finally we land on Dario Argento’s idea of it. Now, it is not technically the same property, but the story is clearly very reminiscent. A killer hides out in an Opera hall and attempts to kill performers until he gets what he wants. That’s the same thing. Now, there is more violence and classic intense gore from Argento, but the sentiment still stays close to what the others films were always trying to say. 

Though this whole film is set inside an Opera house, you’d be pretty amazed what kind of music is upheld throughout. There is something real 80’s hard rock and metal that blasts through the screen, and punches up all the excitement we are expected to experience. The hard rock themes pair well with the quick pace editing throughout, and really give a sense of urgency to the actions on screen. It’s clear that this was a gamble to try, and it could have gone very poorly if not done right. Yet, leave it to Argento to take a risk and benefit greatly from it in his films.

Dario Argento films have never been known to be toned down or polite when it comes to on screen violence. I can fully assure you, ‘Opera’ (1987) is no different. From the cover of the film, we see what appears to be a very intense form of torture that is maniacal in nature. On top of this, the limits of gore are pushed even further with high tension killings, and violence action sequences. This is the type of stuff to expect from Argento and his films, so don’t shy away because of that. This is still a fun feature that gives all audiences exactly what they want. 

I know this isn’t ’The Bird With The Crystal Plumage’ (1970) or ‘Deep Red’ (1975) or ‘Suspiria’ (1977) or even ‘Tenebrae’ (1982). However, this is some sneaky stuff from the horror icon. ‘Opera’ (1987) is no slouch, and it really holds its own against some of the other horror flicks. This is by far one of the more fun features from Dario Argento, and it provides some clever storytelling techniques. Though the script is heavily influenced one some other material, it still has its own voice in the pantheon of cinema. I can’t promise everyone will connect with a film like this, but I know I did, and I’m sure others can find some real love for it.

Now this is what I’m talking about when I say “the good stuff”. Dario Argento’s ‘Tenebrae’ (1982) is an all time cult classic for a reason. Releasing from an era of over saturated slasher flicks, it’s tough to stand out. However, leave it to Dario Argento to do so. The king of the Giallo films, Argento seemingly didn’t lose a step when he started making movies in the 1980’s. This is a polished and clean slasher mystery that delivers much more than you might initially think. Even with the grit of the 80’s, this still provides a sleek rendition of some great cinema. 

An American in Italy is the classic set up for a lot of these Giallo films, it’s just not every day you get a name like John Saxon on the cover. Saxon covers the back part of the supporting cast, while an American novelist takes center stage. With the typical Giallo films, we find ourselves driven to insanity with the suspense and mystery that surrounds the entire movie. ‘Tenebrae’ (1982) is a perfect example of this, in its finest form. These genre pieces typically work well even if they don’t age the most gracefully, but projects as specific as this really leave a lasting impression. 

Like many Dario Argento films, ‘Tenebrae’ (1982) contains a fair amount of underlying sexual tension throughout its run time. With clear imagery of over sexualized violence, blended with abrasive gore leaves the audience uncomfortable in all senses. The visuals of exposed bodies is clearly a vision Argento wants to show to express the venerability of each of his characters. To contrast this with an abundance of crimson blood is only to hammer home the fragile nature of each life. Sexualized tones always seem to have a place in the horror genre, and it has always been very well articulated by the master himself, Dario Argento. 

Perhaps one of the first take aways I got from ‘Tenebrae’ (1982) was that it was not a typical slasher in a visual sense. Perhaps the Blu-ray copy I had was just a very clean transfer, but the whole film really pops. With bright colors flashing all across the film, there is never a moment of dullness. On top of this, the contrasted lighting helps emphasize what the creator wants us to see. The film stock used is crisp and clean for a film that’s dirty of muggy. Sometimes a polished style does not always for a film, but when it comes to Argento, the sense of prestige is always there, no matter the subject. 

‘Tenebrae’ (1982) had got to be up there as one of my favorites from the legendary filmmaker, Dario Argento. This is a perfect acclimation through the previous decade Argento had. We see a real steadiness in this type of filmmaking, and it reflects the experiences from the previous works. ‘Tenebrae’ (1982) is not just an artistic meal, it is also just a very fun mystery slasher. With all the classic tropes we know and love. If you are trying to find some strong Italian work to sit down and watch, definitely don’t skip on Dario Argento’s ‘Tenebrae’ (1982)

After a decade of making films, the Italian film legend, Dario Argento steps up for his crafty and mesmerizing work on ‘Inferno’ (1980). The 1980 film is somewhat of a distraction for me, because I had thought I would find this higher on my list of the directors films. However, a bit disappointed with the result, I didn’t end up enjoying the aesthetic as much as I thought I would. Be that as it may, I still had one fun time with this Dario Argento flick. There are plenty of elements I got that I look forward to in his work, and though the story wasn’t as sticky as I needed it to be, I still enjoyed the experience.

Giallo films are a cornerstone to Italian cinema, and the sub-genre would simply not exist if it wasn’t for Argento. ‘Inferno’ (1980) connects the building blocks needed for a genre piece like this, and brings the New York world together with the underworld of Rome. Mystery and Horror both combine throughout this picture to deviate a world of giallo bliss. We as an audience get to uncover the mystery that occurs throughout the film as we are set in the point of view of a brother finding his sister. This is classic Storytelling that helps reinvent cinema down the line. 

With such an iconic and classic film cover like this movie has, you know you’re in for a treat when it comes to the ghoulish nature of the picture. Sure enough, as the whole film unwraps in front of us, we get more and more glimpses of what kind of horror is in store. The film manages to keep us on our toes for most of the run time, but the practical horror really kicks in at a certain point, and really gives us a run for our money. This is on a different level from Argento’s other films, and the gore is a different sort of grotesque, but it really shows the resolve of horror in the early 1980’s.

Dario Argento is perhaps up there with some of the most influential Italian directors of all time, which really just means some of the greatest filmmakers to ever have lived. Argento is not in the same vein as Federico Fellini or Sergio Leone. He aligns more with the genre directors like Lucio Fulcci and Sergio Corrbucci. Argento had flair though, and he had vision when it came to his movies. It’s no secret that he single handedly crafted a genre in the Giallo films, and he truly changed the way horror was perceived. Works like ‘Inferno’ (1980) don’t necessarily prove he is the end all be all master of the horror genre, but it proves how his work is vast and powerful to history. 

I really thought I would enjoy this early 1980’s Argento film more than I did, but I must say, it’s still like candy to me. Even the lesser of Argento’s films are still better than most others. ‘Inferno’ (1980) has classic tellings of horror stories, while still twisting plenty of mystery out of the whole scene. There are plenty of scares and there are a whole slew of visual treats. Yes, I did not find this to be the strongest of the directors work, but I still found a lot to enjoy out of this picture. Plus, this is just a lineage of what’s to come in the 1980’s for the famed director, and I promise, it’s worth the time.

Peter Bogdanovich’s early outing in ‘Targets’ (1968) showed off where his career could have gone. This clever and thrilling project produces some fun moments with an intriguing story to hold an audiences attention. There is some great work of calling back to a time of classic cinema, while also looking forward in what’s to come. The style of this whole film is very reminiscent of a struggling time, post the assassination of a president and the involvement in one of the most tumultuous wars ever. ‘Targets’ (1968) has a lot to say, even if it seems like a fun and quant movie about assassination. 

‘Targets’ (1968) is centered around a young man who wants to go on a rifle spree through Los Angeles. This obviously packs in a lot of violence and stark images, especially for the time. With point of view shots through the scope of a rifle, we see the carnage that’s presented. After the Hays code was abolished, films like this wanted to push those limits, and give audience members a real feeling of uncertainty in film. From today’s perspective, this movie is not all that bad, but from the late 1960’s this must have been jarring for sure. Violent and intense is all the movie tries to be. 

The neatest part of ‘Targets’ (1968) is the duality of old Hollywood and new Hollywood. Clearly this was commentary on what was happening at the time in Hollywood, and how directors and creators had much more freedom. To display this, the film casts Boris Karloff as an almost statistical version of himself. An aging horror flick star who is on the brink of retirement. Then this is paired against a gritty and grueling depiction of the horror of suburban America. This is obviously not the film anyone thinks about when it comes to the changing revolution of cinema, that would be ‘Easy Rider’ (1969), but ‘Targets’ (1968) still has a lot to say for itself. 

Peter Bogdanovich is classically one of the more prestigious directors from the 1970’s. Through the grindhouse era of cinema, Bogdanovich helped stick with the romantic comedies and dramatic set pieces to round out a strong decade. His profoundness to the screen still lives on today, and is still spoken about quite often. So it’s funny to see how in his directorial debut, Bogdanovich really leaned into the new era of films. His hand on this movie showed he had the dark and provocative side of making movies. While at the same time, he also had a lot to say in his films, and to this day still lets his messages ring on. 

Overall, I must say I really found a lot to love in ‘Targets’ (1968). This movie really was the changing of an era and helped push a lot of other movies forward in what they wanted to say. Sure, this isn’t the flashiest of films, and it doesn’t exude a terrible amount of glamour. However, it is still a very thoughtful film about the anxiety of the American future. This is the type of film to really study in a class to see where the history of cinema was really heading. With new ideas and new techniques being applied to this picture, it’s no wonder this is a curious feature. I think it ages quite well and is absolutely worth a watch today.

From the death of the Hays code to the birth of grindhouse cinema, we received a whole slew of interesting and unique film projects. John Cassavetes helped break into this era as a stylish director and profound writer. He also never thought he was above playing a machine gun wielding man who seeks vengeance over and over again. That’s what ‘Machine Gun McCain’ (1969) looks into. Nothing profound, nothing convoluted, just a damn good time at the movies. This little spaghetti capper isn’t one that needs to have a soulful reputation to be great, instead, the indie nature of it all makes it all that more spectacular to discover. 

John Cassavetes is by far my favorite screen writer, with a profound and in-depth knowledge of human emotions. His career spanned for three decades, and he truly created some of the greatest films of all time. He also seemingly enjoyed creating fun and sometimes raunchy capers like ‘Machine Gun McCain’ (1969) to help fund his master projects. Cassavetes’s presence on screen has always been one drowned in mystery and alcoholism. Suave yet burdened, the man could fit into many different roles with such a talent. Cassavetes isn’t going to be remembered for this work, but it’s still a nice treat to see. 

By the late 1960’s, the world of cinema had changed completely. With a full rush of limit breaking pictures getting released, it was a full banquet to feast on for film lovers. Movies like ‘The Wild Bunch’ (1969) really proved how far movies could get pushed, and it defined generations after. ‘Machine Gun McCain’ (1969) is one of those pictures that was involved with this movement, and also tried to push the lines. With bombastic and over the top action, that doesn’t age the best today, the movie had a mission to exude. It’s a lot of fun, and packs a real punch, and I can assure you, it’s not a snoozefest. 

Italian films about America were all the rave by the 1960’s and it provided a cheaper way to show the American dream. The spaghetti western was of course the classic genre to tap into the world, but horror and crime flicks also were made for cheap overseas. There is a slight hint of tacky-ness to the style of filmmaking, but it adds to the charm when seeing it five decades later. The syncing isn’t always on point, but having Cassavetes helps sell the experience. This caper really tries to show the American style of heist and revenge films, just in its own way. All of this makes for a charming and exciting watch of ‘Machine Gun McCain’ (1969).

I know this is one of those films most people will never hear about and definitely never watch. I will say though, it’s a lot of fun. Cassavetes and Peter Falk both show up and do some business all throughout the picture, which if nothing else, is worth seeing. The action is loud and pairs to the next generation of film goers, with an even smarter tone. This isn’t a movie that should be praised and raved about as one of the best. It’s just a fun and simple crime flick that delivers so much more enjoyment that one might think.

‘Honest Thief’ (2020)? More like honest to god horseshit. Is this just Liam Neeson’s manifesto against society to prove we are all sinners and deserve to be punished? It certainly feels like it. By this moment in history, it was apparently clear how Liam Neeson had swiftly hoisted himself astride the audience, then began to promptly and diligently impregnate our minds then abruptly abandoning us by the stretch of road to come. This is just a degradation to art, you know it, I know it, and Liam Neeson himself knows it. 

This is the type of film that can fall into the category of “factory films” where a smaller B-list studio produces quick action flicks with famous actors. There is no merit to a movie like this, and it bares little to know weight on society as a whole. You can germinate about what a deeper meaning in the film is, but you’ll be digging for a pipe dream. ‘Honest Thief’ (2020) is a perfect example of this. Trashy, poorly written, lazily acted, and overall just a choir to sit through. I can’t really fathom why the star of ‘Schindler’s List’ (1993) and ‘Michael Collins’ (1996) would decide to ruin a career well spent with a movie like ‘Honest Thief’ (2020), but here we are. 

The plot of this film is simple. It’s stupid. Beyond idiotic actually. Liam Neeson has no right trying to attempt dialogue this watered down, yet he still gives it a shot. The back and forth feels like two obituaries speaking in a language that’s foreign to one another. The plot points make no sense either, and I found myself groaning so bad while sitting through. A guy who wants to return all the money he stole so he can marry a woman? Then the FBI has no checks or balances so these agents just go corrupt? I’m just lost at how high someone must have been when they wrote this. Who am I though? Clearly I didn’t make a movie, and if I did, and it was like this, I’d quit as soon as I started. 

Heist movies are always fun. From classics like ‘Thief’ (1981), ‘Heat’ (1995) to garbage try hard films like ‘Honest Thief’ (2020), there is plenty out there. Some are better than others for sure, but some are abysmal beyond belief. We don’t even get to see any real heists in ‘Honest Thief’ (2020) and all the aftermath really does nothing for me, and I assume the rest of the audience as well. Suspense is a big part of movies like this, of which this picture lacks any sort of representation like that. They are also supposed to be thrilling and fun as well, in which, you guessed it, nothing. When a heist movie works, it can really work well. When they stink, they end up like ‘Honest Thief’ (2020). 

This is the type of stuff that puts proud people into a dejective state. I knew what I was getting into when I started this, but somehow I was still disappointed. My liver hurts now because this is not a movie for the sober. My mind is throbbing because no right minded person should comprehend this, and my time is thoroughly wasted because this just stunk. Shame on Liam Neeson for subjecting the world to a movie this simplistic and defective to culture. Shame on me for actually owning this on DVD and watching it too. I can fully say I am worse as a person after experience, and it gives me no faith in the world I live in.

Once again, I find myself confided to the theater to see this classic telling of one of the oldest monster movies around. Robert Eggers’s ‘Nosferatu’ (2024) was definitely worth this second watch for a few reasons. Firstly, now that the story had sunk into my mind and I knew the plot points, I would be able to sit back and really absorb the production design. This is of course one of the biggest proponents to doing this. The big take away I got from a rewatch though was how much more I connected with the characters, especially Lily-Rose Depp’s portrayal of Ellen. You might not realize how much more you can take away from a rewatch like this, but I found myself connecting slightly more, and really still having just a wonderful time at the movies. 

Lily-Rose Depp was one aspect of the film that never seemed to click with me from the beginning. I found her to be presumptuous in what she was trying, and delivered a silly ratio of “skill”. Perhaps it was because the task she was asked to do in the film was bizarre in its own sense, I didn’t connect, but on this rewatch that all changed. I became enlightened by her craft on this second viewing, and it helped pick up the film much more. Depp gives a performative rendering of someone that isn’t often shown on screen. She blends sorrow with innocence very well, while drowning out a physical performance. It can be strange to see for the naked eye, but I assure you, it really works for a film as strange as this. 

A plague is spread across the world in ‘Nosferatu’ (2024) and it helps represent a rapture of characters and tone. With the black plague being so prominent in the film, the tone is clearly not a jaunty one. With the sequence of rodents in abundance, it only makes one want to perform full body ablution to themselves. This isn’t without a structured thematic telling though. This helps either push or regress characters into their own minds, while feeding out the heavy of the movie, Count Orlok. With the obvious change in the world at the moment, a plague is clearly a trope that will be used in many films. Some might make it obnoxious, but for ‘Nosferatu’ (2024), it’s spot on. 

Like I said from the beginning, this is a rewatch of mine, and I have no regrets whatsoever. Is this Robert Eggers’s finest film? Not to me. However, it still has a lot to show, and because of that, it made it really easy to revisit. I did not find myself getting board on this rewatch, and I was just as mesmerized as the first time I saw the picture. I gained some more detail that I wanted on this rewatch, but I truly just got to absorb so much of the scenery. Once you realize how faithful the story points are in this picture to the original 1922 film, you can lean back and really witness honest to god masterful filmmaking. 

Now though I talk about ‘Nosferatu’ (2024) with such praise, that does not mean the film is not without fault. There are things to see in this movie that might not connect like others. Perhaps the tone of the feature is a bit slower for some of the contemporary audience members, or some might argue that the film is not “scary” like a traditional horror flick. To that I say, go watch another movie. This is a creative and thoughtful remake of a classic vampire film. The movie takes chances but does not dance outside the realm of what the director wants. ‘Nosferatu’ (2024) might not be everyone’s cup of tea, but it still is a worthy feature of horror. 

Robert Eggers strikes again with his telling of this classic horror icon. This just goes to show how powerful and consistent Eggers is as a filmmaker today, and it proves he is no longer the up and comer. I had plenty of fun on this rewatch of ‘Nosferatu’ (2024) and I picked apart so many neat details I didn’t see before. The cast is full of talented performers who deliver some of the stronger acts of the year. This is overall just a spectacular watch that might not connect with everyone, but truly delivers artistic fairness.

Robert Eggers’s ‘The Lighthouse’ (2019) is just mercury poisoning incarnate, and we the audience are the victims. With careful handed craftsmanship of Eggers, combined with the complex and bountiful art of acting from Willem Dafoe and Robert Pattinson, ‘The Lighthouse’ (2019) stands out as a high class indie film, that has more power behind it than most. Rich with ideas about a crumbled society, and the frailty of human emotions, this pictures really has more to say than most might think. Perhaps twenty years ago, one might have needed to really litigate the reason for loving a film like this, but today, films like ‘The Lighthouse’ (2019) really set a standard that proves horror can be art. 

Insanity in solitude is in the forefront of Robert Eggers’s second feature. The slow and daunting creep of delusion cloaks the entire script, and once everything comes to a head, there is no stopping what’s to come. Dafoe and Pattinson both help feed a narrative that only concludes in their minds and actions. Without the wide range of skill both men achieve, there would be no sincerity to what is being expressed. The insanity of the film and the complexity of the script help place the audience into the action of desolation, and provides an even more comprehensive viewing experience.

‘The Lighthouse’ (2019) is not a typical movie from the twenty first century. First of all, with an aspect ratio of 1.19:1, the film comes to the screen with almost a complete square image. On top of this, the isolation of practical effects might not be loud, but it is very apparent to the film. Being black and white is also untraditional no a days. With all of this, it’s clear what the outcome would have been, and was. An intriguing and thoughtful meditation on the craft of filmmaking, just as much as a reprehensible battle between two men. This is not the type of stuff a contemporaneous audience should be attracted to, but the fact they were gives me hope I’m the audiences around the world. 

Robert Pattinson and Willem Dafoe are not only the stars of ‘The Lighthouse’ (2019), but they pretty much are the only characters to grace the screen. Both actors, who are well seasoned in their own right, toss up a flourishing look at period piece insanity. Dafoe, who regrettably was not nominated for an academy award for this performance, magnificently dominates all on comers. This is not to say Pattinson does not hold his own in the picture. With a physical, and dramatic role, that is as times very comedic in nature, the actor proves his knowledge of the craft. There is always a lot of talk about these two men and their work on this film. And I promise you, it truly is something to see for yourself.  

‘The Lighthouse’ (2019) being Robert Eggers’s follow up feature to the masterful ‘The Witch’ (2015) meant he had a lot to prove. Was it a fluke or was he as great as he seemed? ‘The Lighthouse’ (2019) proved an honesty in Eggers like no other. This project really showed how there was detail on his mind that most of us could never even comprehend. The steadiness of the craft was proven to be beyond what most thought. His continuation into solitude proved itself once more here, and how it can also be cinematic when quiet. Eggers is one of the strongest contemporary directors around, and ‘The Lighthouse’ (2019) is a perfect example of that fact. 

‘The Lighthouse’ (2019) has made its way into true cult status fame. With its unique and clever tonalities, this movie gives the audience a look at something different. With two acting legends paired up on screen, to see what the outcome might be, there is only a feast of talent provided. This is clearly not a film for everyone, and it can really drag down certain audience members if they are not in the right state of mind. However, I implore anyone who hasn’t seen Robert Eggers’s ‘The Lighthouse’ (2019) to really do so. Even if horror isn’t your forte, I can promise this is a really work of craftsmanship.

Who says you need a massive budget to make a masterfully crafted film? Certainly not Robert Eggers. With his first feature film outing being as strong as ‘The Witch’ (2015), it was no doubt in anyone’s mind that this auteur would be destined for success. ‘The Witch’ (2015) is creative on all fronts. From the gloomy backdrop resting right outside a tree line forest to the skillful and technique driven acting of everyone in the picture, there is hardly a single miss in the film. Eggers provides some of the cleanest filmmaking in the A24 cannon, which really is saying a lot, and because of that, we have one of the most psychological brain fogs of a film to date, and it’s wonderful on every front. 

Perhaps the most stark take away from ‘The Witch’ (2015) is the complexity of which the actors portray their characters. Resolute yet reserved at times, each actor provides something beyond insight into the minds of who they are tasked to portray. Anya Taylor-Joy leads this small ensemble in what is an almost prolific task of skill. Ralph Ineson and Kate Dickie play the parents and deliver some of the most heart wrenching moments of the film when it comes to their grief and mourning. The take away I really found though was Harvey Scrimshaw in this performance that is just stunning for someone so young. Performative and Shakespearean in one scene, it’s a wonder to see how he will progress in the amals of cinematic history. 

Robert Eggers really struck a cord with a certain audience when he delivered one of the most transformative folk horror films of our life times. His craft with paper and a pencil is just as keen as his vision of staging and directing. Eggers is one of those directors whose vision is so clearly thought out, and what we see on screen is clearly the intent from the beginning. The way he molds a scene, whether it’s with silence or outrageous plunder, he always seems to manage a content ideal. Robert Eggers is definitely one of the strongest contemporaries working today, and his first film ‘The Witch’ (2015) is a clear sign what we were getting into. 

Folk horror is one of those genres that is not often worked with, and when it is, hardly ever perfected. It’s been done in movies like ‘The Wicker Man’ (1973) and ‘Midsommar’ (2019), but those are the exception, certainly not the rule. With all of that on the forefront, expectations always seem to be low but intrigue is often high. With a blend of satanic and gothic horror, bundled up with a broad nature setting, folk horror has a very clear standard. I found this genre to be a bit more prestigious than other forms of horror, and they provide more atmosphere tension than jump scare galore. That’s what makes movies like ‘The Watch’ (2015) plenty more artistic, and gives much more to a viewer than other films. 

Familial tension and societal banishment and shame are the deep rooted ideas that cover this entire feature. The struggle of innocence being taken, through personal decision, and foreign influence plays a drastic role as well. On top of this, the film can just be read as a family drama too. It’s quite funny to think about, but it works on that level. The period piece aspect of the entire movie helps restrict much of what could diminish the story, and that’s helps provide a lot more wavering insight between the family. This is not an easy or luxurious watch, but I think everyone knew that going in.

A24 truly had a strong kicker from the very beginning. Though not being hands on and producing this film themselves, the young movie studio proved that they were going to provide a fresh and artistic insight into the world of film. With this folk horror being a staple of what was to come, A24 proved a lot from the very beginning. Offering a chance to truly creative people, and giving them a budget to create something truly masterful. Creators like Robert Eggers, Ari Aster, and Ti West all were allowed to create such impactful and important films for a studio like this, and now we are all graced with movies that hold real merit in todays film culture. 

It’s no surprise how much I love Robert Eggers’s ‘The Witch’ (2015). This is the type of stuff that is just like candy to someone like me. Creative, thoughtful, and honest to the craft, this gothic folk horror film has always blown me away. With a deep seated sense of melancholy and dread in this film, there are other ideas that are always in okay. The story is sensitive yet impactful, and the craftsmanship is all around remarkable. If you haven’t not gotten around to seeing one of the greatest contemporary horror films, do yourself a favor, and enjoy this as soon as possible.

It’s not a great sign when you begin to see the start of an actors failing career, and you can just tell how the rest is going to go. Liam Neeson stars in this bastardization of the action genre and provides genuine promotional resistance against successive films, and what they could be. ‘Run All Night’ (2015) cannot even be argued in contemporary eyes as being a fun romp. Instead this is just a watered down action flick that promoted where the declining genre really sat at the time. Nothing in this feature provided anything that closely resembled an entertaining notion, and I know deep down inside the creators understood all of this. 

By this point in the 2010’s, the action genre was pretty close to dying. What was left of this heap of a corpse in genre presented little entertainment what so ever. ‘John Wick’ (2014) had just been released a year before and showed some insight in a renaissance for the genre. Then movies like ‘Run All Night’ (2015) jump out and show we really weren’t on the up and up. Quick paced action with edits that would frustrate even the most intentive of viewers riddled the film. Big stars helped sell the film, but proved their number was coming up. This is not adventurous in any way, and the foresight of a genre this popular was already looking to set a foot in the grave. 

Liam Neeson and Ed Harris hold up the majority of ‘Run All Night’ (2015) and it’s very clear where their careers were projected to be going. Neither actor really provided any kind of insight I strived to observe for this film, and it showed that money could persuade a lot of people to make bad projects. Joel Kinnaman simply was the most egregious of the whole cast, making a real argument for some people just should not act. None of this felt like an exercise worth while and it all just felt so flat. Disappointment isn’t even the right word to describe this feeling I have. Neeson and Harris were exactly as I expected, but Kinnaman went above and beyond on showing how acting can be made to look difficult.

I cannot say I found this film to be an enlightening meditation on the landscape of New York. Some pictures can really encapsulate the feeling of being in a massive city that has the fame of New York. Others are like this one that mat down the location for an easy film shoot. The exploration is nearly nonexistent for a movie that grounds itself on running all night through the city. Nothing feels lived in and the landscape truly feels like a movie rendering of a city. ‘Run All Night’ (2015) got a lot of misses, and the location is definitely one of its biggest. 

You have to try and appreciate movies like this. These are the equivalent to the 1970’s grindhouse films, but somehow less passionate and less interesting. Liam Neeson sells the movies, but I promise you, they are often a real choir to get through. ‘Run All Night’ (2015) might have some things for an audience member to enjoy, but I promise you, it is not strong enough to be remembered. This is the type of movie that won’t be talked about much ten years after its time. I cannot say I’m glad I saw ‘Run All Night’ (2015) but I can say I’m glad movies are a thing, just not this movie.

Who wanted this? What I mean is, clearly someone who had some form of production influence spent a week watching old film-noir movies and figured one needed to be made now. This is clearly trying way too much to be like the old Humphrey Bogart, Robert Ryan, and James Garner films, but it doesn’t click. First off, there is not a big audience for movies like this, and the audience that is out here for film-noir can see past all the crap, they want quality and dignity in the authentic nature of film-noir. This is obviously just a hammy and cranky shot at a genre that once ran Hollywood. Now it’s just silly and almost impossible to recreate. 

The neo-noir genre is a really funny one to see how it’s progressed. There are some really talented creators who have recreated the genre and invented new ideas from them. At the same time, there have been some really schlocky attempts from passion projects that has little to no weight on what the genre is actually trying to say. Back in the 1950’s, the genre flourished with classic romance, thrilling suspense, and jaw dropping crime sequences. Now, everything seems like a cheap imitation to the genre that once ran Hollywood. ‘Marlowe’ (2022) is such an apparent rip on this, it almost feels like a gimmick, which it is. This genre of film-noir is one of my absolute favorites, but it’s also a product of its time, and if it wants to continue today, let it be clean and original, for us at least.

Much like any film-noir flick, this movie has a full rose gallery of characters. I can honestly to god say they all feel like a college film student wrote each one. Each character has their own unique things, but it’s so unnatural to the reality of the film. Every person has almost something to prove while they fight against someone else in the film. It’s just a slew of clichés while still being played by memorable actors. I can’t really say any of this interested me, because once I understood the whole game, I fell out of care, and seemingly needed none of this schlock. 

Liam Neeson has really clicked into his own decisions when it comes to movie making. His intoxicating ideas only lead to soberingly horrible deliveries. He knows it, we know it, and the people paying him know it but they love it. ‘Marlowe’ (2022) was not made because someone thought it could win Oscar’s. ‘Marlowe’ (2022) was made because Liam Neeson needed money in some sense and it payed a bill. He can get physical in his roles which is more than most of his contemporaries, but that doesn’t mean he makes a great flick. His films are full of slow and jaunty action that really doesn’t convey anything but age. Somehow it still sells and we all eat it up when a new one comes out. That’s how I watched ‘Marlowe’ (2022)

I think the whole world could have done without this movie. Weirdly enough, it isn’t horrible enough to be memorable, but it isn’t good enough to be worthy of note. I am still wondering who wanted to make this, and how it got past so many processes. There is a really audience out there of people who want films like this, reminiscence of a greater time in cinema. However, that audience is full of scholars of the craft, and can really read past all of the fat that’s packed into these cheap rips. Unfortunately, those audience members are who movies like this are made for, while at the same time, they are the only ones who would get what’s on screen. They would also clearly see the cheapness of ‘Marlowe’ (2022), and that’s what it really is. Cheap, but easy to watch.

I’ll always love a trashy Liam Neeson action film, no matter how bad it truly is. One of his later ones is ‘In The Land Of Saints And Sinners’ (2023), and honestly, there have definitely been worse. Is the movie very clever in its rhetoric? absolutely not. Is the film tapping into a side of insight no other film could do before? You know that’s not true. Is ‘In The Land Of Saints And Sinners’ (2023) a fun Irish crime movie that has some decent scenery and silly concepts? Bingo. That’s all this is, and it knows it, and once the audience realizes this, it’ll be just a simple and fun run through and through. 

Comparative to Liam Neeson’s other shoot em up action flicks, ‘In The Land Of Saints And Sinners’ (2023) is up there as one of the better ones. Forrest me, it’s obviously because of the setting in Ireland. Shooting on location gives a great benefit to a movie like this. Though the whole picture isn’t going to be anything more than a fun romp, the location helps give it some more uniqueness. The beauty of the rolling hills really reflects onto the camera, and even though I would love to have seen more of the beauty in the landscape, I still appreciated what I got. I can’t complain though, this was much more appealing to me than a dirty city shot through an iPhone camera, so there is always a positive to that. 

The cast of this feature is honest to god one of the more impressive ones. Liam Neeson of course leads the cast, but the supporting characters kick it up as well. Ciarán Hinds, Jack Gleeson, and Colm Meaney all show up throughout the flick as well, and provide some fun Irish quips. The big one for me is Kerry Condon’s contributions. One of my more favorite contemporary actresses, o was truly surprised to see her involvement in the film. Funny enough, no one is particularly great in the movie, and a lot of the characters are calm but hammy. It’s still very nice to see all of these Irish born actors come together in a sweet notion to their homeland. 

The action in ‘In The Land Of Saints And Sinners’ (2023) is a bit more muted than a typical low stakes action film from today. Getting set in Ireland, there is not as much bombasity to the surroundings, so the film is a bit more toned down. The movement of the camera is a lot slower than you would have guessed, and the action seems more weathered than Neeson’s other works. Some people might actually find this more appealing and take a chance with this. I thought I worked out for the better, but that does not mean this is a soon to be cinematic classic. 

Overall, I had more fun with this Liam Neeson project than I did with a lot of his other stuff. ‘In The Land Of Saints And Sinners’ (2023) is much more toned down, and allows you to catch a break here and there. The setting helps promote a more unique film, but the story is still pretty formulaic. I would never go around telling everyone I know to go see this picture, because it’s absolutely not worth that type of credit. However, if you’re scrolling on a streaming service and can’t pick something, maybe this will be a nice and easy watch.

‘Triple Frontier’ (2019) is a style of action film that seems to be on the rise lately. An ensemble cast of classic movie stars, on a mission together. It’s a fun sub genre, and it’s been around for a very long time. However, it’s on the rise, and they are all relatively decent. ‘Triple Frontier’ (2019) is not the type of movie that you need to watch and expect a revival of ideals, it’s just a fun and simple movie that can keep your attention for a good duration of the run time. The star power helps carry a lot of the film, and the action is exactly what you’d expect. Nothing more, nothing less. 

Men on a mission movies have been made for decades now. They were really popularized in the 1960’s, but they were around even before then. A western or war time setting is the classic set up, but now we see it as crooks and robbers, or mercenaries too. There is a little pocket getting shoveled out right now of these types of movies, and it’s making a small entrance. I assume ‘The Expendables’ (2010) is a big catalyst for this. Connecting massive movie stars in a mission to blow up something. It’s fun, it’s epic, and it’s worth a watch on a lazy Friday. 

These types of action movies are a lot of fun. There is always something going on with tension building, then explosive and bombastic firing. There is a big reliance on CGI for movies like this, but for the most part, it looks pretty good. With a story like this, it’s pretty tough to sell all practical effects. The script does lead to a wide landscape across the world, and brings a deliverance of other worldly characters. Our avatars are thrown right into a real battle, and once it starts, there are not many moments to catch our breath. ‘Triple Frontier’ (2019) does not have many philosophical ideas thrown around and there is little to no nuance at all. That’s the type of film you signed up for though, so at least it’s honest.  

With a cast like this holding up a film, there is no doubt the screen will deliver us something entertaining at the very least. With Oscar Isaac, Ben Affleck, Charlie Hunnam, Pedro Pascal, and Garrett Hedlund all leading the way, you know it’s set up for a cool film. Of course, each guy has their own set of skills that helps provide something for the mission. It’s cliche but works for a movie like this. The Hollywood star power definitely sold this movie to me, and I probably would not have watched this if it wasn’t for the leads. This isn’t the best acting in the world, but that’s not what I need for a cool mercenary movie.  

I definitely had a lot of fun with ‘Triple Frontier’ (2019). I didn’t gain much after watching this, and I know it won’t be the most memorable thing I’ll ever seen, but it was fun for sure. The cast helps carry a lot of the film, and with a few jarring twists, the movie keeps us on our toes the whole time. The action is consistent and the setting is right on point for a film like this. If you want to throw on something for a good time that won’t make you think too hard, ‘Triple Frontier’ (2019) is a good option.

I’m not going into a film like ‘Freaky Friday’ (2003) and expecting a renaissance of emotions to pour out upon the screen, and transform my world view into something completely new. It’s a good thing I wasn’t expecting that because I didn’t get it. This is just a fun little Disney movie about Linsey Lohan switching bodies with Jamie Lee Curtis. It’s a classic for people my age, and many look favorably on it. However, it’s not shy about what it is. It’s fun but not terribly complex. This is just one of those easy movies you can throw on in the background and forget you even saw it. However, you do have to appreciate what a legacy this has held onto. 

These live action Disney movies are not necessarily the type of things I get into. The loud and sometimes obnoxious comedy plays the whole scenery, while the acting is jaunty and bombastic. The ideas in the story are not very complex or deep, but why would they be? It’s a film mostly for children. This is first and foremost an entertainment piece, not an art project. Films like ‘Freaky Friday’ (2003) are meant to provoke children’s attention, so their parents can relax on the outskirts. I never expected something more complex from what I got, and the diluted style of filmmaking does the job it was asked to do. 

I feel bad for saying this, but ‘Freaky Friday’ (2003) might as well be an animated cartoon. The whole film is lifted onto a pedestal of light hearted comedy, that tries to deal with familial issues. However, the reach of what is trying to be told isn’t very well articulated, and feels a bit shallow. The whole point is “put yourself in my shoes” between a mother and daughter, then them trying to create the tension each one has to go through. It’s really not as complex at it could be if the movie was made outside of a Disney hold, but that’s all it’s trying to be. Simple and fun.

I must admit, one thing I admired about this film was the scale of acting both Lindsay Lohan and Jamie Lee Curtis provided. Of course you have to hone it into the context of what kind of movie this is, but it’s still worth note. Curtis and Lohan both have to portray one another throughout the film, and it leads to both leads giving funny but at times tacky performances. Raunchy wouldn’t be the right term to describe this, but it dances around it for sure. Together they connect in a fun way, but I would argue it’s still a Disney style acting experience. Just because I enjoy the acting from both characters, does not mean I think it’s on the Mount Rushmore of performers. It’s definitely better than some though.

I guess I can’t think too much about ‘Freaky Friday’ (2003), because it doesn’t have much to say to me as an audience member. I never grew up with this movie on. I hardly ever watch Disney products, and even less so today. Plus, this is just not my type of comedy all around. So this really isn’t speaking to me. I love how the film is aging though. Many people still hold this in such high esteem comparatively to other movies at this time. This is fun but nothing more than an easy and nostalgic watch from the early two thousands.

I must say, I’m pretty impressed with this Bob Dylan biopic, and it sounds like a lot of other viewers are as well. James Mangold’s ‘A Complete Unknown’ (2024) really takes some opportunities to express a lavish and impactful time in American history, as one of the greatest song writers was making his way up. The film is no where near perfect, and there is a slew of slaws all over the film. However, this is still much better than it had any right to be. There is some honesty and heart in this film, and the film portrays the characters in but more of a grey light than we might imagined. Clearly this film is going around the awards circuits, and it’s connecting a lot with audience members, so I’m proud to see a movie like this make it as big as it is. 

Biopics tend to be the tough films for me to sit through, and there are not many that work. I like when a story that is about true events can hone into one moment instead of a lifetime. ‘A Complete Unknown’ (2024) falls a bit more into spanning years, which wasn’t my jam, but Mangold somehow made it work. Of course we got the typical reasoning for why each song has a meaning, and it explained a lot that maybe we didn’t need to know. However much of it still worked. I know there are some historical inaccuracies as well, which is another ailment a biopic can fall into, but again, it’s Hollywood. Sometimes you need to embellish. I was definitely more pleased with this biopic than I am with many others, and it made for a fun ride. 

Bob Dylan is one of the most famous and profound singer song writers of all time. His iconic voice and deeply spiritual lyrics can be recognizable by many generations. I was extremely happy to see this film and instantly hear all his original songs. Other films have famously lost the rights to much of the people’s music, but not ‘A Complete Unknown’ (2024). This turns the picture into more of a jukebox musical that really flows through itself neatly. Of course, having worked at a record store for the better half of a decade gave me a bit more insight into the music and characters, so I had a very fun time hearing the music I’ve always loved. 

one of my biggest take aways from ‘A Complete Unknown’ (2024) is how none of this film made its lead, Bob Dylan, out to be a prophet. Perhaps he has been idolized for the better part of sixty years, but this feature really took his personal down a few notches. The picture diminishes his profound writing to an extent, and showed how some of it came from spite rather than deep understanding of global issues. The film also makes Dylan out to be somewhat of a crude person when it came to his emotions. The lack of care towards others and the insistence of self worth really exploited a lot of the character here. I love Bob Dylan just as much as the next guy, which is why I appreciate this feature so much more. This is not an open and closed character, he is complex and a jerk more often than not, and it’s interesting to truly see. 

Timothée Chalamet is one of the most famous actors working today who is under the age of thirty. His charm and good looks help sell any film. Chalamet proved his skills in ‘Call Me By Your Name’ (2017), and only grew from there. Helming the sci-fi masterpieces that are ‘Dune’ (2021) and ‘Dune Part II’ (2024), Chalamet really is showing his stardom. ‘A Complete Unknown’ (2024) is a more intimate and interesting film that isn’t a loud or in your face. I can’t say I’ve always thought Timothée Chalamet was the most in-depth character actor, and sometimes his drowsy demeanor doesn’t sell it. However, when I look back at movies like ‘Lady Bird’ (2017) or ‘Beautiful Boy’ (2018), it’s clear how talented he truly is, much like in ‘A Complete Unknown’ (2024). 

I have found James Mangold to be one of those directors that I hardly ever speak about, but in retrospect, really enjoy. He’s made one of the coolest crime thrillers of the late 1990’s in ‘Cop Land’ (1997). He is the only person to direct an Indiana Jones film that wasn’t Steven Spielberg. Mangold also iconically brought Johnny Cash alive on the screen in ‘Walk The Line’ (2005), plus so many more to mention. James Mangold seemingly is a director for the people, not the academy. His films are fun and interactive with the audience, while still being artistically enlightening. ‘A Complete Unknown’ (2024) is showing that stepping into the ladder half of his career, he’s still got the touch to make an entertaining and cool movie that has a lot of style and glamour. 

I really did find this to be a nice and pleasant film. I’m not in the crew of bashing all of it because of some inaccuracies it might have. I’m also not falling head over heels for the entire picture either. This is a nice movie that has some of the most iconic songs in history being played throughout, while also some great characters showing up right and left. The acting is very strong, but more importantly, memorable. The production design works, and brings the whole film together. What I’m really trying to say is, this is just a fun and entertaining picture about one of the greats. I’m sure most viewers will have plenty of fun with the whole experience.

To this day, I am still absolutely mesmerized by the beauty John Michael McDonagh’s ‘Calvary’ (2014) brings to the screen. A small Irish investigative drama about a priest figuring out who wants to kill him is a pretty great synopsis. Throw in some of the most philosophical thought put to screen, and you have yourself one of the most intellectual films of the twenty first century. Brendan Gleeson gives a performance no one else could have a deeply tortured man who wants nothing more than to reconcile his relationships while being able to was away the past. This might not seem like a film everyone is looking for, and it’s not a light one to watch, but it is something that is absolutely worth anyone’s time, especially those who really need some great cinema in their lives. 

‘Calvary’ (2014) is a crusade for redemption upon a character named Father James, and it is apparent how difficult something like this truly is to obtain. Redemption of one’s self is often harder to find than in others, and we see such a struggle of hate and self doubt as this priest unravels what his inevitable end might be in this life. There is also the idea of who’s to blame for the actions of a group? And where does the guilt truly come into question? Often times with a battle like that, redemption has little to no placement. Getting to see the duality of what the main character wants for himself and what the side characters want for their own good is by far more interesting than a murder mystery. 

There is a deep seated sadness in the writing of ‘Calvary’ (2014), and the way such self loathing is portrayed is almost unbearable to watch. Father James lives in massive solitude to the world, and even when he gets the opportunity to see the world, it is not very kind to him in response. The complexity of how each character views like is overwhelming but deeply understood by Gleeson’s character. Gleeson can portray such anguish in so little words throughout this picture, and it really is a testament to his fortitude on the screen. 

‘Calvary’ (2014) is not only a philosophical film about loss and mourning. It’s also a film-noir style detective picture. Something you would see Robert Mitchum or Humphrey Bogart be in back in the 50’s, but with an Irish captivation. Father James is told he is going to get killed during a session of confession. The film then follows him adventuring around his little town, attempting to discover who would say such a thing. He goes through each character and is as audience members get to work with him and figure out who would attempt this. It’s more interactive than you might think, but that’s doesn’t take away from the sanctity of its philosophical implications.

John Michael McDonagh’s film is set on a small Irish town right on the coastline. There is a whole collection of characters who arise through out the picture, and some pretty memorable names at that. Kelly Reilly, Aidan Gillen, Chris O’Dowd, Dylan Moran, M. Emmet Walsh, and Domhnall Gleeson all make appearances. Due to the structure of this feature, we get to have a little time with each character, and explore what they bring or take away from the community. The investigative nature makes it more appropriate to see the backgrounds of these people, and it ties together the honesty of the Irish people, while still telling a great story.

Brendan Gleeson stars as Father James, I’m perhaps one of his greatest roles he has ever done. I don’t hear much about this performance, but I promise you it’s something else. Gleeson tends to play a pretty good character actor throughout the years, and always seems to tap into something deeper when he’s on screen. Roles like Ken from ‘In Bruges’ (2008), and Colm Doherty from ‘The Banshees Of Inisherin’ (2022) prove his range and dynamic skill. Father James is definitely up there as one of his all time best, if not my favorite for sure. Deeply compassionate, while still being reserved, Gleeson puts to screen a very complex character that is one of the best by far. 

Once again, I say how much I absolutely adore John Michael McDonagh’s ‘Calvary’ (2014), and the amount of insight it has given to my life. This is one of five or ten movies that always made me want to become a writer, and films like this have helped me structure my own stories around my own thoughts. Sometimes the best movies out there are not the easiest to sit through, and that’s true for this picture. However, I cannot stress enough how important this movie really is. If anyone is struggling to do some screen writing, or trying to understand their own thoughts, ‘Calvary’ (2014) is the one you need to watch and explore. I promise, you won’t regret it for a single second.

Who am I to ever say Marvel actors don’t extend their professional portfolio into interesting and impactful projects? If I say that, Sebastian Stan willfully proves me wrong. ‘A Different Man’ (2024) is really just an intriguing watch that provides a lot more insight into human emotional frailty. On top of this, it is a picture that dances with genres from scene to scene, keeping the audience helpfully engaged, while still weaving a curious story. This small budget project proves that ideas can make a movie instead of just money, and how a tight script with deep emotional attachments can actually reach a connecting arm to any audience member. Even if the afflictions presented on screen are not those of the audience members, the understanding of humanity can still connect to us emotionally.

A lot of movies deal with different styles of emotions like jealousy or mental corruption on their own level, but very few tap into the true meaning of it like ‘A Different Man’ (2024) does. The complexity of someone who goes through so much to change their appearance, just for them to strive at wanting it back, then mentally disgusting themselves over the jealousy they have for someone else with that appearance. That’s some deep thinking right there. I wasn’t too sure exactly what I was getting into when I put this film on, but the depth of what this film is trying to extract is mesmerizing. I appreciate a picture that makes me think and challenges me with my own emotions, and that’s is exactly what this film does. 

‘A Different Man’ (2024) is so kinetic when it comes to what kind of genre it wants to hold. Some might not completely connect with that style, but let me tell you, it’s bizarre in the best way. There are moments are very dark comedy points. Then it can flip on a dime and show a sequence of strange and grotesque horror, just to fall into a deeply philosophical dramatic rendering. It’s pretty amazing how the filmmakers keep the pace going with the changing of genres like this. Not a moment is spared and every second is used for a purpose. Something like this can go very wrong at times, but when it works, it really helps a film gain bigger understanding.

Sebastian Stan stars in what I would say is the more inspiring role from his two films here, and it really shows of his skills. The waves of emotions Stan has to portray, with and without a full prosthetic face of makeup on is awe inspiring. This is definitely the better of his roles compared to ‘The Appearance’ (2024), but both really just showed off his range. Sebastian Stan also acts alongside Adam Pearson, a gentleman who has the affliction portrayed in the film. Pearson is very memorable in this film as a wise cracking and sharp opponent to Stan’s character. Both gentlemen manage to share plenty of insight in their experiences on screen, and lead to a wonderfully acted picture. 

‘A Different Man’ (2024) really is a project that makes you think very differently about all types of humans emotions. That is the whole point of the film, and it delves into the ugly sides of jealousy and hatred that most of us shy away from. This movie is dynamic and continuous throughout, while always providing a fair amount of commentary so the audience can still follow. Nothing is spoon fed, but the acting is often times done on a lower octave. I was stunned at how much I connected with this film. All the actors did a remarkable job, and I found so much to learn from the whole film. I hope this doesn’t get lost to time, because it is a wonder for sure.

Oh what the hell, I’ll ask. What in the world was this? If you want to talk about a provocative and problematic film of 2024, look no further than ‘The Apprentice’ (2024). Love or hate Trump, it doesn’t matter, this is just so very strange. This is not a political movie but it is a political statement that had its release date very specific to the United States election. I’m more or less just confused on everything about this film, and how something like this really even happened when it did. That being said, Sebastian Stan does put in a performance that will be very memorable for years to come. Perhaps this is the strongest take away from the film, but that doesn’t say much when the picture as a whole provides something of so little merit but such massive consequence. 

My views on this film do not reflect or indicate my position on world politics one bit, and I would argue the same points of the roles were reversed. I am still just trying to wrap my head around how a movie about a contemporary presidential candidate can be released so soon before an election. Is that not a morally grey area for media like this? Perhaps I’m wrong and I don’t understand the true context of how a decision like that is made, that could absolutely be the case. I was just more flabbergasted by all of this. 

Biographical films about large scale people has never been my cup of tea. Typically I cannot stand having to sit through two hours of one persons story being told, and seeing what happened when they were young and that’s what molded them. It’s a structure of film I just don’t mesh with. Often the stories are a bit too topiaric for me. ‘The Apprentice’ (2024) has a good portion of that in it, but it also breaks some of the mold. The groovy montage style of storytelling helps pace the feature a bit quicker, but at the end of the day, the same points still hit. If these are the types of movies you get along with, more power to you, maybe you’ll find some more things worth while in this then. 

Sebastian Stan has had one hell of a year. Him stepping out of the Marvel and Disney mold has given him the chance to try on new projects. Like or hate ‘The Apprentice’ (2024), it’s definitely new from his previous work. ‘A Different Man’ (2024) is also a great look at his skill with acting, and he manages to provide more insight into fragile minds. Stan playing Donald Trump was a questionable choice for sure, but once he really got going into the film, it was clear that he had some real chops to do a role like this. It’s tough playing someone who is so famously documented, especially in the same moment of history. However, Sebastian Stan really pulled out a great performance for ‘The Apprentice’ (2024)

So say what you will about ‘The Apprentice’ (2024) and the timing of it all, it’s clear this is one interesting movie. I will be curious to see how a film that is so unique to a time frame will hold up in a few decades. I appreciate plenty of aspects from this picture, and it has a lot of complex and noteworthy elements. It is also just an elephant in a room yelling at the top of its lungs. So I implore anyone to check this out and see what they think, I can tell you this though, this was made to be divisive, and divisive it is.

I figured Robert Eggers’s ‘Nosferatu’ (2024) would make society want to be baron for a good few months, but of course that’s not exactly what the reception is. I don’t need to comment on how a certain demographic of society is lusting over a decrepit vampire, but just know that’s out there. I will say though, Eggers is one hell of a filmmaker, and his recreation of the iconic film, ‘Nosferatu’ (1922) is evident of his class and skill in the filmmaking world. This gothic horror film about real estate, plagues, and vampires is not only atmospheric, but artistic as well. Well structured, and all around fun, Eggers delivers once again a phenomenal film into the world of horror cinema. 

Gothic horror has been around almost as long as moving pictures have. Previously mentioned, ‘Nosferatu’ (1922) is one of the original pioneers of this genre. More films down the line would also tackle this genre, such as the famed ‘Dracula’ (1931). The darker and more melancholic tones paint the scenery. Darker shades cover the screen to leave a bit more visuals obscured. For a vampire movie, this is the only style of genre that should be used. It’s almost as if vampire flicks were invented to be a vessel for the gothic horror genre. There are a whole slew of films within this genre, and they span over a hundred years. So if you enjoy ‘Nosferatu’ (2024) and the tone it brings, there are plenty more to choose from. 

The stylish nature of this movie is not only in its genre. It’s backed by the lighting, and the production design of the entire film. The way this entire period piece looks is so specific to a time of renaissance in invitation. The structures around this film set home to a remarkable set where our characters explore with great virtue. The landscape shots, though matted, appraise such beauty from the earth. Every little detail inside the visuals and design of this movie is spot. It’s clear there was a very specific vision that was given to make this whole picture, and I can only imagine Robert Eggers is more than pleased with what this result is. 

Robert Eggers’s ‘Nosferatu’ (2024) is famously a remake of the classic story by Bram Stoker. There was also another remake by Werner Herzog, also called ‘Nosferatu’ (1979), which took its own tonality into play. There was even a satire that played on the filming of the original movie called ‘Shadow Of The Vampire’ (2000). Plus here and there we got to see a slew of variations of Count Orlok. Each interpretation of this character and this story are grounded pretty well to one singular story, while always making its own style. Eggers has made a great run at this classic vampire film, and soulfully entered it into the halls of cinema. Perhaps this might not be the best rendition of the story, but it definitely has a lot to say. 

What a cast. I mean, what a real ensemble. I don’t even know where to begin for this film. Lily-Rose Depp stars in the film, and though I didn’t connect with her in the film, she still managed to give an interesting and complex performance. Nicholas Hoult hammers out his great year of acting with his role as the timid and non-understanding co-lead. Bill Skarsgård plays the Count in more of the more transformative roles all year. Plus Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Willem Dafoe, Emma Corrin, Ralph Ineson, and Simon McBurney all support the cast well. Everyone is fabulous in the feature, and strangely brings a lot of humor to a somewhat grim picture. Much like ‘The Northman’ (2021), this film showed that Eggers has what it takes to bring together a strong ensemble, and produce movie magic. 

Robert Eggers is such a treat to our contemporary world of filmmakers. I would put him up on a pedestal now with other creators like Martin McDonagh and S. Craig Zahler. Eggers seemingly knows how to look at his visions of films, and find the right people to put it in lens. This is well written and funny, while also being acted like no one is watching, with craftsmanship all around the set. Now I would argue this could be one of my lesser favorite films from the director, which is such a testament to how incredible of a creator he is. I genuinely cannot wait to see what Robert Eggers has cooking next, and if ‘Nosferatu’ (2024) is any indication, we’re in for a real treat! 

The hype is real, and it seemingly is here to stay. Robert Eggers’s ‘Nosferatu’ (2024) is a powerful cinematic force that has proven to be one of the more complex and powerful films out of a year that struggled to gain too much footing. This is not the most perfect feature I have seen, and a few choices seemed a bit strange to me, but at the end of the day, this movie made me very pleased. There is a lot more humor in this picture than you might think, and the gothic tones are supportive as well. If you like any type of slower paced horror, this is one hundred percent for you.

‘Saturday Night’ (2024) is a contemporary Jason Reitman film that is interesting to say the least. I wouldn’t argue and say this is a poor film by any means, but I do have a lot of questions. First and foremost, why did we need a movie about Lorne Michaels? And why did we need to frame it as if he was a martyr for prime time television success? As I was watching ‘Saturday Night’ (2024) I was really trying to figure out a lot of this, and even though the picture is competently made, I still couldn’t understand the reasoning behind any of it. Maybe in another fifty years when SNL is one hundred, we can look at this and understand, but I truly can’t see it like that now.  

A movie like ‘Saturday Night’ (2024) is, by nature, a difficult task to pull off. We’re putting actors into roles of real people who were incredibly famous, and wildly documented. It’s the fine line these actors need to walk, where it’s not so unique it gives no merit to the real people, but it can’t be too much like the on screen personalities, because then it would feel too hammy. ‘Saturday Night’ (2024), for the most part, does a relatively good job at this. The casting is pretty strong, and the look alike’s are just close enough to be believable. Some moments of this I really enjoyed, while others I could have done without. At the end of the day though, this is an impressive ensemble put together on a scale like this. 

I guess the other big question for a movie like this is at what point does a film need to support accurate portrayals of these situations, and where can bending the line be okay? Frankly, this movie villainizes a studio that for no reason would have acted the way it did. That’s fine and good, if you need a villain, I get it. However, why do this with a group of people that are so famous? I was not there for the creation of this picture. I cannot attest to why this movie made he decision it did. What I can say is it’s pretty clear how much of a struggle a historian on this topic would have to view the film. I’m not one to nitpick historical inaccuracies in cinema, because that’s what movies need to do. I will nitpick things that completely tell a new story though. 

Should we ask who this film was made for? I assume it was made for the man himself, Lorne Michaels, but why? We’re subjected to almost an hour and fifty minutes of praise for a man who’s had a checkered time in the business. The movie makes him out to be some sort of superhero fighting against the villainous Studio, but what do I as a viewer gain from that? It’s not an artist piece if that’s what someone would argue. I wouldn’t say I found this to be all that funny either. the movie isn’t even bad enough to say it’s like watching a car wreck. This is just a nice middle of the road picture about something I don’t really need. If others find plenty of joy in it, by all means, watch away. 

The editing in ‘Saturday Night’ (2024) stood out to me more than a lot of the other aspects. This quick and choppy cutting between frames made for an anxiety riddled experience. I didn’t hate it either. There are few moments where the film allows the audience to catch their breath, and sometimes it doesn’t even work. The chaotic nature of the editing helps portray what craziness was going on in these peoples heads. Throughout the picture we’ll follow a character in conversation, just for another one to arise, seemingly out of no where. Then a quick cut back and forth while something else is occurring in the posterior of the frame. It’s a lot at once, but it makes for a more enjoyable and quick watch. 

I really didn’t dislike this feature like I’m making it sound. I thought it was fun but not particularly funny. I didn’t gain much insight about a topic I didn’t really have on my radar. However, ‘Saturday Night’ (2024) is not a bad movie by any means. It’s impressive to see so many actors put together in one space while each one attempts to give off their five minutes. The score helps accompany the tone as well, with a quick paced motion throughout. This is definitely a loud film that thinks it has more to say than it does. It’s worth a watch for sure, and I’m positive everyone will be able to find something they like out of it.

Ah yes, the annual rewatch of my favorite Christmas film of all time. Is this fact due to ‘Christmas Vacation’ (1989) being one of my father’s favorite films? Most definitely. Does that change anything about this still being one of the funniest films around? Absolutely not. ‘Christmas Vacation’ (1989) is such a treat, and getting the chance to watch it every year always gets me excited. Don’t let the age of this film throw you off either, it is still one of the most clever and hilarious films you can witness. 

‘Christmas Vacation’ (1989) is the third installment in the five film series, and I find it to be the most rewatchable for sure. All of these Vacation pictures have plenty in common, and if you like one of them, you’ll like all of them. There is a sensation of bumbling throughout, and a family that seems to just be holding on by a thread. The nonstop feel of the entire film just continues as the situations get worse and worse. I also love how each film seems to be their own, with different characters being made specific for each film. These pictures never get old, and I love each one in their own way. ‘Christmas Vacation’ (1989) is still by far the one I connect with the most. 

If you are not a fan of chaotic motion in your movies, I promise you, this is not for you. Now, it’s not on the levels of a film like ‘Good Time’ (2017) or ‘Uncut Gems’ (2019), but the level of anxiety is still high. The chaos of familial interaction is through the roof, and the lack of any kind of control from Clark only makes the audience white knuckle even more. Perhaps this might seem like a story that would span the entire United States, but in fact it is all relatively secluded to one house. We get to explore the makings of the home, while also seeing how the trapped nature in a place that is meant to be one’s solitude, only raises the tension even more. These movies know how to see chaos in the most fun ways possible, and it’s so good, you can’t pull your eyes away. 

How great is this cast? Obviously, Chevy Chase and Beverly D’Angelo reunite once again to raise children that are never consistent in age, but always a hoot to watch. This time around, Juliette Lewis and Johnny Galecki Star as the Griswold kids. Both are hilarious in their own ways, and I would definitely argue them to be the best of the variations. Randy Quaid makes an appearance as Cousin Eddie as well, and quickly proves the power of his icon. William Hickey, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Brian Doyle-Murray, Doris Roberts, E.G. Marshall, John Randolph, and Dianne Ladd all make fun and memorable appearances as well. For a film that is so packed, it’s easy to get lost with the characters, but that’s not the case here. We get so many funny individuals showing up, and each one providing some of the most iconic lines ever. 

I’ve already made plenty of commentary on why this is my favorite Christmas film, and why it’s my second favorite comedy of all time. There is a world out there that probably has not seen this truly iconic, and deeply hilarious picture about family anxiety. Sure, some might not want to watch a movie about that, and to you, I say get over and watch ‘Christmas Vacation’ (1989). John Hughes writes a perfect comedy with no fat and plenty of jokes. This ages very well, and as we all get older, the more we can connect with different characters. If you haven’t seen this, drop everything right now, it’s time.

Is this a Christmas movie or a Halloween film? Who gives a shit. It’s a fun movie, and that’s all you could ask for. This is a picture that’s well thought about, masterfully constructed, and brilliantly executed. Is this the best Christmas film? No. Is it the greatest Halloween feature? Definitely not. It’s still one hell of an animated picture, and nothing can take that away. The craftsmanship is superb, and with a combination of sleek stop motion and a renowned score, this film goes down as one of the all time classics.  

I have never considered myself one who fancies the art of animation. You can appreciate it, even while not connecting with it. When it comes to stop motion animation though, I’m all there. Claymation is also sometimes the term for this, and that’s is the style of ‘The Nightmare Before Christmas’ (1993). It’s especially talent filled when you pay attention to how much is going on, on the screen. There are very few moments of quiet and solitude, and even when there is, the scenery is bursting with visual dessert. The movement in the film is flawless, and really shows off much of the craft these films have. 

‘The Nightmare Before Christmas’ (1993) is bursting with now iconic characters that are spilt original to a story like this. For an animated film about bringing Christmas to a Halloween village, these characters actually have some depth to them. There are more thoughts and motivations that you might think, while still giving many of the characters fun and iconic trademarks. Jack Skellington is of course the classic lead of this film, and has become a massive icon since. The rest of the characters, like Sally, Dr. Finkelstein, The Mayor, and Oogie Boogie are all also fun and creative works. So few movies can have a truly iconic character come out of it, let alone close to a dozen, but this film obviously nails it on the head. 

Though not the director of ‘The Nightmare Before Christmas’ (1993), Tim Burton clearly has a lot of sway on the film. As the writer and creator of this story and characters, while also being one of the producers, it’s clear this film had a lot of roots from him. Burton’s passion for animation carried over into his love of filmmaking, and some might even say his work on that front is more impactful than his live action stuff. Being produced and created by Burton, there is a unique tonality that only his films have. A genuine sense of light hearted gothic horror. This being blended with the musical aspect as well just ties up the film as one perfect Tim Burton vision, and I can assure you, it still holds up today. 

Danny Elfman is one of the more symbolic composers of this generation, making some of the most notable scores for his films. Not limited to, but often paired up with Burton, Elfman has given the directors work a real sound that is true to both of them. The style of organ and orchestra blended together to make a darker but groovy sound is one of a kind. The score for ‘The Nightmare Before Christmas’ (1993) is no different. With sleek yet bombastic needle drops throughout, Elfman helps carry the story through his music. I would argue this is one of his more iconic themes as well, right next to ‘Batman’ (1989). Elfman and Burton make a team most of us would never guess could be so good, but it is, and we should all be thankful for their works. 

If I’m talking about how much I enjoy an animated feature, I have to look back and realize how good it must be. This is never the type of stuff that interested me, but I’d be darned if I said this classic Tim Burton picture wasn’t one of the best. This is a masterfully constructed film with some of the best visual effects in an animated feature. It’s no wonder an Academy Award nomination was made for it. The story is plenty of fun, and the characters are full and exciting. The run time won’t take up too much of a burden on the day either. This is fun to watch anytime of year really, but the holiday season is always perfect.

Now when I tell you I haven’t laughed harder in my life on my own while watching a film, I promise I’m not telling a lie. I’ve seen Martin McDonagh’s ‘In Bruges’ (2008) years ago, but I clearly didn’t understand the absolute romp it truly was. On this rewatch, I managed to grasp the unfathomable hilarity this whole script is. The duo of Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson is just a match made in heaven, and they would later become reunited for another McDonagh film, making them a great reductive team. This really is one of the funniest films I have seen in quite some time, even if it is a rewatch. Beyond deplorable, and crude beyond belief. This is the stuff that makes you want to say “they don’t make them like they used to”.

We all know what dark comedies are, but no one really can understand the sub genre until they watch ‘In Bruges’ (2008). This is the blackest comedy I have ever seen, and it is also just one of the funniest things to have witnessed. So many moments I found myself belting out laughter when I knew I wasn’t supposed to. The conclusion of this film left me with one of the funniest moments I have ever seen, and if you haven’t seen the picture, you would absolutely know what I’m talking about. This technique of dry Irish humor is perfect to a story like this, and really carries a consistent tone. If you can’t handle over the top offensive humor, this is definitely not a movie for you, but if you get some good kicks out of dark comedy, this is the good stuff for sure. 

On top of this being a hilarious romp about two assassins, it is also a deeply depressive film that handles the ideals of regret and tragedy in careful ways. We see a child death relatively early into the film in one jarring sequence. We watch attempted suicides, grief and misunderstanding. That is a whole lot of stuff packed into a buddy movie about assassins hiding out. This could have gone completely wrong in many ways, but somehow it truly works in the feature. Not many movies can divulge such emotions for the audience. This is just a testament to the acting on screen and the writing behind it. 

This is one of the more consistent scripts out there. Dealing with all these issues, the tone stays the same. Even with a kinetic feel, the lift up of genre and tone never seems to happen. The film does not rubber band back into an elastic form, but instead keeps trucking ahead. McDonagh proved early on in his career that his skill on paper was something to take notice of. This film would not have the staying power it has if it wasn’t for the brilliant writing behind it. I know you can say that about any good film, but this really is proof how important writing is. From the structure of the story to the wittiness of the dialogue, every aspect has to work on a level of perfection, then movies can be as good as ‘In Bruges’ (2008). 

Colin Farrell, Brendan Gleeson, and Ralph Fiennes. Say no more. Three actors who have cultivated cinema for the last thirty years. Farrell brings a sense of innocence to this picture, and a feeling of purity, even when his job is corrupt. Gleeson is the middle man who attempts to smooth everything over but complexly fights for and against both sides. Ralph Fiennes delivers one of the most iconic and explosive performances of all time as the boss of these two assassins. All three of these actors work together in such a hilarious sense to deliver one of the greatest trios on screen. This is much like ‘The Good The Bad And The Ugly’ (1966) in many senses, and it truly is perfection in acting, period.  

Martin McDonagh is perhaps the greatest contemporary director working. If not the greatest, certainly one of my all time favorites. His exclusivity from putting out enormous amounts of work leaves the audience wanting more of what he can create. McDonagh clearly has a knack for complex and impressive stories. This being one of his earliest works, it showed how funny yet intense he could be with his writing. The direction is spot on, and blends to a perfect combination of Star power and behind the camera magic. McDonagh’s first feature length film is one to love for sure, and even this many years later, it’s amazing to see how complex and funny it is. 

I have completely forgotten what made this movie work so well, and on this rewatch, I was enlightened. I need more movies just like this. Movies that star Brendan Gleeson, Colin Farrell, and Ralph Fiennes, and created by Martin McDonagh. This platoon of creators can clearly do no wrong, and their early work shows how creative they were, just like their later work. I could use plenty more films like this in my life. The humor is beyond belief, and truly feels like something more transgressive in retrospect. This probably wouldn’t fly today, which makes it so much more fun to watch now. I can’t express enough how spectacular this whole picture is, and everyone really needs to witness it to understand.

It took all but ten seconds for me to be hooked to this small Irish town capper, starring Brendan Gleeson and Don Cheadle. This is one hilarious feature, that brings the laughs just as much as it brings the heart pounding action. I wish I had gotten to this film so much earlier in my life, because I truly am more enlightened as a cinema viewer after seeing this. Obviously I speak facetiously, but I do really appreciate so much from this. On top of the humor and action, the entire film is set on the coastline of Ireland, what more could I ask for? ‘The Guard’ (2011) is a very humorous picture that delivers all a viewer wants in all the best ways. 

I continued to watch this hilarious capper, and at a point though, “man, this really seems like a Martin McDonagh film. It has the same style of dry Irish humor, with bleak and dark comedy riddling the rest of the script. Upon research, I realized why this style felt so familiar. ‘The Guard’ (2011) was written and directed by John Michael McDonagh, brother of Martin. Their styles are so similar, with humor that really is some of the funniest around. The lack of care in appropriateness is all over this story, and the limits are pushed in plenty of ways. Gleeson helps sell this as well, with his stark and unknowing humor. The McDonagh brothers are some of the best creators out there, and ‘The Guard’ (2011) helps the case. 

Brendan Gleeson and Don Cheedal costar in an unlikely partnership to the screen. These two play the typical buddy cop dynamic, with all of its own twists. Gleeson, an Irish native, builds up this massive persona as a sharp Irish officer, who comes off as a simple minded man more often than not. Cheadle plays the opposite to Gleeson, as the clearly intellectually superior FBI agent, but unable to capture the case he’s assigned to. The back and forth between both of these great actors is something I never knew I needed. If I could get fifteen more movies with these two together, I’d take it right away. The duality of this duo really helps sell a fun premise, and wouldn’t work without them. 

My love for the Irish culture, and the portrayal of the island in cinema is perhaps one of my viewing weaknesses. Much like a snowy landscape in a film, the island of Ireland automatically brings a film up multiple marks for me. The beautiful landscape always plays as a character along with the people, and no matter how bad a film is, it can really help. ‘The Guard’ (2011) is not one of those “bad” films set in Ireland, in fact, it’s the opposite, and it uses the green valleys of the land to help promote its honesty. There is always a sense of community on these small Irish towns, and the way it helps feed a crime case to be solved is all that much funnier. 

I definitely wish this was in my life ten years ago. I know if I had seen it much younger, I would have considered this to be one of my favorite movies. I’m still happy I’ve seen it now, and it really has so much fun packed in. This isn’t an over burdensome film, and it flys by pretty quickly. Though it’s not a flawless picture, the highs are still striving upwards. There is humor and action and raunchy copulating, plus some great sound mixing and cinematography. This isn’t just a fun buddy cop capper, it’s a well made and well throughout feature that holds up over ten years later.

Nineteen Sixty gave us two major films that ended up revolutionizing the horror genre. Alfred Hitchcock’s ‘Psycho’ (1960) and Michael Powell’s ‘Peeping Tom’ (1960). Both of these films created something new and inventive for a generation heading into the 1960’s. ‘Peeping Tom’ (1960) is a well articulated, while also wildly thrilling slasher film that proves are can be violent. I’m sure some viewers today might not connect with the slower pacing of a film from this period, but I promise you, this is one progressive work of art. Pushing the boundaries, and giving an audience a view that we would see replicated for years to come. 

Deplorable is perhaps one of the wisest words to describe ‘Peeping Tom’ (1960), and it’s all in the best sense. Now, much of this film does not hold up to how grotesque or brutal the contemporary film looks, but this still divides a line of when films were safe, and where is was going. We see a form a killing that wasn’t really shown much before, and I’m sure it was jarring to experience. The only film that comes to mind that would match this deplorable action would be ‘The Night Of The Hunter’ (1955), but even that wasn’t pushing this type of boundary. It’s cool to see what was considered too much back in the 1960’s, and what we watch now. 

‘Peeping Tom’ (1960) was revolutionary if there ever was a film to be described as that. I mentioned before this was a feature that pushed the limits of what could be shown on the screen. This and ‘Psycho’ (1960) essentially became the first slasher films as we know today. We see the movie through the eyes of not the police or detectives, but instead the killer himself. This seemingly wasn’t tried often, but it showed to be gripping storytelling. Now we see more media through the villains eyes today, and it tells for complex and riveting stories. You can thank movies like ‘Peeping Tom’ (1960) for that.

I watch ‘Peeping Tom’ (1960) and it reminds me of other pictures like ‘Blow Up’ (1966), where a story is told visually through the profound usage of color and motion. This is a craftsman film where every point on screen is done for a purpose. Obviously a story of someone who photographs for a living, it’s clear that this was going to be a masterful dinner plate of film. The remastered criterion copy I acquired has been remarkably well done, and it brings out all the work we might have missed before. So this is not just a film that revolutionized a genre of movies, it’s also just a well crafted and sharp picture that provides so much beauty for its audience.

This is one of those movies for the film classes out there. You can learn a lot about new generation filmmaking through this, and you can connect where directors like Brian De Palma and Martin Scorsese gained some bits of knowledge from. The storytelling is fun and exciting, while the stylistic nature of the films background is rooted in gorgeous paintings. The craftsmanship is just as on par with the screen writing, and it ties together to make a progressive and insightful slasher feature.

‘Joker: Folie à Deux’ (2024) is a significantly better film than what anyone else is saying. It is also still a significantly worse film than its predecessor, ‘Joker’ (2019). The movie is so different from the original material? So what? Don’t we want newer and more original concepts? I will say, I don’t like this movie because everyone hates it. I also don’t believe what Quinten Tarantino says when he thinks this is an F-U to the audience and critics. I really see this as a risk that was taken, and sure, there is a lack of passion, but it still has so much more to show. Of course this isn’t as good as ‘Joker’ (2019), but not much is. ’Joker: Folie à Deux’ (2024) is simply just a fun and unique continuation of a movie that got its praise. 

The elephant in the room about this picture is the essence of musical cut aways. Obviously the first film was a very grounded look into a man who struggled with my mental illnesses, and this feature is a bit more outlandish. With massive song and dance numbers that arise out of no where sometimes, it’s definitely a change. However, I would argue that it is expressing the exact same thing as the first film, just in a more unique way. Is this as elegant or thoughtful as its predecessor? Absolutely not, but it still has a notion to prove. Even with me not being a musical fan, I somehow appreciated this more than I thought. The context is key to this, and that’s what helped me realize where the artists were coming from. 

Now I might be a bit higher on this film than most people, but I still see the egregious flaws throughout. The shallow story does not really provide much for me, and honesty I found at a point this to be a pedestal to for Lady Gaga to show off her singing talent. When you actually look at the story though, the question is why? Why is this even being made? The story provides insight that was already eloquently expressed. What is this movie trying to say how? The media is bad for promoting a killer? Yeah, we’ve known that since the 70’s. By the end of ‘Joker: Folie à Deux’ (2024), I really wanted more from this, and it’s mainly because I knew I could get more from these creators. 

Back in 2019, Todd Philips and Joaquin Phoenix made one of the most masterful films of the last one hundred years. It was an in-depth art project that resonated with so many. Now, five years later, a sequel is produced, and the question that is answering itself is this. How much money did it take for these two men to come back and make a sequel. This is clearly not as passionate as the previous film, and it’s clear that money had a lot to do with it. Both Philips and Phoenix didn’t seem too pleased with the response or the context of it all, but honesty can often shine through in a moment like that. There were always rumors of why this needed to be made, and I think the mighty, mighty dollar has a lot to say about it. 

You can say what you want about ‘Joker: Folie à Deux’ (2024), but one thing is true, the set design is gorgeous. From the Arkham Asylum concrete, to the showy lights on the roof, it all just looks spectacular. Many of these sets call back to a time of Bob Fosse creating elaborate and massive musical designs, while also playing into the ugliness of the city landscape. The usage of shadow and light is carried over from the previous film, and it expresses the mental civil war that occurs in Arthur’s head. The cut aways to a more extravagant life are a resemblance of longing for a better resolution. The brightness of this film is no mistake, and truly helps visualize so much more that we need to understand. 

I promise I’m not trying to make this whole opinion a love fest for a film everyone hated. I was sure I would dislike this picture, but once the credits rolled, I couldn’t not help but be amazed by it. There is a lot to eat up in this feature, and if you wanted the same style and story as before, you will definitely hate this rendition of the clown Prince of Gotham. This is a seriously flawed picture though, and I think it all settles deep into the writing, but that’s does not mean this movie is worthless by any means. I’m curious to know if this film will have a revival down the line, and if so, will it be praised and loved. Or is it going to fade into obscurity like many other movies have?

Todd Philips’s ‘Joker’ (2019) was an absolute phenomenon, and for some reason was not an absolute failure. I adore this picture like so many others have as well. Being set in the universe of some form of Batman, this picture takes a deeper look at mental struggle, and societal disconnect towards a certain class. Five years later, it’s pretty clear what all of this was arguing, and on a rewatch, it doesn’t seem to be as profound as we might have thought. I’m not sure if the reputation of this film has dwindled a bit since its release, but it is true to say how important this picture is to the viewers of cinema and art. 

The longing for fame and wealth screams louder and louder throughout this picture, with an uproar of “what’s it all for?” By the end. We see our lead, Arthur Fleck strive to achieve so many avenues of fame, but inevitably falling into the infamous category instead of the famous one. Many people express such hatred for such an idea of fame, while others yearn for it. ‘Joker’ (2019) tells us how it can eat people up inside and give nothing in return. The idea of fame and wealth on a grade level is proven to be harmful in some cases. Even those already at the top don’t look down with favor at where they used to be. Moral corruption mixed with unbridled arrogance all blend together to make a movie with such impactful thoughts.

Mental illness is the most appropriate thing to discuss about ‘Joker’ (2019), being the most apparent aspect of the whole feature. We see Arthur afflicted with a tumultuous laughing illness that hinders his performance amongst the public. We also see him struggle with an obvious case of bipolar disorder, possible schizophrenia, and server depression. A lot of this is shown quietly through facial expressions, and it portrays a real struggle of the modern man. This isn’t an idea that you have to look too deeply into to find anymore, but it is still an interesting way to express so much in a comic film. 

The entirety of this movie has a cloak over it. A cloak of dark and dirty colors that mat the film on screen. There is a bleakness, and I cannot understate this enough, a real dirtiness to this entire feature. From each characters to the city streets, the grit and grime of it all is so forthcoming. Some might find this to not be the most visually pleasing, however it makes the whole world feel lived in. Isn’t that what we want from the movies? It makes everything feel real, and it draws us into the world we sit through. So it’s clear how the contrast of emotions and visuals all play together to combined a real world experience in the picture. 

There is an apparent connection with Todd Philips film ‘Joker’ (2019) and the works of acclaimed director, Martin Scorsese. Anyone can say they see the connection with ‘Taxi Driver’ (1976) and ‘King Of Comedy’ (1982), but that isn’t meaningful to the conversation. To understand ‘Joker’ (2019) is the understand why Martin Scorsese makes the films he makes. With some of Scorsese’s producers like David Webb and Richard Baratta joining the ‘Joker’ (2019) team, there was an obvious floatation of ideas hanging over the film. The deep seated male anger in society is rooted all over the film. The dirtiness of the city mirrors many shots of Scorsese’s classics. ‘Joker’ (2019) is a damn good movie but it’s always important to remember where the roots of it all come from, and to truly appreciate a man like Martin Scorsese.

I loved this movie very much upon release that I had gone and seen it multiple times in the theater hall. From the greatest year for cinema that I’ve gotten to live through, ‘Joker’ (2019) was such an inspirational part of it. There is plenty of depth and questioning about self characterization throughout, and the film truly makes you work and understand the meaning of it all. From the direction of Todd Philips to the complex and deeply emotional acting of Joaquin Phoenix, this is a well rounded feature with some great minds coming together. Not being a typical super hero or super villain movie made this a breath of fresh air, and today that sentiment still stands.

Clint Eastwood’s presumptively final directorial film is a small level court room thriller called ‘Juror #2’ (2024). Oh man does this movie work. This is one of those types of movies that could easily get missed on release, but later viewed and appreciated down the line. This is just a suspenseful courtroom thriller that has the audience just as invested as the characters. The cast is impressive, and each actor brings something new to the table. For a film by a 94 year old man, I must say bravo, because this is the good stuff. 

From the eyes of a contemporary audience, it might seem strange that a thriller takes place in a court room. I assure you, it’s a wild ride through and through. With a uniquely written script that delves into personal and professional issues of these characters, we get to learn so much, and invest plenty of opportunity into the film. As the story begins to unfold, we the audience learn new information as it arises in the story. We get to essentially play as a juror ourselves and determine whether or not these characters are guilty. Clint Eastwood has made not only a great suspenseful picture, but an interactive one as well. 

It’s hard to talk about ‘Juror #2’ (2024) and not discuss the films that came before and helped influence it. Like I said before, this has a unique script that I haven’t seen quite exactly like this, but there are still plenty of traditional tropes we know and love. The biggest influence on this film, with no surprise would be ‘12 Angry Men’ (1957). The intimate setting of a juror room is the mirroring of both films, and the deliberation is similar on purpose. Other court room thrillers play as inspiration as well, but there are none that are so clearly a bases for ‘Juror #2’ (2024). Though this picture delves plenty more outside the court room itself, it still has the classic storytelling style inside the Justice system halls.

Clint Eastwood is a legend through and through, and whether he’s mounted atop a horse in front of a camera, or he’s delivering quick and easy takes behind it, Eastwood always delivers quality work. Even in his ladder years, the man still produces quality films that at the very least get your mind going. His level of productivity is greater than most people seventy years younger. It is interesting to note that this could possibly be a final film from the legend (mentioned by him) and it doesn’t have the energy of a film picture. That just goes to show the dedication Eastwood has to just tell a story, and not worry about legacy. The legend himself can work as long as he wants, he’s earned it. 

The cast of this picture is one made up of some great contemporary artists. Some former Academy Award Winners, and some obvious future academy award winners. Nicholas Hoult, who was on a complete heater in 2024 stars as the young and charismatic lead. Toni Collette, J.K. Simmons, Kiefer Sutherland, Zoey Deutch, Leslie Bibb, Chris Messina, and Cedric Yarbrough all bring their own to the table. I will admit, a few of the characters might have felt a little weaker than some, and one character in particular didn’t feel needed at all. Either way, this cast does a great job to hold the tension in a small room, and they all sell the story through and through. 

I love these small court room style thrillers that always keep you guessing, especially when it has star power like this. ‘Juror #2’ (2024) really works on a lot of levels, and provides plenty of fun for the audience. The fact that this film is so interactive with us makes for an even more enjoyable screening. The legendary Clint Eastwood proves he still has it at almost one hundred years old, and though he’s mentioned this could be his last, it’s still a fun and suspenseful film. Even though this might seem like a silly film to get behind because it seems like a dated concept, I assure anyone who’s thinking about watching it, do yourself a favor and pop it on.

What a sneaky feature ‘The Order’ (2024) was this last year. Whoa. Now you want to talk about an intelligent film that’s also intense and exciting all at once, look no further. Here is an example of a 1970’s styled film with the thrill of a cat and mouse style chase, all packed together with some get historical context. Jude Law leads this film in what is hands down his coolest role. Nicholas Hoult also leads the film with some stark acting as well. All in all, this is just one sleek and cool feature. It didn’t cheat me on anything from what I saw in the trailer, and I left the theater as happy as a clam. This is the gritty and mature type of cinema that makes me more of a fan than a critic, and I absolutely love it. 

The Importance of familial relationships played a much bigger part in the meaning of the whole film than o expected. We see a variety of families throughout the film, whether it’s platonic or spiritual, or sexual, all of these are impacted in the story. The audience gets to look at the intimacy of each family, and understand how it drives each character. Whether it’s Husk’s family refusing to deport out to Washington to live with him, and the turmoil it brings him, or the two passionate loves Mathews has to balance out and support. Even the smaller characters have their lives rooted in a traditional family, and it provides the context for a film about passionate people committing passionate acts. 

One of my biggest take aways from ‘The Order’ (2024) was the stylistic tone is has, and the comparative it makes to the gritty and rough films of the 1970’s. This is just a cat and mouse chase type of film, exactly like something we would have seen fifty years ago. The back and forth of law enforcement and the crooks bring back memories of films like ‘Vanishing Point’ (1971) or ‘Dirty Mary Crazy Larry’ (1974). ‘The Sugarland Express’ (1974) and ‘Smokey And The Bandit’ (1977) also ring throughout the picture, even if it is a different tone. There is still that grindhouse style of grit to ‘The Order’ (2024) that most films don’t seem to hit today. So besides this just being riveting, it is also a great call to a time of even better cinema. 

There are two faces of this picture while you watch through it. There is the brutal and intense action sequences, that burn long and bring the blood pressure up. There are also the tender and calming moments that ground the characters in reality. Now I understand, it’s a bit odd to make one of the leads in this film a family man who is providing for his child and wife, while also spreading deep seeded and disgusting rhetoric about race wars. However, that type of duality in a character is the type of thing we don’t see anymore. We aren’t meant to sympathize with Mathews, we’re just meant to see why he justifies his actions in his own head. The tender and the intense meld together perfectly to sell this story of complex people. 

I will ashamedly say, I have never been in the Jude Law betting pool. I have not connected with his on screen performances in the past, though I could always see the talent he brought. I can now say, I am an honest to god believer in the man’s skill and talent. The role of Terry Husk is to be an unstoppable loaded gun against a growing force. Determination is played to be one of the most important aspects of the character, and Law nails it. With his aging really coming out in the film, his drooped mustache and glazed eyes, his glaring jowls, and his determination to smoke as many cigarettes as humanly possible, I must say, Jude Law has proven his wealth in the art of cool. I will now forever be a believer in what this man can achieve as a badass character on the screen. 

Taking place in Washington state, this film absorbs all of the surroundings that are given to it. The breathtaking mountain sides, the flourished forests and the quaint but lived in small town are all impactful to the audiences eye. Through this intense and crazy story, we get moments of calm while we see the beauty of nature. Whether it’s through a hunters scope, or a klan members hide away house, it’s clear the setting was meant for a reason. Being able to portray such an exciting action thriller, while also giving a beautiful back drop is never easy, but ‘The Order’ (2024) managed to deliver on all accounts. 

I am still at awe on how much I loved this picture. Is this the most masterfully crafted picture of the whole year? Definitely not. Is it the most fun? Probably not either, but I still found myself digging into my seat, and glueing my eyes to the screen for every second of this. I haven’t heard too much buzz about ‘The Order’ (2024), but I’m sure if more audiences got out to see this feature, they would understand. This is essentially everything I love about older cinema, only in a contemporary theater. This is fun and exciting, and I’m sure plenty of people will enjoy this tale of cops and robbers.

Out of a year that handled many different films from right to left, ‘Small Things Like These’ (2024) produced a quieter output, but an impactful one at that. This small town Irish film stars the previous Academy Award winner for best Actor, Cillian Murphy, in a role that couldn’t suit him better. ‘Small Things Like These’ (2024) is not an attempt to promote an embellishment of life or ideals, but instead, seeks out a questionable deconstruction of former thought. I could not stop thinking about this film since I’ve seen it, and it’s coming in as one of my favorites of the year. Profound and impactful is all I can say. 

This is a deeply expressive feature with such a quiet bark. The ideals of religious speculation and redemptive beliefs are all around. It’s not the most apparent from the beginning, however, once the film strikes a certain moment, it all comes together. The powerful movement of what child bearing in a small home does is also resonate throughout, and it shows struggle from a different side of a sword. ‘Small Things Like These’ (2024) is so wise in showing us what decisions have to be made and who they have to be made for. This is the type of feature that will make you question a lot, not just about yourself, but the world around us. 

Ireland is the backdrop of this entire film, and for good reason. There is a stillness to the island, a stillness that helps the characters and the audience contemplate while the story commences. We see the lay out of the entire village, and how our characters navigate the terrain. Though it might seem important for the laymen, I assure you, the point is that it’s not. The bleakness and the wetness of the entire scenery is not meant to be a character. It’s meant to feel cold and lonesome, much like the characters themselves. This film does not do Justice to the beauty of Ireland, but it does Justice for the struggle of the people, and the way the entire film looks through a lens helps convey every second of that. 

Cillian Murphy leads ‘Small Things Like These’ (2024) with such grace, and solitude, and he honestly makes the whole film. This is more of a study on his character than anything else. Murphy isn’t going to win any awards for a film like this, but at a point, he really should. In his own eyes, we see a sense of agony like no other. With very few words, Murphy conveys some of the most complex vision of thought. There is a stillness to this role, while also such intensity. If it wasn’t for Cillian Murphy, this film would not work at all. With the honesty of his Irish roots, his solitude weaves together a deeply struggled film, with immensely emotional ideas. 

For a film so small and beyond excluded from the outside world, I cannot express enough how impactful this truly is. ‘Small Things Like These’ (2024) fights with the audience to give answers on what is right and wrong, but it also works with us to provide a deeper evaluation of thought. The audience is not simplistic in the eyes of the director or writer, and it shows us what importance comes from self doubt and religious redemption. This is not going to be the most exciting film you’ll see, but it does have merat in the halls of complex and important cinema.

So I guess I’ll come out and say it, this wasn’t ideal. ‘Kraven The Hunter’ (2024) was not constructive in any sense or form. This film lacked any kind of cleverness, insight, or formulation that might be taken as semi coherent. The performances were rocky all around, and the action was headache inducing. The storyline was simplistic and lazy as well. There is so much packed into this movie that does not need to inevitably be put on screen, but sure enough, we still received it. I’m pretty sure my tickets were free for this film, but somehow I still feel like I should get some form of financial reimbursement for this abysmal experience.  

Kraven was always one of my favorite characters in the Spider-man comics when I was growing up. I knew Batman and Spider-Man both had the coolest line up of villains, and Kraven was one of my all time favorites. I can truly say, with great passion, and my purest honesty, I have no idea what I’m fat hell this version of Kraven is. Every singular aspect of this character is completely off, and I found it almost impossible to find a connection between this film and the comics. Aaron Taylor-Johnson is not a bad actor by any means. He is really dejecting in this though. The casting is all off, and I would have much rather seen an actor in an older and more rugged stage of life play this character. He is too clean and polished, and that’s leaves for such a cookie cutter character in a formulaic snoozefest.

Who allows three people to write a script? Which executive looked at a movie and said they needed more cooks in the kitchen? I promise you one cook would have been enough to ruin this film, but I guess the more the merrier. The dialogue is so poor in ‘Kraven The Hunter’ (2024) I was actually appalled that a big budget action movie sounded like this. This is the type of stuff that’s written free hand by an elementary school student. There is no weight or depth to the story. The complexity of motivations are so shallow, it’s actually laughable. And everything in between is just muddy and dumb. I cannot believe this is real. Or perhaps I’m just going senile. 

Movies like this give me such a headache when it comes to its choppy editing, and over the top action sequences. None of this action particularly looks good, and it provides nothing for this story. The coolest bit of intensity in this film was when Russell Crowe fire a pistol, and that had nothing to do with the point of this action. The CGI is also just a complete mess all around, and it makes for a wonky looking washboard film. If the writing and the acting were not offensive enough for you in this film, the craftsmanship, or lack there of will do the trick. 

I have spent many of days and many of nights trying to watch cinema from all around the world. I’ve seen a good share of mediocre films that might be too far gone when it comes to rescuing. When I tell you though, that ‘Kraven The Hunter’ (2024) is unsavable, I truly mean there is nothing that can be done. I have provided my time and my attention to the theater and this film. And in response I have revived little to no entertainment. My enthusiasm for cinema is dwindling on all fronts, and it is clear that our society is now crumbling because of the entry of this film into the world.

A Genre In Retrospect: The War Film - Part 8

Phil Karlson’s ‘Hell To Eternity’ (1960) is a look beyond the formulaic structure of cinematic war. ‘Hell To Eternity’ (1960) deconstructs the life and mindset of a soldier, while also fragmenting a war as the backdrop. This feature chronicles the life of Guy Gabaldon, played by Jeffrey Hunter, and it shows a lot more on his life than you might expect. The first hour dives deep into his history, much like ‘The Deer Hunter’ (1978) would do, but seemingly with less fence. Once the film gets moving though, we see some gorgeous cinematography, with some riveting action, all tied together with a careful and soulful script. These are the types of movies that don’t get remembered late in life, but they are the ones that are hidden gems with a lot to say. 

Through the years, there have been plenty of depictions of war in cinema. Whether it’s a propogandic style film that glorifies one side, or whether it’s attempting to depict the most horrific sides of it, there is always a lot to say. ‘Hell To Eternity’ (1960) digs into the side of war that has to explore prejudice and hatred. We see a development perspire throughout the film that shows off the indignity of war and what it can do. A deep hate red is birthed for something that once helped our lead character survive. Of course there is a sense of redemption by the ending, but there is still a complex dialogue about human decency throughout.

I don’t mind a slow burn film, and I can understand when a film needs to be like that to help set up early. However, sometimes, and even in these early sixties films, the footing is not always caught at the right time. Over an hour goes by in this film before anything meaningful towards a war time scenario happens. The build is understandable, and it portrayed why the decisions later are difficult ones, but at the same time, some trimming could have been useful. With a run time of two hours and eleven minutes, I find it hard to believe the creators couldn’t find something to trim on the editing floor. Sometimes more is not always better, and often times, cutting down an extensive intro can help save a movie as well. 

The strongest thing ‘Hell To Eternity’ (1960) has going in its favor is the impactful cinematography throughout. Burnett Guffey shoots the film in predominantly wide shots, managing to soak in the landscape of the entire location. Guffey would go and shoot other famous films like ‘Birdman Of Alcatraz’ (1962), ‘Bonnie And Clyde’ (1967), and ‘The Split’ (1968). So it’s a real treat that he managed to show off his wide lens skills before tightening up his scenery. The flourishing landscape plays into so many war films like this, and helps provide wide ranged battle sequences. ‘Hell To Eternity’ (1960) happens to be one of those films that really sets a precedent on the beauty of what war cinema can be. 

‘Hell To Eternity’ (1960) has not been a title that gets thrown around all the time, and I hardly ever hear it mentioned in conversation. However, I do implore fans of the genre of war time cinema to check this one out. Don’t go in expecting this to be as bombastic as ‘Saving Private Ryan’ (1998) or as insightful as ‘Born On The Fourth Of July’ (1989), but do go in trying to understand the tumultuous life of this character, and how it pertains not only to the history of war, but the history of America. I did enjoy ‘Hell To Eternity’ (1960) even if it wouldn’t be my first choice to throw on tomorrow.

A Genre In Retrospect: The War Film - Part 7

‘Gung Ho!’ (1943) or 'Gung Ho!': The Story of Carlson's Makin Island Raiders’ (1943) is such an interesting war film that lands in such a unique category of this genre. ‘Gung Ho!’ (1943) is a contemporary war film to the actual Second World War. There are not that many movies like this, but it finds itself in a place of high esteem at the time because of this. Also starring the legendary Randolph Scott, this quick and dirty war film does not linger one bit. We see the classic points of preparation and training, then off to war we go. I wasn’t in love with this film, but I did find it to be a fun little exercise in cinematic war, even if it doesn’t provide the most. ‘Gung Ho!’ (1943) is by far one of the more interesting films because of when it was made, but that does not necessarily mean it’ll carry over to a modern audience.

War films made during the Second World War are not unheard of, but hardly any are this blatantly propagandic. ‘Sands Of Iwo Jima’ (1942), ‘Destination Tokyo’ (1943), and ‘They Were Expendable’ (1945) were all films that came out during the war, and they were all made for their own patriotic reasons. ‘Gung Ho!’ (1943) is not shy in what it is trying to do. This is more of a recruit film than anything. If you’re a young man in 1943, and this film comes on and shows you the excitement of the war, and the camaraderie you can have, and the patriotism you will show, then I’m sure you’ll want to get up and go support the nation to. In modern eyes, it’s clearly an apparent way to tackle that issue, but back then, I’m sure it truly worked, even if it made for some silly cinema at times. 

I love that Ray Enright’s film is not one that lingers too long. This film does not attempt to be a grand scale epic war film like ‘All Quiet On The Western Front’ (1930) or ‘The Sands Of Iwo Jima’ (1942). Instead, ‘Gung Ho!’ (1943) lingers on nothing, and takes no time to to pontificate about the realities of war. We get half the movie with a training montage, then the ladder half is the battle in the pacific theater. Once the movie is over, the credits are done and the film is a wrap. There is no fat added on to this picture. It’s a bit of a breath of fresh air, even if you can tell how little complexity is in this story. That’s okay though, because the point was made, and it’s very clear when Randolph Scott looks down the barrel of the camera and essentially promotes and recruits men for the American Military. 

The legend of the classical westerns from the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s, Randolph Scott, steps into a different pair of boots as he leads this cast of proud and passionate soldiers. Scott portrays a lot of confidence in his roles, and ‘Gung Ho!’ Is no different. His calming features have always brought a sense of control to each movie, and for one that is chaotic like this, it really helps. I’m sure he was used with a purpose for this film, and I bet there was no trepidations on either side. Scott stands tall and resolute Ive the entire film, and seemingly has no idea to fish out orders. Once the physical productivity commences, he shows that he’s still got the juice for the action. Randolph Scott is a classic actor in his own right, and even during the war, he was a great voice to rally the troops.  

‘Gung Ho!’ (1943) is not the best war film out there, it’s not the best Randolph Scott film either. It is a fun movie to watch though, and seeing the banter of everyone is pretty enjoyable as well. The biggest issue is the lack of depth in the whole film. The casualties of war are all just washed away to make it seem not as drastic, and the scaring of anything is completely glossed over. If you’re a movie trying to promote joining the military, it’s clear why you wouldn’t want to show that, and that’s fine. I just find it to lack any kind of stakes or weight to it. This is still a nice and easy watch through with some pretty fun battle sequences, that I’m sure will still find a nice home on someone’s screen.

A Genre In Retrospect: The War Film - Part 6

Samuel Fuller’s ‘Merrill’s Marauder’s’ (1962) is another look into the eyes of the great directors vision of military combat. Fuller always seems to provide redemptive and impulsive stories about war, while still humanizing conflict on all fronts. This movie stands atop a list of pacific war films that don’t need assistance from the Atlantic theater. Jeff Chandler strides his way throughout this picture as a force of dedication, determination, and leadership, while also pairing together desperate men in the heat of battle. I hardly ever hear anyone talk about this Fuller classic, which is a shame, because it has a lot of strong elements going for it, that’ll make any war movie lover fall in love. 

If this film could get boiled down to one trait, and the meaning of it all, it would be the action of persistence. Persistence in war, persistence in delivery, and persistence in outcome. Jeff Chandler, who stars as Brigadier General Frank D. Merrill, gives off a level of persistence in this film like no other. His eagerness to win a war gives the audience motivation to stick with him. Though this also gives us complex insight of not really knowing what the outcomes will be, it still keeps us hooked. Fuller manages to really mail home the point of what drives these men, and it isn’t a complex idea one bit. The drive to win a war for the world is all that is needed to give men like this persistence and determination. 

For an early 1960’s war flick, this movie really has a few tough beats in it. There is something deeply disturbing scenery when you sit down and observe what is actually going on. There is a brutality places upon the characters, and it’s all the factors of war. The brutality does not only affect these characters physically, but mentally too. Seeing a solider get fed by some locals, because they are so pleased for the presence of the men, that they would give sup their only food is just utterly devastating. That scene is also very specific to this film, and the reaction from the solider is beyond important to share the thesis of this entire war film. Fuller knows what to do when he makes a film like this, and the emotional turmoil beats are just as important, and possibly more impactful than any loud and explosive action set piece. 

Samuel Fuller is a gem to this earth, and has provided some of the most clever and insightful films ever. Setting aside his film ‘Shark’ (1969), Fuller has given a real effort to provide us a look into his mind and what he experienced during his time in the war. ‘The Steel Helmet’ (1951), ‘Merrill’s Marauders’ (1962), and ‘The Big Red One’ (1980) all provide intellectual foresight about what the war was like. Fuller also messed around with other genres like Film-Noir, and classic westerns. His blending of tones helps paint a picture of intrigue, while he still provides an entertaining story. ‘Merrill’s Marauders’ (1962) is a great example of his craftsmanship, and proves his steady hand for the art of filmmaking.

I wish Samuel Fuller’s film, ‘Merrill’s Maurauder’s’ (1962) got more attention today, because it truly is a full film of great action and dedication to the craft of cinema. Fuller provides another adaptation of the war through his lens, and helps guide us through one of the most significant conflicts in human history. The structure and the storytelling are done so well, and help the audience get guided along. With a cast of full fledged actors, this whole movie is wrapped up nicely in a harrowing conclusion. I implore fans of this genre to take some time and see Samuel Fuller’s ‘Merrill’s Marauder’s’ (1962).

A Genre In Retrospect: The War Film - Part 5

Frank Sinatra’s one and only outing behind the directors chair leaves us with this intriguing film about war in the pacific theater. Also starring Sinatra, this movie explores an intimate and fascinating story of a Japanese Platoon and a United States Platoon stranded on the same small island in the Pacific. There is some solid action throughout the movie, with a great little stand off that sells most of the film. The back and forth always keeps the audience on their toes, and really helps hold this film up sixty years after its release. 

Pacific theater war films are the flip side to the typical World War II pictures we see. This is not your dad’s German invasion film. Instead, we see the United States involvement against the Japanese in the Pacific Ocean. This tends to be interesting to watch because it’s not the traditional style of World War II we see in cinema. Movies like ‘The Bridge On The River Kwai’ (1957) and ‘Hell In The Pacific’ (1968) tackle this frontier perfectly. The sand covered dunes of small islands, the bright beaming sun, and the crystal clear blue water are all characters to the landscape of these films, and really help to change the tonality of the scenery.

Island hopping was a technique done during the war, where different parties of solders could go from island to island and try and capture as much as they could. This is a perfect set up for a film like this. It secludes the battle from the war, and strangely enhances the stakes on a smaller scale. Seeing the film start with the Japanese attempt to escape the island, then watching the Americans inclusion on this small strip is just riveting. The tightness of the film makes for a really thrilling, high stakes battle film. Even with a concept later on where the two platoons must work together at a point, this film really plays out a whole slew of fun war time scenarios.  

Frank Sinatra is a legend of the music business, and one of the most famous people to ever have lived. His choice to stand behind the camera to direct a war film is a curious one for sure. Sinatra’s hand print on the world of Hollywood should not be underestimated though. This persona in acting, and his embellishment of film with his songs play so much into the history of movies. Seeing him get behind the camera and direct himself is just an interesting move, especially since he would not go on to direct another film. Nonetheless, he manages to succeed at making a riveting war film on a scale of such small magnitude.

I appreciated ‘None But The Brave’ (1965) a lot more than o ever thought I would, and I had a lot of fun with the whole movie. This isn’t the type of movie that will go remembered this many years later, but it still has its moments to love. Sinatra’s only directorial outing is a perfect film you would catch of TCM or any other cable streamer. The intimacy of the war time film makes for a unique and concurring technique of cinema. The battle sequences, and the setting of the film all play into each other to deliver a fun and exciting film that brings Frank Sinatra to full circle in the world of movies.

A Genre In Retrospect: The War Film - Part 4

Are you looking for a “war film” where Frank Sinatra wins an Academy Award for playing a drunkered? Well look no further, that’s what you get with ‘From Here To Eternity’ (1953). This eight time Academy Award winning film provides us a sense of hubris on the matter of stillness in the war time. I don’t think the aging is doing much favor for a film like this, and the fact that I thought this would be a bit different didn’t help either. There is still some aspects of the film to enjoy though, and I can understand why this was such a phenomenon back in the day. 

‘From Here To Eternity’ (1953) is not a traditional war flick with great scaled battle sequences. Instead, this is the type of film. That shows us the resting warriors or the Second World War. Settled on a navy base in 1941, this film follows the personal lives and decisions of American Naval men. The rabid love affairs that commence, the drunken escapades that unfold, and the morally righteous deductions made from lower classed privates. We don’t need to see massive attacks or battle sequences throughout the entire film to sell this as a war time movie. The build up is often the most satisfying for a film like this. 

There is a very famous shot in this film that is always plastered all over the cover the movie. The shot is one Burt Lancaster and Deborah Kerr kissing and making love on a Hawaiian beach as waves crash on top of their embrace. It’s truly one of the most iconic images, and really sells the film as a passion romantic love story. Of course that isn’t necessarily true, with it actually being a romantic affair instead. The romance in the film does play out in a pretty traditional sense though, and it plays into the secret lives of these characters. Kerr and Lancaster do have chemistry for sure, and it connects the two worlds perfectly behind a back drop of a naval base. 

Burt Lancaster and Deborah Kerr are not the only two who lead this film, they just help support it. Montgomery Cliff stars as the young private who is trying to do what’s right for himself, and obtains cruel punishment because of it. Some of the cast that also supports Cliff are, previously mentioned Frank Sinatra, Donna Reed, Philip Ober, Ernest Borgnine, Jack Warden, and Merle Travis. An extensive ensemble for sure, with plenty of awards handed out all around. This is a movie about actors, not as much about the war, and without a strong lineup like this, I’m sure most of the film would fall through. 

The 1954 Academy Awards absolutely adored ‘From Here To Eternity’ (1953), gifting it thirteen Oscar nominations, and eight of them being big wins. Those wins included, Supporting Actor, Supporting Actress, Director, Screenplay, Cinematography, Sound, Editing, and the coveted Best Picture award. This was clearly an Academy darling, and it showed out for plenty of awards. This was one impressive year as well for the Academy, with the other best picture nominees being, ‘Julius Caesar’ (1953), ‘The Robe’ (1953), ‘Roman Holiday’ (1953), and ‘Shane’ (1953). Now that’s a line up of films right there, and it just goes to show how loved ‘From Here To Eternity’ (1953) was, after beating all of those out. 

Fred Zimmermann’s ‘From Here To Eternity’ (1953) is a classic film about the struggle of what to do on a navy base. If you’re looking for a classic Robert Mitchum shoot em up style war film, this is not it. If you’re looking for a dramatic romance movie with plenty of star power, this is the one for you. I’m not really sure that this has aged the greatest though, and it drags a lot more than it should, but in retrospect, it is still a solid flick. The legacy of the cast and the awards it was gifted will go down in history as one of the more decorated films of all time. So try this film on for size, and see if you can connect with it like many audience members did back in the 1950’s.

Christopher Nolan’s ‘Interstellar’ (2014) cements cinematic beauty in the most profound ways. Getting the chance to rewatch this in IMAX was one of the biggest treats I could have, and it did not disappoint one bit. The intentionality of this film was made for the biggest screen possible. When I first saw ‘Interstellar’ (2014), I must not have been mature enough to truly understand how gorgeous this entire movie was. From the deeply beautiful relationship between Cooper and Murph, to the remarkable scale of set pieces, this entire picture of full of perfection. Any chance someone gets to see one of Nolan’s masterpieces on the big screen, they should take it, because it truly is an experience.

Often times it feels like IMAX was made for Christopher Nolan’s films. The surround sound and precise visuals makes for a perfect canvas for his specific and talented work. ‘Interstellar’ (2014) is a great example of how Nolan’s work needs to be seen this way. With massive set designs that fill the whole screen up, it truly is an awe inspiring experience. Not only are the large and grand sequences the ones that benefit from this format, but also the intimacy of the smaller works as well. Getting to see dust settle onto a bookshelf as light pierces though leaves little for the imagination to understand. I wouldn’t have had it any other way in seeing this remarkable feature. 

Christopher Nolan is known for pushing our expectations to the limit when it comes to celestial detail. Even if us as audience members fail to understand the science behind the craft, we are still made aware that Nolan understands it. Whether the scientific study is proven to be true, or if it’s clearly fictional, there are still the rules Nolan finds. Being able to express this on to a screen for a massive audience is a talent that very few have. Even in expositional sequences, there is a clear and apparent groundwork lied out. Once we see it unfold before us, only then is when we realize visionary excellence.

One thing that I completely forgot about in this picture was the guttural emotions sprawled all over the screen. This is the type of stuff that took me years of living in reality to actually understand its impact. The relationship between the two leads of the film is one of absolute heartbreak. Cooper, played by Matthew McConaughey, and Murph, played by Jessica Chastain, create a relationship that is evolutionary in the span of just under three hours. There were multiple instances when I found myself tearing up because of the overwhelming emotion on the screen. This entire movie is truly just about a tormenting amount of distance between a father and his only daughter. Seeing it through that lens made me realize why this is one of the greatest films of the last twenty five years.  

The visuals to ‘Interstellar’ (2014) are nothing short of mesmerizing. Having seen the craftsmanship from Nolan’s previous films, like ‘The Prestige’ (2006), ‘The Dark Knight’ (2008), and ‘Inception’ (2010), it was no surprise there would be such grace in execution. The effects on screen are remarkably gorgeous, and the scale it is done on is even more impressive. Famously, Nolan is known not to use CGI in his films, and I cannot attest for knowing whether or not that is true. However, what I will say is this, whether it’s force perspective like we know he’s done, or a trickery of the lighting, or perhaps a tad bit of computer help, it doesn’t matter, because this is simply one stunning film. 

Another aspect of Nolan’s ‘Interstellar’ (2014) that I took away as a masterclass was the abundance of score that swelled up the film. Hans Zimmer produced what would be one of the most iconic film scores to this day in ‘Interstellar’ (2014). Zimmer is no stranger to making iconic music in film, but he is also familiar with making some of the most emotional. The pairing of his orchestral salutation to the passionate scenery only enhances the emotional connection to the audience. The score humanizes the entire film for a generation of movie goers, and helps us understand intentionally in beauty. 

It has been a long time since I have seen this film, and perhaps I didn’t quite understand what it was all about the first time. On this rewatch, I found myself more emotionally invested than I ever thought I would be. Every little thing in this massive film is done for a purpose, and that purpose is to solidify Nolan’s vision for greatness. The visuals, the score, the acting, and every ounce of direction is done with resolve. Getting to have seen this on the biggest screen I could was also just such an experience that I wouldn’t trade for a thing. I truly adore ‘Interstellar’ (2014), and it helps cement Christopher Nolan as one of, if not the greatest contemporary filmmaker around.

I can appreciate the craftsmanship that goes into big budget musicals like this, i can also just say that this movie was not made for an audience member like me. I also think this film lacks so much in its ideals, that it almost feels like a twelve year old came up with the concept. The movie is relatively shallow and, the “heart” behind it, is so hollowed out, that it might as well be made of papier-mâché. The acting I found to be obnoxious and borderline atrocious at times, while the musical and dance numbers were just a polished pile of junk. Despite this not being a movie up my alley, I still think there is so much that is just wrong with the whole film. I’m frankly appalled how much love this has been getting, because I truly just don’t see it. 

‘Wicked’ (2024) clearly thinks it’s a film with deeper ideas about race relations and animal cruelty, and bullying. That’s great and all, but does it have to be so simplistic? I feel as if a one year old could piece that together in the matter of seconds. There is no complexity in the writing, and it tries to cover this fact up with showy dance sequences. Shallowness isn’t even close to the appropriate word to describe this blockbuster. This is just a mind numbingly simple film that hilariously plays itself off as a motivational powerhouse. I appreciate that audience members are connecting with this film, and how it brings back the nostalgia from the original on stage musical, but that doesn’t change a single fact about how parochial this entire film truly is. 

Another sin ‘Wicked’ (2024) commits is how safe it is. We already know the story of the wicked witch of the west from the original and massively superior film, ‘The Wizard Of Oz’ (1939). So why did anyone ever think we needed the back story to perhaps one of the most iconic villains in cinematic history? The stakes are so minimal in this film as well, and I feel like nothing is actually on the line. I couldn’t care less about how these characters are going to succeed, and I also don’t need to see every little thing spoon fed and explained to me. This truly feels like a movie that was made for a child, and frankly I couldn’t even phantom why an audience of adults are swooning over this. 

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, musicals are not my forte in cinema. I enjoy a few here and there, like ‘Cabaret’ (1972), and ‘La La Land’ (2016), but mostly I tend to get nothing out of them. ‘Wicked’ (2024) is a perfect example of every reason why I hate the genre. I find massive and bombastic dance numbers with dozens of polished and choreographed dancers, who are all smiling like actual idiots to be insufferable. I hate when a story is flowing just for it to be cut off by a magical number. I especially hate when a musical is made just as a platform to promote singers. This is all to my own fault, but I still find it insufferable, and ‘Wicked’ (2024) really checks all those boxes. 

I don’t know who is saying Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo are good in this film, but I promise you that’s far from the truth. Grande is playing up such a silly role that shows she is not an actor. While Erivo is playing into a performance that has no actual weight to it. Both actresses lack any kind of depth or finesse in their portrayals of the witches, and it’s heartbreaking to see everyone thinking this is talent. Even the more talented actors in this film like Jeff Goldblum and Michelle Yeoh are giving nothing to the screen. Everyone isn’t sleep walking through this, but instead they feel like they are making a children’s show for the Disney channel. It’s sad to see Academy nominees and winners put themselves through a film like this, it is not becoming of what these actors can provide. 

Well, I’m thoroughly depressed to see the response to this mindless charade we call a film. The fact that this is in talks of being a real contender at the Academy Awards is heartbreaking. I gained absolutely nothing from this film, and I really felt lost as a cinema lover. Of course, since I am a slave to the system, I will still be going to see the sequel as well, even though there is no chance I will be enlightened by then. All I can really say is, once I finished this movie, I had a sudden urge to smoke through every cigarette at the local smoke shop, and I’m sure it’ll make you want to as well. Even if you’re not a smoker but have thought about picking it up, this should clench it.

Netflix steps back into the ring of serial killer melodramas with Anna Kendrick’s directorial debut, ‘Woman Of The Hour’ (2024). I promise you that this is just as simplistic and mundane as half the other ones made. This film is too polished and contemporary, and lacks any kind of suspense for a movie that’s supposed to be a thriller. On top of all of this, the movie is a comparative to something we can see actual footage of, and for some reason, the choice to not line them up closer to the real footage is made. This is just the type of popcorn movie that others will throw on and enjoy for a quick Friday night movie, but that’s about all it is. 

Benign based on a true story, ‘Woman Of The Hour’ (2024) has a compelling narrative. That can only take you so far when it comes to craftsmanship. In simplistic terms, this was pretty idiotic. The build that was more reviling than it should have been, a conclusion that failed to deliver any kind of satisfaction, and a story that felt watered down and shelled out. Those are the biggest traits I could use to describe this movie. I don’t think this picture had many prospects of being better than it was, but it still didn’t impress. This is just the generic stuff, the kind of film I won’t remember when asked about in a few years. 

Serial killer movies have always been popular in the public eye. Criminals in films have been glorified for years and years. From the old James Cagney and Edward G. Robinson films, to the contemporary slashers, they have always been an exciting genre. Netflix has been a big proprietor of serial killer films as well, with movies like ‘Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile’ (2019), and shows like ‘Manhunter’, the platform taps into a real infatuation. ‘Woman Of The Hour’ (2024) is definitely one of the weaker entries for this sub-genre, but I know it’ll still have a small audience in the end.

Anna Kendrick steps behind the camera for the first time in her directorial debut, and oh is it a poor sight. Her direction in this film is loose and confusing to say the least. The directional approach of storytelling is lost, and the aesthetic is all that’s focused on. I appreciate the production design throughout the movie, and it fits well for what’s being shown, but that can only do so much. Kendrick is new to the craft of directing, but not to the world of movies. She has a long way to go, and hopefully can find some more interesting projects on that path. 

I can’t say I was disappointed with ‘Woman Of The Hour’ (2024) because I had little to no expectations in the first place. For a film trying to re-litigate L.A. in the 1970’s, this is just too clean and not authentic enough. The Netflix storytelling style falls right in line with the other films. There is almost nothing unique to this picture, and it’s an unfortunate debut for Anna Kendrick. I cannot foresee this movie ever gaining a big traction in the future, and I’m sure it’ll be lost to time. The only reason popularity struck it so hard was because of its streaming access. This is not a movie to burden yourself with too much, and frankly it’ll be easy to forget in a week.

A Genre In Retrospect: The War Film - Part 3

When talking about granular war epics, that explosively Star some of the greatest actors of all time, it’s hard for the first one that comes to mind not be ‘The Longest Day’ (1962). This is the ultimate war film from the early 1960’s. With just enough time passing from the actual war, we get a depiction of the most complex and surreal conflicts in human history. There is plenty of intensity in this depiction of the Normandy landing, while also having such a great cast help carry much of the film. These types of movies are iconic for a reason, and though I’m sure most would find this boring today, I assure you, it’s anything but that. 

There have been a whole slew of “men on a mission” films to have come out since the Second World War ended. Even to this day, the subgenre still flourishes. Some of the classics include ‘The Guns Of Navarone’ (1961), ‘The Dirty Dozen’ (1967), and ‘Where Eagles Dare’ (1968). These films scale up to an epic proportion with a group of typically high scale movie stars all coming together to help win a war. Sometimes but not always are they spy movies, but ‘The Longest Day’ (1962) is just a straight forward battle film. The D-Day landing is the back drop for this films mission, and how it’s played out on screen helps catapult the story forward into an epic telling of history.  

As war films have gone on, there is a building of intensity each director tries to add. Back in the 1960’s, this was the level that was highest reached. Now when we look back, we see, in a different rendering of the Normandy landing, Steven Spielberg’s ‘Saving Private Ryan’ (1998) puts this film to shame on its intensity. That does not discredit the scale and productivity of the action in this film. For the 1960’s, this is some heavy duty stuff, we just get spoiled with the contemporaneous style of action. ‘The Longest Day’ (1962) has a good number of intense moments, and really hammers home the idea of large scale battle sequences. 

Like many other World War II films, ‘The Longest Day’ (1962) is grounded in a historical event that the whole world saw. Of course, The Normandy landing is perhaps the most famous battle during the war, so there are plenty of tellings from it. This depiction spans the prep work from both the Americans and the Germans, and it delves into the battle itself. The fall out and everything in between are all looked at quite carefully. I cannot speak for the accuracy of the entire film, but I know most Hollywood movies need to embellish a bit to sell a good film. Whether the movie is accurate or not, it is still an entertaining voyage through one of the most impactful moments in human history. 

Whoa… now you want to talk about an “ensemble” cast? ‘The Longest Day’ (1962) puts every other ensemble to shame. For starters, John Wayne leads the pack of classical actors, but the follow ups are even more impressive. Robert Ryan, Richard Burton, Henry Fonda, Sean Connery, Robert Mitchum, Richard Beymer, Gert Fröbe, Jeffery Hunter, Curd Jürgens, Peter Lawford, Roddy McDowall, George Segal, Rod Steiger, Robert Wagner, and so many more. Half of these actors are just rangers in the background, but the cast is still massive. If the actors weren’t someone in 1962, they would become someone sooner or later. This is the definition of an ultimate ensemble, and all other films could only dream. 

‘The Longest Day’ (1962) has gone down as perhaps the most iconic war film ever out to screen. When watching it, you can absolutely understand why. The scale of the entire film is massive, and has an epic tone to the entire story. The ensemble cast is nonstop, and continues to grow as you watch. This historical picture just shows the resolution of the American military from a different time, and it explores the complex and detailed battles that were faced. This is an important film for many to watch, while also just being a fun war epic as well.

‘Love Liza’ (2002) is a traumatic look into the world of a man who faces one of the worst losses anyone could experience. This is a character study of someone who struggles to face reality, and attempts to negotiate with his common sense. Observing a character like this makes us realize how fragile people can be, and the tipping point for most is not far from the horizon. ‘Love Liza’ (2002) is an absolutely brutal and agonizing movie about loss, but it’s still a very interesting and complex movie to see and learn from. 

Mourning and loss are the two biggest ideas that are explored in ‘Love Liza’ (2002) and it’s to a deeper degree than a lot of films. The movie does not run longer than an hour and a half, but in that time, not a single minute is wasted. The filmmaker takes their time to show us how impacted our lead truly is, while still giving us so much context outside of his head. Revolving around suicide and familial relationships, it’s thin I’ve that already has started cracking. Loss is not the easiest thing to show in a film, and it’s often not the most fun either, but it can get pulled off very well if the creators understand the gravity of what can be shown. 

Fear of knowing or not knowing is another massive point in Todd Louiso’s film. We are centered around a wife who takes her own life, and her husband being too afraid to read the letter she left film. Whoa… now that’s some heavy stuff. I’m not going to pretend like that’s an easy topic to tackle. What I will mention though, is the interest in seeing Wilson (played by Hoffman) struggle to even get answers. Sometimes people don’t have it in them to figure out the reasoning, and they spiral. Even from help around them, something like this can really cause mental damage, and ‘Love Liza’ (2002) explores that point perfectly. 

Philip Seymour Hoffman portrays a character named Wilson, who faces a loss so insurmountable, it almost feels hopeless. Hoffman still manages to play a kinetic and revolving character throughout the film, with traits of humor, mourning, and addiction. Only having been thirty five in ‘Love Liza’ (2002), Hoffman still showed all the potential for being an explosive actor who would no doubt win Academy Gold in the future. His performance makes the movie, and the way he harnesses emotions makes every second of this film work. 

‘Love Liza’ (2002) comes in as a weirdly humorous film that expresses so much grief in such a short run time. I can’t help but laugh at some of the outlandish acts that Hoffman remarkably pulls off, but at the same time, the grueling understanding about the addiction picked up as well. ‘Love Liza’ (2002) deals with so many issues, and I was amazed to really see what this was all about. You hardly hear this film get mentioned, which is a shame, because it has some real heart behind it. I hope someday this movie will have its renaissance, because it truly deserves it.

Philip Seymour Hoffman and Laura Linney both star in this upsetting exploration into family struggle. ‘The Savages’ (2007) is a tough portrayal of emoted family connection, and we get to see the dynamics play out all over screen. There is a conviction in this movie that is honest to its small story. Tamara Jenkins’s ‘The Savages’ (2007) knows exactly what it needs to be. This is not a loud and booming film, and instead, it allows for a winter landscape to cloak the story into its own intimacy. I really appreciate domestic dramas like this, even when they are difficult I watch at times, it just shows the resolve of human nature. 

‘The Savages’ (2007) follows two sibling play writers who find themselves in their middle age. Both show a struggle for their work and their connection with others, while also expressing a deep compassion in their own way. There is a layer of contempt over the movie too, while we see both leads attempting to negotiate some of the hardest things in life, and that’s death. This movie is a mature look at how to reason with reality, while also being an obituary for youth. You can appreciate this movie when you’re any age, but I have a feeling that once I get older and closer to the age of these characters, I’ll be able to understand this movie so much deeper.

The backdrop of winter in this movie does not go unnoticed, and it’s there for a reason. Winter can be a harsh and cruel time for people. Physically punishing, and mentally crippling, the winter often feels like a hopeless mirage speeding towards up in the horizon. In cinema, the winter landscape leaves for a beautiful rendering. Unlike a movie like ‘The Great Silence’ (1968) or ‘The Shinning’ (1980), or ‘A Simple Plan’ (1998), ‘The Savages’ (2007) does not glorify the snow covered setting. At times if makes for a dirty look that drags around emotions like the sludge on the ground. I always appreciate a film with snow in it, and though ‘The Savages’ (2007) doesn’t hark on it for too long, it still makes a difference to the eye. 

Philip Seymour Hoffman and Laura Linney both portray broken people in ‘The Savages’ (2007) but both in their own way. Hoffman shows a sense of reserve throughout the film, while still attempting to have compassion for his father and sister. An underlying jealousy brews as well, but it all comes from essential love. Linney is the louder voice of the two, and though she is confused more often than not, she still strives to be more than just a parochial character. When both actors are paired together on screen, they make for such a complex rendition of domestic life, and you could ask for a better pairing. 

I would not say that Tamara Jenkins’s ‘The Savages’ (2007) is the most complexly made film out there, but it is one that deals with real ideas. Ideas about domestic turmoil, ideas about maturity and how no one is truly ready for what’s to come. This is a really in-depth movie that will make you think a lot about how to live your life. It’s not the most upbeat at times, but that just shows the skill of both leading actors. I won’t go as far as to say this is on the top of many of my lists, but it is still a solid little flick that is worth a watch.

Michel Gondry and Charlie Kaufman’s neo-classic film, ‘Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind’ (2004) is truly one for the ages that holds up on many rewatches. This is a trepidatious look into someone’s mind and the history they have with others around them, while also battling grief and regret. I can promise you that this is not the most accessible film for a general audience though, and for a common movie goer, this might be a bit much. But over the twenty years since it was released, a following has really latched onto this picture, and for good reason. This is a smart and talent filled movie that proves a lot of notions about relationships and cinema. 

‘Scenes From A Marriage’ (1974), ‘Revolutionary Road’ (2008), ‘Blue Valentine’ (2010), ‘Her’ (2013), and ‘Marriage Story’ (2019). There have been plenty, and I mean plenty of films about heart break, and the struggle of relationships falling apart. None have been quite like ‘Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind’ (2004) though. We get to see a different perspective of how some might attempt to move on from a relationship, even if the techie is other worldly. We get the classic hashing out between the leads, and we also get the classic romantic interlude from the start. However, this is still just a strangely different approach, with such an interesting outcome. i 

Though ‘Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind’ (2004) tends to fall into a list of people’s heart break cinema, it still is a truly darkly humorous movie. There are moments throughout where if you didn’t stop and think too hard about what was being shown, it would come off as very funny. Yet there is still a deeper meaning stirring underneath each joke. The humor is relatively dry, and you need to work at it sometimes to understand it, but that often just makes it even funnier. I appreciate the melding of both genres, and how Kaufman knows when and where to insert a good laugh. This is the tricky stuff to pull off that doesn’t always work, but in the hands of a master like Kaufman, it really shows on the screen.

Not only is ‘Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind’ (2004) a great dark comedy with deeply dramatic elements covering, it is also a contemporary sci-fi film. I never really understood how to play that out in this film, because this is not the type of sci-fi we all think about. There isn’t a bombastic laser show, or complex spaceships. Instead, the movie takes place in a contemporaneous suburban neighborhood, that might look similar to yours or mine. The art of making a new technology in this film is where the science fiction aspect comes to play. Being able to erase memories is the end goal, and the fact that we see how the technology is still new and it’s flawed and it doesn’t run perfectly, makes for it to be viewed in an even more real light. 

Jim Carrey stars across Kate Winslet in ‘Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind’ (2004) and both actors put in some of their greatest performances. Carrey, of course is known for his work all around the comedy field. His kinetic and physical comedy is one in a trillion. When he manages to tone it down for a dramatic role like this though, it shows how serious of an actor he really is. Winslet also performs something very different that none of us are used to seeing from here. This role is not her typical posh and regal character, but she still plays it to fantastic extent either way. Having these two very different actors come together to play roles they are not used to playing makes this film only so much better for its creativity and dynamic depth.

Charlie Kaufman will always stand as one of the most complex and deeply understanding screen writers of all time. His work on films like ‘Being John Malkovich’ (1999), ‘Adaptation’ (2002), ‘Synecdoche, New York’ (2008), and ‘I’m Thinking Of Ending Things’ (2020) only prove his craftsmanship. Whether Kaufman is writing his own original martial, adapting from a book, or even directing his writing himself, he manages to make all the words turn to gold. ‘Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind’ (2004) is by far one of his best works, even though all his other films you could say the same. The man understands dynamics most of us would never even dream of knowing. So Kaufman proves that sometimes a great writer is more important than a great director. 

I can understand if some audience members shy away from wanting to see a complex sci-fi film about erasing memories, but it’s clear to me that this movie really still is loved. Rightfully so, because this is just a gem of a film that has more to say about human frailty, while also delivering some fantastic acting. This is not the easiest film to gallivant witch, and knowing that Kaufman is behind the writing, it makes sense. However, I do promise that ‘Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind’ (2004) truly is as amazing as everyone says, and there is no doubt about that.

Films like ‘Shame’ (2011) are more impactful and much more detrimental to us as viewers than we might ever know. There is a rawness, a harshness, a sense of agonizing solitude we don’t know we need to understand. There is so much pain, and so much mourning packed into a film that runs for an hour and forty one minutes. This might seem like a perverted psycho sexual conflict amongst the character, but it’s truly just a film about addiction, and the strain it takes on one’s life. Glorification is not something Steve McQueen seeks to achieve, in fact, it’s a polar mirror to that. Sexual entrapment, and mental destruction is all that’s really shown. 

Relationships are the fundamental groundwork to set up this film, and even though much of it has to do with a disconnect of relationships, it’s still the most important aspect. We see the fragmented breakage between our lead, Brandon, and everyone around him. Whether is has to be with the connection of his sister that he wishes to avoid, or the connection he makes with a woman he pays to copulate with, there is clearly a barrier that is struggling to break. Brandon refuses connection and this drives a narrative of self loathing. It’s a difficult image to see, as he drowns himself deeper into a bottomless pit of emotionless forgetfulness. 

In connection with the relationships of the film, there is an underlying perspective also at play here. The idea of self doubt and what it can do to a traumatized mind. Fassbender plays into this role so perfectly with so few words. We see the self doubt grow in the back of his mind, even though we pick up with him at a point where it has already overcome his conscious. He manages to balance out a level of confidence towards others, while still sorrowing in his own right all at the same time. The lack of emotions almost say more than any burst of consequential actions. This is a really remarkable performance by one of our greatest contemporary actors, and the suffering in the eyes will tell you everything you need to know. 

We have seen a lot of films throughout the years that delve into sexual abuse. ‘Lipstick’ (1976), ‘I Spit On Your Grave’ (1978), ‘Bombshell’ (2019), and ‘She Said’ (2022) are just a few examples of movies that tackle this difficult topic. Not many films look inward though, and show an argument like ‘Shame’ (2011) does. This is not about sexual abuse towards others, it’s about sexual abuse towards one’s self. The lack of connection like mentioned before, only trails the abuse closer and closer towards the characters mindset. The consistency of hatred for love flows throughout this picture in such an apparent way, and delivers such a blow as we see our lead killing himself the only way he knows how, through the abuse of his own corruption.  

From a plebs understanding of Steve McQueen’s masterpiece, this would just appear to be “pornography”. I would strongly argue that there is nothing pornographic about this film. This is a movie about addiction, and the illness that can be thrusted towards you from these types of addictions. I can understand how others might read this in a certain way, and perhaps it might be too lewd of an execution for some, but the point still remains. McQueen strives to show the most honest and brutal aspects of human understanding, and addiction falls into such a massive part of that. His craft beyond this film is extensive, but his understanding of the mind crippling fact that is addiction, is truly only honed in on in ‘Shame’ (2011), and it is truly a masterful portrayal. 

Setting aside all the ideas and philosophies ‘Shame’ (2011) is successfully showing us, this is simply just a beautiful film to watch. Cinematographer, Sean Bobbitt shoots the entire landscape of New York City like I’ve never seen before. It doesn’t matter whether it’s the day time or night, raining or shine, the city looks remarkable through the lens. There is a gloom that comes with the blue and green color palette, and the tinting of the lens only enhances this. It’s easy to make a Scottish hillside look beautiful, but it’s a craft to light up a city and make it a character with the story, and that’s exactly what ‘Shame’ (2011) does. 

I understand the struggle many people will have sitting down and watching Steve McQueen’s ‘Shame’ (2011). I really do understand the trepidation. Unlike other provocative films, that exploit sex though, this one has a much deeper artistic meaning to it. The sexual Congress acted out on screen is not for erotic purpose, but instead to explore a traumatic side of life, and the struggle with addiction. This isn’t an easy movie to sit through, and I admit it isn’t one I should love. However, if you find yourself sitting in for it, you’ll get to see one of the most visceral dramatic depictions of addiction ever put to screen, while also seeing a cinematographers dream of a city. I truly do think ‘Shame’ (2011) is such an important film, and I know it’s impossible to make everyone understand.

Todd Solondz’s ‘Happiness’ (1998) finds itself in history as a remarkably unconventional film that intertwines multiple lives of perverts and common folk into one devastating existence. Uncomfortable most of the time, intriguing and sorrowing at others, this film does not allow the audience to escape a world of torment for so many of the characters. This is one disturbing film that honest to god should not be seen by most movie watchers, but it still stays there for the world to see. Perversion, sadness, frustration, and soul crushing solitude are all explored in this misanthropic judgment piece on humanity. 

The cast of ‘Happiness’ (1998) is one of a growing culture of actors at the time, that would go on to make some fantastic films in their lives. Not one actor leads the film in a traditional sense, but each character has a story to tell. Philip Seymour Hoffman, Dylan Baker, Jon Lovitz, Jane Adams, Ben Gazzara, and so many more make up the cast for the screen. With exercises of true acting sprawled all over the screen, it’s hard to find a dull moment with a lack of talent from these creators. Though the actions are despicable through and through, the performances are right on the money to deliver so great exposition, and agonizing emotions. 

Perversion is the main theme of ‘Happiness’ (1998) with no punches pulled at the end of it. Other films like ‘Psycho’ (1960), ‘Peeping Tom’ (1960), and ‘Shame’ (2011) all explore these ideas in their own right, but none like ‘Happiness’ (1998). We see the ugliest sides of humanity with the struggle of what some might call “addiction” while others might call deplorable behavior. Unfortunately nothing is hidden from the screen, and the waterfall effect of actions only flow harder and harder. Deep seated issues are exploited and it makes us face the inevitability of human frailty. Though this is a comedy at some points, the real issues like this really develop are hardened film with structural ideas. 

Though I enjoyed Todd Solondz’s film very much, I am hesitant to recommend this to anyone I know. Many people who know what this film is already understand the disturbing nature of what is provided. Like I said before, this film tackles traumatic episodes all centered around perversion and addiction. The way it was chosen to be expressed was through grueling and uncomfortable scenes that dictate exactly what the characters feel and show. By no means is this type of scenery enjoyable to see, but at a point it’s impossible to hide in a film like this. I felt that the film showed a lot of discomfort for a reason, and I can understand why some might not be able to handle it. I promise you it is not enjoyable, but the craft is made for a reason of expressionism.

The late 1990’s were a booming time for cinema. We got a whole slew from the former half of the decade of films that broke the mold for what we could see. Violence, action, and everything in between were presented. Many great films came from this period, and really pushed the envelope for what could be shown to us. By the end of the 1990’s, not much changed, and though we were going back to a formulaic style of storytelling, we still got films like ‘Happiness’ (1998). Uncensored, and unapologetic for what it needed to say. Sure, this isn’t as loud as some other films out there, but it still had a strong voice in pushing film auteurs into a direction of control in their work. 

Again, I don’t think I could recommend this movie to many people, and rightfully so. It is a strong statement on how society views deplorable action, and there is little that can be hidden from the audience. The cast faces a tall task of prorating some disturbing and disgusting characters, but at the end of the day, a lot of important facts are still shown. I appreciate the effort put in to deliver such a difficult film, but at the same time, it is still a challenge to watch, and truly cannot be considered a rewatchable for me.

Can dejected remorse be constructive to someone’s mindset of life? That’s the question that’s asked in Tony Kaye’s ‘Detachment’ (2011). This is, in simplest terms, a soul crushing look at loneliness in one’s eye. Adrian Brody delivers a performance like no other in this film, and provides insight on aspects of relationships and self worth like never seen before. On top of the stellar writing and the beautiful acting, the filmmaking in ‘Detachment’ (2011) is also something not to scoff at. This is such an impactful film that doesn’t get spoken about nearly enough, and should be witnessed by all. 

Sadness flourishes in this film like hardly any other films to date. Once I finished the run time of the movie, I definitely did not feel to be in the mood to socialize. The deep seated agony runs this entire story, and grips onto the audience almost as hard as it does to the characters. Avoidance is prominent for survival in the characters eyes, and because of that, even more sorrow comes to light. The struggle of balancing difficult aspects of life also play a big key into how the tonality is portrayed upon us. This is not the type of movie to watch if you don’t want to feel low, but it’s still gorgeous through and through. 

Loneliness is another trait of this picture that is very difficult to exercise in film. It’s clever to see how our lead, played by Adrian Brody avoids connection while still providing in his own right. The shifting of classes and the action of substitution are all played into a deeper and more agonizing reality of sadness and lonesome feeling. Playing loneliness into a film is difficult for sure. It’s a struggle to make work, just as much as it being a struggle to watch. ‘Detachment’ (2011) proves it can be done on an intimate level. The solitude spent with Brody’s character is found to be melancholic for sure, while also still being therapeutic on another level. I appreciate when a filmmaker has the effort to express these complex ideas, even when it’s a sad tone to go with. 

Existence and the meaning of life are explored throughout ‘Detachment’ (2011), and we get to see how some people truly lack a desire of it. The balance of struggle and the achievement of companionship are all held to such a high standard, that is almost feels meaningless without it. This is really just a movie about a man who wants nothing, has nothing, and strives to achieve very little with the talent he obtains. Now that’s a difficult idea to think about. Sometimes that’s just the way people work, and though deep down, there is always something sort of hope, we still see broken and lugubrious people act out in their own ways.

Academy Award winner, Adrian Brody delivers a performance in ‘Detachment’ (2011) that rivals some of the greatest cases of acting known to date. This is not a standoffish character, and the glorification of self worth is obsolete. The way Brody emotes with such grace is awe inspiring, especially because of how little dialogue is needed to show this. The minute facial expressions speak louder than any irregular outburst, though we get a bit of that throughout as well. There is a level of compassion seen behind the eyes of Adrian Brody that is one of a kind. I cannot express enough how impactful this role is for cinema, and it still holds my attention after seeing it.

For such a small film that centers around one primary character like this, there is still one wild ensemble cast inside of it. Adrian Brody obviously takes lead billing, but his back ups aren’t too shabby. Christina Hendricks, Marcia Gay Harden, Lucy Liu, James Caan, Blythe Danner, Tim Blake Nelson, William Petersen, and Bryan Cranston all play their own respective parts in the film. Each actor has a few moments to shine around Brody, and no one lacks the talent to do so. It’s funny to watch a movie so dejected like this but still be able to point out actors you love. It was an interesting choice for sure to see this, but it still worked nonetheless. 

‘Detachment’ (2011) finds itself in a final stage of films that are able to tap into emotions we don’t often reach. There is no stretching, nothing is long run, it’s just a deeply wholesome and very powerful picture that proves sorrow can be constructive. Art does not need to be bright colored and joyful all the time. In most cases, art comes from deep longing and sadness from one’s inner heart. That is exactly what ‘Detachment’ (2011) does. I cannot stress enough the craftsmanship throughout this small film. This does not need a long run time or an extensive budget to prove its point. All it needs is the passion of art and human understanding.

Here is a list of the full combination of the 70 From The 70’s lists I have been making. Each list is broken down on their own, but this is the whole collection.

• Get Carter
• Shaft
• Shaft's Big Score!
• Shaft in Africa
• The Longest Yard
• Hooper
• Executive Action
• Airport
• Ransom
• Cuba

...plus 160 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

• Oppenheimer
• The Banshees of Inisherin
• Killers of the Flower Moon
• The Brutalist
• Babylon
• The Tragedy of Macbeth
• The Iron Claw
• I'm Thinking of Ending Things
• The Zone of Interest
• Top Gun: Maverick

...plus 15 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

From the world of complex love, spaceships, sharks, and gangsters, the 1970’s provides so much entertainment and resolution into the history of cinema. There is plenty to see, and a lot to learn from. 

So here is yet another go around into the world of the 1970’s cinema.

• Love Story
• The Cat o' Nine Tails
• State of Siege
• Fantastic Planet
• From Beyond the Grave
• Shivers
• The Man Who Fell to Earth
• Kingdom of the Spiders
• Brass Target
• All That Jazz

...plus 20 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

Whether it’s a men on a mission flick, or an outrageous ensemble completing one battle, or even an intimate fight between opposing sides, the war film has been around as long as cinema has. There are so many options to choose from throughout the decades. This is what I watched.

• The Steel Helmet
• All Quiet on the Western Front
• The Longest Day
• From Here to Eternity
• None But the Brave
• Merrill's Marauders
• Gung Ho!
• Hell to Eternity

Seasonal depression is all that it says. A deep sorrow and sadness that only last for the seasons. Here are some films that help me through it.

• Another Woman
• At Eternity's Gate
• A Woman Under the Influence
• The Banshees of Inisherin
• Before Midnight
• Blue Valentine
• Broken
• Call Me by Your Name
• Calvary
• Detachment

...plus 30 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

The horror films from October 2024.

• The Serpent and the Rainbow
• Maniac
• Deadly Blessing
• Immaculate
• Happy Birthday to Me
• The Neon Demon
• The Witches of Eastwick
• Wrong Turn
• Wrong Turn 2: Dead End
• Wrong Turn 3: Left for Dead

...plus 35 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

The horror films from October 2023.

• Spiral: From the Book of Saw
• The Fly
• Demons
• Prophecy
• Vampyr
• Saw X
• The Visit
• Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey
• The Abyss
• The Changeling

...plus 65 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

The genre that truly made American cinema the way it was. Not only American cinema, but all around the world. The beauty and the ugly, and everything in between is what makes this the greatest genre in film. 

I will be watching through and reviewing all of the westerns I own on DVD, and enjoying every second.

• Horizon: An American Saga – Chapter 1
• Dances with Wolves
• Hour of the Gun
• Terror in a Texas Town
• I Shot Jesse James
• The Baron of Arizona
• Forty Guns
• Lawman
• Ulzana's Raid
• Posse

...plus 3 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

What a decade of film. We see the rise of so many different aspects of life. Cinema grew and bloomed, and we got the films from today, because of the films of the 1970’s. This is my list of favorite films (in order) from the 1970’s.

• Jaws
• Aguirre, the Wrath of God
• Sorcerer
• The Friends of Eddie Coyle
• The Killing of a Chinese Bookie
• Lady Snowblood
• Mikey and Nicky
• The Godfather
• Halloween
• Taxi Driver

...plus 60 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

The follow up list to my firs excursion into the world of 1970’s cinema. There are plenty of films to see from this impressive decade, and I plan to watch through as much as I can before I die.

Here are another 70 films from the 70’s.

• M*A*S*H
• A Bridge Too Far
• Midway
• The Duellists
• The Inglorious Bastards
• Go Tell the Spartans
• Valerie and Her Week of Wonders
• Cockfighter
• Figures in a Landscape
• Eaten Alive

...plus 60 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

The 1970’s was a time full of exploitation, distrust in the government, and complex ideas with home life. Cinema at the time resembled all of these things that was going on. 

We had some of the best films come out in this decade, with the decaying of the hayes code, we got the freedom and rise of many filmmakers. The rise of black cinema flourished at this time as well, creating the coolest films there are. 

This was a time for the movies to grow up and create new ground for what would come. This list is the first of a few that I will be exploring down this decade. These are some strong films that are just watches to understand cinema today.

• Get Carter
• Shaft
• Shaft's Big Score!
• Shaft in Africa
• The Longest Yard
• Hooper
• Executive Action
• Airport
• Ransom
• Cuba

...plus 60 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

Quentin Tarantino is the brightest mind of cinema, and he single handedly changed the course of films all together. His works stem across the whole world and resonates to thousands of people. 

Here is my ranking of his ten films.

• Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood
• Inglourious Basterds
• Django Unchained
• Kill Bill: Vol. 1
• Reservoir Dogs
• The Hateful Eight
• Pulp Fiction
• Jackie Brown
• Kill Bill: Vol. 2
• Death Proof

John Cassavetes is well known for his work on screen and behind the camera. He was a writer and director who made 11 feature films, all of which dove into the psychology of relationships and what makes them work or fail. Cassavetes is one of the most brilliant minds to ever work in cinema, and his partnership with his wife, Gena Rowlands only helped them grow as creators.

Here is my ranking of the John Cassavetes films I have seen.

(These first four films are essentially interchangeable with each other. Not many writer/ directors had such a strong run as this, so depending on the day, my opinion might change.)

• The Killing of a Chinese Bookie
• A Woman Under the Influence
• Opening Night
• Husbands
• Love Streams
• Faces
• Gloria
• Shadows
• Too Late Blues

• Bananas
• Sleeper
• A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy
• Love and Death
• Take the Money and Run
• Shadows and Fog
• Crimes and Misdemeanors
• Play It Again, Sam
• Broadway Danny Rose
• Radio Days

...plus 13 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.