Billy Wilder’s ‘Witness For The Prosecution’ (1957) is considered to be an absolute classic legal thriller. This is for good reason as I finally got to view the picture, and it definitely delivers some of the classic ideas for a movie of this genre. Having Wilder as the writer and director really does this picture justice. Giving a lead actor like Charles Laughton so much to do really helps the film as well. When it really comes down to it though, the movie is just a very intellectual project, that manages to over perform its expectations, while still being true to its own story. I knew I would connect with this feature, and it just proved that Wilder is always a strong creator. 

This was not the only legal thriller to be made on the screen in 1957, because ‘12 Angry Men’ (1957) managed to make an impact this year as well. The court room setting seemingly just fits a thrilling aspect of storytelling. I don’t know if someone watching this film has had to be in court, but no matter what the reason is, it’s jarring. ‘Witness For The Prosecution’ (1957) challenges itself to tackle this storytelling framework, and it makes the perspective of the film much more interesting. The compelling idea the film conveys really cements much of what makes legal thrillers so much. 

Billy Wilder is know for his sharply written scripts, and ‘Witness For The Prosecution’ (1957) is no different. I was amazed at how this film took on such a creative dynamic with what it’s grounded in. Wilder interprets the story with his touch, and he manages to blend some fantastic tricks into the script he writes. I wouldn’t argue for this picture being stronger than a script like ‘Sunset Boulevard’ (1950), but it is a seemingly extravagant portrayal of the court system. This doesn’t have the showy qualities of other movies at this time, but it’s honed in practice really delivers a fantastic film. 

The mystery within ‘Witness For The Prosecution’ (1957) enhances the stories intrigue as it goes on. Being an adaptation of an Agatha Christie project, there is no wonder mystery would play a factor in the film. We are left in the dark as to what the actual events that are on trial were, and we explore the story through an unbiased source. It becomes clear very quickly that the script is much smarter than it lets on. Some turns help build up this suspense to the court system thriller, and it becomes a fun ride from start to end. This is a different shade of mystery than a film like ‘Murder On The Orient Express’ (1974), but it’s effective nonetheless. 

The two leads of this film manage to convey different elements of mystery in their style of acting. Tyrone Power’s complexly gives off a shade of character that is as audience members struggle to trust. Charles Laughton gives into an audacious performance on the other side, with a comedic touch, plus a stern push ahead. Marlene Dietrich fills in much of the rest of the film’s performance, giving something of a dynamic feeling to her name. The cast does very well, and though some people might not know these names today, that doesn’t change the fact that they give some strong portrayals in ‘Witness For The Prosecution’ (1957). 

Billy Wilder is one of those men who realistically shaped cinema in such a specific way, and it’s hard to look past his talent. His big name movies did so much, and hold a firm light to how pictures are made today. His lesser known projects seemingly did wonders as well, and made a change as well. ‘Witness For The Prosecution’ (1957) gives detail into his film style, where humor is an element in almost any circumstance, but a well rounded mystery is also underneath the. His writing is honestly more important than his directing, but it just showcases his talent for many elements of filmmaking. 

It’s a great exercise to go and watch movies like Billy Wilder’s ‘Witness For The Prosecution’ (1957). You can learn about legal thrillers from that time, while also just enjoying the excitement of the project itself. This movie is not a lazy one by any means, and the energy that grows from the script makes this case so. There are an abundance of twists and turns to this film, and it’ll keep you on your toes for a good portion. You have to appreciate the style of mystery that’s involved, and it melds extremely well with the court room aspect as well. Ultimately this was always going to be a great viewing for me, and it seemingly does very well over the years since its release.

“I could have been a very good dad to you, Jess.”

Noah Baumbach’s ‘Jay Kelly’ (2025) is a film that explores the mental struggle of aging stardom. George Clooney takes on a role that many say is not too dissimilar from his reality as the title character. I was curious to jump into this picture, and I had some expectations for sure. Unfortunately, I was let down in some ways, but that’s doesn’t mean the movies doesn’t goes without merit. There is some solid work done in ‘Jay Kelly’ (2025), especially from the lead, but there is also some odd choices that didn’t land for me. I can safely say that there were significantly worse films this year, but there are also a number of other ones I would rewatch first. 

What feels nice about Noah Baumbach’s film is that this seems to be a touching tribute to the idea of George Clooney. Of course, it’s in the form of Jay Kelly, the actor. This film seeks to pay homage to one of the better movie stars of our time. One of those guys who seemingly still has that stardom as their aging. Clooney embodies that role here, and because of it, this comes off as a letter of affirmation towards his career. A sequence at the end of the picture solidifies his career and that sentiment in such a poignant way, in where it helps make the film feel more sentimental. 

‘Jay Kelly’ (2025) focuses in on the idea of stardom, and what it brings to one’s life. Not only does this pertain to the character Clooney plays, but those who are surrounding him. It comes off as this film wants its characters to be cynical and beaten down, and almost on the brink of giving up. Even when a character like Adam Sandler’s seems to have a bit more of a drive, it still appears distant. I assume that this is the way Baumbach intends stardom to feel like as everyone ages. It might seem off in a way, but it’s also a personal look into that world, and I’m sure Clooney delivered his own insight as well. 

Another major factor of the cynical aspect of this picture is the relationship Jay Kelly has with his family and his friends. The movie wants to pinpoint the idea that if you gain something like stardom, you’ll inevitably lose something, like family. There is a heartbreaking sequence with Clooney talking on the phone with his daughter. He expresses that he wanted this life, and he knew that it would be a sacrifice. Those words are spoke softly, but with a loud residence. That isn’t a point that is made to feel subtextual by any means, but it’s certainly clear and focused in the film. 

I ended up being touched by this film a lot more than I expected, but it really only rang true in the last fifteen to twenty minutes. This picture revs up as a tribute to the actor Jay Kelly, and it gives off more of a tribute to Clooney if anything. Outside of that element, there is also a compassion in character here, that actually felt very heartwarming in a way. The detail to the characters family life and friends was great to see explored, but the final sequence as I’ve mentioned brought this movie to a strong and emotional conclusion. That was what I wanted of this film, and even if it was in the final moments, it still was strong. 

What didn’t work for me in ‘Jay Kelly’ (2025) has a lot to do with the idea of what I think of Noah Baumbach. He’s made some great works over the years, and I’ve been touched by the films he’s crafted. So I had an expectation in my head of how strong this could really be, and unfortunately, there seemed to be something missing. Much of this stories run time felt formulaic, and unadventurous. It didn’t feel like a script written by the person who made ‘The Squid And The Whale’ (2005) or ‘Marriage Story’ (2019). There seemed to be something missing dead space in this movie that was filled with a style of comedy that didn’t match. It takes a while to get to the good stuff, which unfortunately wasn’t over looked by me. 

I really do wish that I didn’t have to sit through an hour and fifty minutes of somewhat lackluster filmmaking, but thankfully the twenty minutes after that make up a lot of leg work. I wasn’t blown away by this picture in any way, and I knew I wouldn’t be. However, I had some form of hope in the back of my mind, and I imagined there was a world it would pull through. Unfortunately, this just seemed a bit dull to what Baumbach can deliver, even with an ending that I found to be very touching and appreciative.

When the winter season begins to come around, Sam Raimi’s ‘A Simple Plan’ (1998) often comes on in my home. I had great appreciation for this film when I first came across it, and I knew there would be an abundance of perpetuity that would stick with it. Sure enough, I still found this project to be thrilling, and entertaining all the way through. A well written script with an outstanding two leads made this film so enjoyable to watch. This is a film that flows so well and smoothly, while allowing the hiccups on plot to build off each other. There isn’t a better film for when it begins to snow, and it’s one of those classic movies in my mind for it. 

What makes ‘A Simple Plan’ (1998) work in such an enthusiastic way is how the script seemingly writes itself. The way the film is framed allows the story to flow in such a free thinking sense. There comes off an organic style of storytelling here that manages to let each plot point seamlessly roll into itself. There isn’t a break that feels fluffed, but instead, more intrigue that comes with every point. It’s such an intellectual film that disguises itself as a parochial tale of some friends finding money. You won’t be disappointed if you watch movies for a well rounded script, I can promise you that. 

Another great point that helps make this picture as strong as it is, would be Sam Raimi’s directing style. Details that you wouldn’t think to make note of are so impactful when they come into full view of the story. Whether it’s a tension building moment, the classic horror edits that Raimi is known for, or even just the detail of snow falling off a plane, there is so much care in every shot. This stems from years of making smaller but more intimate films from Raimi, and it truly does benefit so much to the picture as a whole. 

There is a mystery element to ‘A Simple Plan’ (1998) that grows into something disastrous. With a movie that comes across as such a small scale project, ends up having so much heft in its mysterious delivery. You can point to any number of factors when it comes to this. The blindness we have to many elements is key, but that’s what is so fantastic when we are thrown off with a new hurdle to see the characters jump over. Being a thriller as well, I can promise you’ll be on the edge of your seat when viewing Raimi’s ‘A Simple Plan’ (1998).

How can you not love a film that is predominantly set in a snow covered landscape? I couldn’t name one movie to where that factor makes the picture worse by any means. Whether it’s a western, a police thriller, or a small town mystery like this one, the snow adds so much to the film. It has always been a factor of films that I enjoy, and I seek them out to get a chilling but fun experience at the movies. In a small town setting, it helps build isolation around the characters, just as much as it makes for a wonderful set piece in general. 

Bill Paxton and Billy Bob Thornton lead this movie as two brothers who are in unison at times, while also factoring contention in others. Their acting skills have always been known to be decent, and they both have some impressive performances under their belt. Having them join together in ‘A Simple Plan’ (1998) offers their experience of having to build off one another. Their reception to each other comes so naturally, and when the conflict arises, there is much to say on how they react. Two greats like Paxton and Thornton coming together makes plenty of sense on paper, but it seems even greater when you see it on screen. 

I struggle today to find an abundance of faults in Sam Raimi’s ‘A Simple Plan’ (1998), and this rewatch helps solidify that. The plot building with the impeccable dialogue that’s delivered with great detail makes this movie flow with itself in a way that’s hard to beat. The picture feels close to a Coen Brother’s flick, with the maturity of characters, while also allowing some hilarity to seep in. You can watch this film any time of year, but the winter season certainly brings more out of the picture as a whole. I was very enthusiastic to see ‘A Simple Plan’ (1998) still hold up over the years, and it’ll be one I revisit a number of more times.

The Coen Brothers deliver a film of tremendous magnitude with ‘Inside Llewyn Davis’ (2013). This project from the famed brotherly directing duo is one that has such importance, on a scale that is withheld and almost minuet. ‘Inside Llewyn Davis’ (2013) is one of those films that glorifies the demoralization of the human spirit, while simultaneously providing the gorgeous craftsmanship it can behold as well. This well thought out and compelling story is delivered with many meaningful facets of cinema. I adore the way such a bleak story can be told with an abundance of humor. Ultimately, there was never going to be a chance at this film failing, and its success is what provides us cinematic experiences on such a thoughtful level. 

What the Coen brothers created with ‘Inside Llewyn Davis’ (2013), is the story of a down on his luck loser, who has sole talent, but doesn’t manage to harness his creativity in a perfect way. The character we follow expresses a lot of different emotions, and being pompous is certainly one of them. ‘Inside Llewyn Davis’ (2013) is a character study on someone who seemingly can’t win at what he’s trying to achieve, and the way it comes off is all self inflicted. You don’t see an abundance of movies that have such referendum on its characters like this, but it manages to make the entire picture more dynamic. 

The character of Llewyn Davis is a grifter to say the least. His inability to connect with others, or stabilize his life in a meaningful way is on full display. The lack of empathy he seems to display is the reason he is treated the way he is. There is sympathy that is directed towards him, but it’s avoided by Davis, due to his inability to step outside of his own self. The dinner sequence when he plays a song, the music club when he’s not called on stage, the fact that his only real connection is a cat that is running around the city makes these ideas very clear. That’s the smartness of this films writing. 

Music is what holds ‘Inside Llewyn Davis’ (2013) today, and it is magic at a point. The Coen Brothers aren’t shy when it comes to music in film. They would famously make many fans favorite film of theirs in ‘O Brother, Where Art Thou?’ (2000), which would focus on a musical aspect. ‘The Ballad Of Buster Scruggs’ (2018) would be another adventure into this musical world for them as well. ‘Inside Llewyn Davis’ (2013) is more tactical with its rhythm though, and the every music is explored, finds itself as something deeply personal, impactful, and satisfying. It’s the beauty along with the bones of this film, and it brings so much to the project. 

Another film this would be paired with quite well is ‘A Complete Unknown’ (2024). What helps these two movies fit together so well is not the tonality or style they both share, but the historical context within. Davis being based on a real life folk singer, and Bob Dylan becoming the most famous out of that era. These films do show both sides of the coin when it comes to the era of this music, and it’s interesting to see how both sides end up. One becoming triumphant, and the other fading off in a way. The film pair well, which I know isn’t a complex statement, but I look forward to seeing both projects in a double at some point soon. 

The city that is designed as the backdrop to ‘Inside Llewyn Davis’ (2013) is very specific to this film. Being set in Greenwich Village, New York City, there is a specificity on how the city wants to come off to us. This isn’t going to be similar to a Martin Scorsese New York crime flick, and in no way does the Coen’s attempt in designing it that way. The city is still prevalent, and the characters that come along with it are not divorced to the screen. However, I adore this vision of New York City. I can’t always explain why something like that may be, but it ultimately is a working factor for this film. 

The way New York is shot in the film ‘Inside Llewyn Davis’ (2013) is another masterful example of strategic framing. Roger Deakins takes a step away from working with the brothers, and Bruno Delbonnel situates himself as the cinematographer. Giving the city a haze as these characters travel through it is very specific to how this movie makes us feel. The masterful alternating of close ups, and expansive city wide shots help scale down the movie into its own idealized corner. So even when Deakins isn’t working with the Coen’s, there is still beauty from the cinematography on screen, and that’s why this film gained a nomination for that front. 

The Coen Brothers don’t allow this film to be mistaken as theirs, for there is a unique touch to the film that only they can really achieve. With a stark and unapologetic bleakness that oversees the film, you can get their colors and tones through this. However, the brother’s hilarity also shines through in many moments, as the character is putting himself in awkward moments. What also flows so well with these characters is that they don’t necessarily feel written, but more just explored with a camera. The Coen’s have been able to master both styles of characterization, and this example is no different. You can just tell once you out this film on, who has the genius mindset, and you’ll know you’re in good hands. 

Cinema can never really be dead when we have films like ‘Inside Llewyn Davis’ (2013) to go back to. This Coen Brothers picture worth everyone’s time to go back and see. With such a heartfelt sentiment about someone who can’t win, while also discovering beauty in music. This is not a traditional Hollywood story by any means, and it finds itself exploring deeper meanings of self righteousness, inflated expectations, and depressive drive. There is something wonderful about a movie that understands its own sentiments, and really is tuned into its ideas, and that’s is a major reason as to why ‘Inside Llewyn Davis’ (2013) is the success it is so many years later.

So I’ve never seen ‘Frozen’ (2013), and I’m not particularly too fond of animation in films. So naturally I was the perfect subject for ‘Frozen II’ (2019). This wasn’t my first choice for movie night with my girlfriend, but it fit the seasonal tone when the snow started falling. I’m going to try and navigate in the best way possible how this movie came off to me. I wasn’t blown away, but I found there to be some decent elements to make this movie work. I can certainly see how a lot of people enjoy this picture, even if it isn’t my flavor of cinema. 

Just because I don’t enjoy animated films at all times does not mean I don’t have appreciation for them. The films that I do enjoy in the animation industry are pictures like ‘Antz’ (1998) ‘Treasure Planet’ (2002), ‘Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit’ (2005), and ‘Flushed Away’ (2006). An eclectic taste, I know. ‘Frozen II’ (2019) is a bit less interesting to me than these other pictures, because there is more of a Disney polish to it. The other films are fun and idiotic most of the time, which is the opposite for ‘Frozen II’ (2019), but I suppose that’s just the primitive part of my brain turning on.

The animation itself is very well done in this film, and you have to give it that. It’s always said that the toughest things to animate is hair and water. Both of which are done very well in this feature. The rest of the picture looks nice as well, and it’s tough to really argue with the animation juggernaut that is Disney. There is a polish to this animation style much like their other films, and it’s elegant to look at. I really was just impressed with the detail with certain elements of the film, and I can appreciate the time that went into that. 

I’ll be honest, not having seen the first film definitely hindered my ability to process ‘Frozen II’ (2019). This would be the case with essentially any sequel. However, I got the idea of the movie, and I understood what the plot was surrounding. The concept is fun and cohesive to what the story wants to say, and it’s a perfect kids movie for the family to watch. There aren’t too many animated films that are made for kids that blow me away story wise, so it isn’t a referendum on the story telling whatsoever. 

Overall ‘Frozen II’ (2019) was a decent flick that seemingly can hold a lot of people’s attention. Just because I’m not the target audience of this film does not mean it was a poorly made project. The animation was well done and the story has its good moments. I ultimately just don’t find myself drawn to too many films like this. I’m glad a lot of viewers out there enjoys this picture, and I’m view on it really has no reflection of the movie itself. I’m sure they will make a third installment to this series, of which I say, I’m happy for the fans.

Most cinema goers would probably agree that when I pose the statement, Quentin Tarantino’s ‘Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair’ (2006) is their white whale, it reigns true. A golden goose some might say. So when I found out that it was finally getting a wide release, I had to jump to it and get some tickets. No time could be wasted. Oh was I right to do so. Over four and a half hours of pure cinematic intoxication unfolds in ‘Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair’ (2006). I thought this would be a nice watch, but it certainly delivers so much more than seeing both films together. With some new edits and footage added in, you’ll be wonderfully satisfied with the final project Mr. Tarantino presents here. 

Let’s start off by saying how great ‘Kill Bill: Vol. 1’ (2003) and ‘Kill Bill: Vol. 2’ (2004) really are. These movies make up so much of what films desire to be. The action, the story, the creativity, the references, and everything in between that really makes these films what they are. Seeing each film on their own is a treat in itself. Getting the opportunity to see it in the format that Tarantino intended, is all that much better. You can find so many fun things to speak about inside these films, and it really is a film goers paradise. 

I had heard that there would be some new things added into ‘Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair’ (2006), and that it was a different movie. That really is the case when you sit down and see this. The picture is edited in a specific way, which comes off in a different context. On top of this, the film also succeeds at adding new footage that wasn’t in the original edits. All of these factors help make the movie feel new and energetic. While at the same time, we still recognize the original content that was made years ago. It’s always such a joy when you get to revisit a film like this and experience new concepts from it. 

Getting the opportunity to see this film as it was intended is something of a treat for most viewers. It seems like a tall task to sit in a movie theater for over four and a half hours, but I can assure you, every second is worth it. This picture was initially meant to be one story, but due to producers meddling with it, there was the split films. Having ‘Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair’ (2006) finally get released, and viewers actually wanted to go to theaters to see it was magnificent. It showcases something of longevity to the picture and Tarantino’s name. I wouldn’t have wanted to see this any other way, and I’m positive other viewers felt the exact same way. 

‘Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair’ (2006) is an homage from Quentin Tarantino to the samurai films of the 1960’s and 1970’s. This is a direct love letter to the picture ‘Lady Snowblood’ (1974), of which I adore. But Akira Kurosawa films are also included in this, plus the Love Wolf and Cub pictures. This is certainly one of the greatest love letters anyone could do for a genre as a whole, and it’s done with care and humor. You can find references after reference towards this films, and if you love them, it’s a great watch along to experience the adornment others have for it. 

Along with ‘Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair’ (2006) being a samurai homage, it also calls back to a time of the spaghetti western. It’s no secret how much Tarantino loves the genre, and he puts so much of it into this film. The classic shots of the desert create the atmosphere, but the tone of it all sinks deep into the classic Italian westerns we all love. You can pick apart so many talents that are added into the film and come from a long lineage of cinema. This is a movie for those whole love movie history, and it ranges across so many genres and eras. 

Don’t be mistaken at the fact that this is one violent picture. Quentin Tarantino films are known for their jarring violence that sprawls all over the screen. ‘Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair’ (2006) is by far his most gruesome feature. Taking from the samurai films of the 1970’s, it’s no surprise how much sword play comes into frame. With sequences that seem absurd to every extent, the violence holds back in no way. It’s as much of an homage as it is a fun exploration from the director, as he once famously told a reporter. So be warned if you have a weak stomach, because this is an intense ride on that front. 

The cast within ‘Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair’ (2006) is remarkable as we all know. Uma Thurman is the leading performer as the bride, and she takes acting to a whole new level here. Sherry brings out a physical intensity like no other, and holds the movie on her shoulders. Pairing her against names like David Carradine, Lucy Liu, Michael Madsen, and Daryl Hannah is such a treat to see. Having them all in one cohesive story that runs for hours is remarkable, and really brings the best out of each performer. These characters that are created are worth watching the movie alone, and having such talented people pull them off is note worthy to say the least. 

Quentin Tarantino is one of those directors that adores the art of cinema. It comes out in so many of his projects, but none as much as ‘Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair’ (2006). This could easily be discussed as one of his magnum opus’s, and for good reason. The picture is a long epic with some of his strongest directing. From the air tight editing, to the magnificent cinematography. The way he prioritizes certain elements of the movie that most of us wouldn’t even think to see. Tarantino is a master at his work, and ‘Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair’ (2006) is certainly one of his strongest projects to date. 

Needless to say, I was jazzed to see ‘Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair’ (2006) in theaters. It brings back many memories of enjoying the individual films over the years, but it also gave me a whole new experience as well. Quentin Tarantino had a specific vision for how we would see one of his masterpieces, and it certainly doesn’t disappoint. There are not going to be many opportunities to see a film of this caliber in theaters, so many years later, so if you have the opportunity to view it in a cinema hall, don’t pass it up. It’s an honest to god experience, that was exciting from beginning to end.

‘Thunder Road’ (1958) is a relatively straight forward film from the late 1950’s about bootlegging. The picture is a crime thriller for sure, with elements of action sprinkled in. I certainly wasn’t disappointed with the picture I saw here, and it actually seemed to be a bit more interesting than I had first thought it was going to be. The story is energetic, and it has some fun car chase sequences. Mitchum performs alongside his son in a little bit of a nod to those who know them, and they both put in decent performances. At the end of the day ‘Thunder Road’ (1958) isn’t going to be making the top of many lists, but it’s still a fun movie to put on for fans of the older stuff. 

Film-noir was a very rich genre of movies from the 1930’s through the 1950’s. Typically they were mystery films with detectives, or gangster pictures about organized crime. ‘Thunder Road’ (1958) is certainly a film-noir picture, but it’s a bit different in certain aspects. The movie is a bit dirtier than the sleek crime flicks staring James Cagney, but it still has its merits. The crime elements are clear and present, while the intensity of the genre flourishes. There are so many movies that fall into this category, and ‘Thunder Road’ (1958) is one that has its name in it as well. 

There isn’t an abundance of films about bootlegging outside of the 30’s, but a few were still made. ‘Thunder Road’ (1958) is one of those projects that tackles the topic, while also being a project about family. ‘Lawless’ (2012) seems to be the closest of contemporary films to ‘Thunder Road’ (1958), and there are a lot of connections between both projects. It’s a great point for a story to follow as there is more complexity to the script that most might find on the surface. Going along with gangster features as well makes this an enjoyable and fun film to follow along with. 

What I didn’t expect to get out of ‘Thunder Road’ (1958) was the thrilling action it brought to the screen. There are a number of car chase sequences that occur in the film, and they are pulled off quite well. Sure, it’s still action from the 1950’s, so viewers today might not gain the same appeal from it, but I found it to still work. It doesn’t come off as cheap writing either, and the car chases fit in well with the story. Seeing these real cars blow down back dirt roads is exciting for any viewer, and I think they still hold up today. 

Robert Mitchum stars in ‘Thunder Road’ (1958) as a troubled character who’s trying to make ends meet for his family. His brother is played by his real life son, James Mitchum in a bit of a tongue in cheek reference to their family life. I was actually surprised at how these two actors conveyed a troubled family life with one another, and I found it to really work in this context. The film is bombastic on other fronts, but not as much when it comes to this. It solidifies the concept and how complex films could be in the 50’s, and that’s an element that really worked in ‘Thunder Road’ (1958).

Movies like ‘Thunder Road’ (1958) get lost to time, and it doesn’t surprise me that not many contemporary viewers haven’t seen it. This is one of those smaller hole in the wall film-noir projects that don’t make the largest impression on film history, but certainly has some versatile content to explore. I love getting the chance to see projects like this, for many reasons. Getting to see how the 1950’s filmmakers interpreted action in film, and also just seeing how stories were made. So if you get the opportunity, check out ‘Thunder Road’ (1958), because it’s worth at least one viewing.

Josef Von Sternberg’s ‘Macao’ (1952) is a nifty little thriller that has a great deal of excitement within it. These older 50’s movies can be a hit or miss in my mind, and unfortunately they aren’t often revisited by the masses today. However, movies like ‘Macao’ (1952) manage to prove the point as to why these smaller hole in the wall pictures make a difference to that perception. Both Robert Mitchum and Jane Russell bring an electrifying chemistry to the screen, and the overall work is just done quite well. I am well aware of how little this movie will be seen, but I still find it to be a decently made picture, that doesn’t make a loud splash, but an effective one at that. 

I wasn’t exactly sure what to expect from the story when I put in ‘Macao’ (1952), but I was certainly pleased with the final work. This story blends some of the classic elements of a romantic drama, with a thrilling film-noir coat. There is a level of espionage that arises from the picture, while also a somewhat quiet music film. There are many elements that are coming out of this project, and they don’t seem to become convoluted too often. It’s a well made script for the fans of classic film-noir projects out there. 

The location of ‘Macao’ (1952) has no trickery in its title of where the project will be set. I find the location of the south China region to always be fascinating in films. Older projects like ‘Macao’ (1952) manage to divulge just as much out of the location as new projects like ‘Ballad Of A Small Player’ (2025). The blending of wealth statues on this region makes films like ‘Macao’ (1952) more dynamic in what can be achieved. The casinos and the shops are often prevalent in films with this location, and I often enjoy the outcome. 

Robert Mitchum and Jane Russell both give wonderful performances in ‘Macao’ (1952), which I’m well aware of how much I say this. However, Mitchum manages to give a physically performance as a man trying to sully a drug king pin, while Russell delivers an elegant and entertaining performance as a singer in Macao. Together, they manage to bring some heavy chemistry to themselves, and it really seems to connect throughout the whole project. I think both actors are great in whatever they do, and that’s why I knew they would connect in ‘Macao’ (1952). 

I’m sure many people aren’t going to have the opportunity to come across ‘Macao’ (1952), but if you do get the chance, don’t skip on it. Some might find this to be a project that feels a bit formulaic, but it still has some fine work involved in it. You have to be a fan of the film-noir genre to really be able to sink your teeth into this one. However, if you find yourself doing so, I will say, I can’t imagine many people will have a strong disliking for the film. It brings a lot from its story and performances, and that’s all you can really desire in these early 50’s film-noir projects.

John Huston’s ‘The List Of Adrian Messenger’ (1963) is a really strange one on its face. The picture is consulted by a great cast of actors, that all seemingly are not noticeable until the end of the film. This is because the movie puts a great amount of effort into its makeup department. The story itself is a very neat one, and it brings some wonderful elements of espionage to the screen. You might be a bit thrown off by a good number of the choices made in this project, as I am too. However, the film still seems to do a decent job at delivery a clever story, and it’ll certainly intrigue much of its audience.

The story behind ‘The List Of Adrian Messenger’ (1963) is a quaint spy one that involves a lot of disguises, and a full amount of mystery. As audience members, we’re kept on our toes as the story unfolds before us. We attempt to keep track of certain points, but when planes are being blown out of the sky, it diverts the audiences attention. There is a sleekness to the story, but it isn’t overly pronounced on that bases. Instead, the project comfortably sits in its own vintage appeal, and delivers a complete story for those whole love espionage. 

What is the most impressive factor in ‘The List Of Adrian Messenger’ (1963)? The makeup work of course. That is what this film is really all about when it comes down to it. Our expectations are quickly removed once we get into the story, and a lot of this has to do with the uncanny valley approach the film has towards stardom. Many characters have a heavy dosage of prosthetics added to their face, and it’s difficult to really notice who is who. That is what makes this project so interesting, and what I would say, fairly successful. 

The cast underneath the makeup are made up of some of the greatest performers of the 1940’s, 1950’s, and 1960’s. George C. Scott leads the picture as his typical self. Demanding, captivating, and loud. The names that also accompany him are the likes of Robert Mitchum, Kirk Douglas, Tony Curtis, Burt Lancaster, and Frank Sinatra. It’s an impressive ensemble to say the least. With names like this, you would think the film would grow in popularity over the years. However, because of how the film chooses to depict these famed actors, it might have gotten lost to time. Wasn’t that the idea though?

I wouldn’t say that this is my favorite project from Huston or the cast members in the film, but I would argue that this is an interesting piece that deserves a good watch h through. There is an outstanding ensemble cast in the film, that might seem hindered at times, but still gives off an abundance of intrigue. The story is clever for sure, and I really appreciate what the creators were going for. There is a feeling of confusion within the story and its characters, and having recognizable names not appearing gives the audience the same feeling. So though this might not be the most gripping tale ever told, it certainly has some elements worth checking out.

J. Lee Thompson’s ‘Cape Fear’ (1962) is one of those movies that have gotten lost to time a bit, essentially because the remake holds its own weight outside of this project. However, what I would argue to say is that the original 60’s rendition is actually a stronger film on a number of accounts. I adore Martin Scorsese’s film, but there is something different when it comes to Thompson’s. The casting is iconic today, and the story is ahead of its time. The suspense to the entire project lands so often that you would have a tough time finding flaws within that context. This is one of those examples of where the original is always better, even when the remake is a knock out classic. 

What ‘Cape Fear’ (1962) does so well is its pacing when it comes to the suspense. the film is a full blown thriller that happens to push some major boundaries. A sort of cat and mouse type film with a much more sinister undertone to match, that’s how the film ends up as. Before this, there is a real layer of mystery that surrounds the project, and I find it to build in a very grand way. We’re given pieces of story that help guide us into one direction, but how the film builds up the thrills outside of that make it so much more impressive. 

These classic 60’s films were willing to push the envelope a bit more than their counterparts in the 50’s. Because of this, we got to see films like ‘Cape Fear’ (1962). A movie that pushes the boundaries a bit more than expected. This goes hand in hand with a movie like ‘The Night Of The Hunter’ (1955), in which a story that is really horrific is told in the contemplative sense, but seems as if it was decades ahead of its time. It became a bit more common in the 60’s to see films like ‘Cape Fear’ (1962), but it would be another decade to make it the norm. So that’s why it’s so interesting to watch a movie like this, and figure out all of its great attributes. 

You have to compare this project to the famous remake done almost thirty years later by Martin Scorsese. Both films do a great job at conveying a certain attitude. However, the films do have very different styles. The story points seem to land very closely to one another, and there is a feeling of a shot for shot remake aspect to it. What is interesting is the turns the movie does take. You can find this writhing the characterization between both casts. Both films ultimately work on their own, and you don’t need to have support for one to enjoy the other, they are both just wonderful pictures on their own. 

Robert Mitchum takes on another sinister role that would become iconic, less than a decade after his portrayal of Harry Powell in ‘The Night Of The Hunter’ (1955). Bringing Max Cady alive in ‘Cape Fear’ (1962) calls back to his dynamic turns as an actor, and he really manages to intimidate on screen. Gregory Peck is the opposition to Mitchum in the film, and he does a stellar job in the role. Peck manages to take on a more fearful role, which sells Mitchum’s intensity. Both actors have a great reception to one another, and they make this movie so much better because of it. 

J. Lee Thompson is one of those directors that you might not hear spoken about as much today, but when you see his work, you realize he was a killer in the industry. He did a lot of projects that don’t seem to line up in a cohesive way with one another, but they do all have their own charm. Movies like ‘The Guns Of Navarone’ (1961), ‘What A Way To Go!’ (1964), ‘The White Buffalo’ (1977), and ‘Happy Birthday To Me’ (1981), are under his belt. Not to mention a slew of films with Charles Bronson, and even a couple of Planet Of The Apes films are made by him. So having his showcase his thriller style in a film like ‘Cape Fear’ (1962) is smart, and he does it seamlessly. 

It be debated for a few years on which Gil. I enjoyed more between the original and remake, and though I find Scorsese’s film to be more rewatchable, I still believe Thompson’s is a stronger work of art. The tension of the story is so even across the board. There are many factors that build this up, but Mitchum really just sells his haunting portrayal of Max Cady. There is an abundance of insight into film with this movie as well, and it’s clear that some capable hands worked on this project. ‘Cape Fear’ (1962) is one of those films that might not be seen as much today, but certainly holds up over so many years.

I got the opportunity to go see one of my all time favorite films in theaters, and that’s is Charles Laughton’s ‘The Night Of The Hunter’ (1955). After having seen this film a good many of times, I still somehow gain something new from it every time I watch it. There is something still haunting about this film today, and it ages so well because of it. I’ve said before, I find this to be a progressive script that seems like it belonged two decades later. Every shot of the picture is wonderful as well, and proves some real triumphs in the art of movie making. I will forever adore ‘The Night Of The Hunter’ (1955), and seeing it on the big screen was all that much more enjoyable. 

‘The Night Of The Hunter’ (1955) can be easily categorized as a neo-western and a film-noir piece. However, I think there could be a very real case made for the picture to fall under the horror banner. The visuals are one thing that I’ll mention in a bit, but the story seemingly makes up a lot of horror films ideas today. A mad man trying to seek out something and his willingness to kill children for it seems like a horror plot to me. Not to mention the tonality as well, in which the darker ideas are paired with. Even though it’s a 70 year old movie now, it still has some great nods to horror in general. 

The cinematography within ‘The Night Of The Hunter’ (1955) is very key to the films success. It calls back to a time of the German expressionist films, where the darker lighting, and more melancholic tones are present. Films like ‘The Cabinet Of Dr. Caligari’ (1920), ‘Nosferatu’ (1922), ‘Metropolis’ (1927), or ‘M’ (1931) are all examples of this style. Much of its darker visuals and tones stem from the anguish and fear after the desolation of Germany and the First World War. ‘The Night Of The Hunter’ (1955) called that number and utilized those tools to make a much more haunting film in the same vein of the German expressionist movement. 

Now I can talk all day about what this films lighting has to do with German films of the 1920’s and 1930’s, but it stands to be mentioned what it does for this film. Outside of the obvious tone it presents, it also creates some of the most timeless visuals any of us have seen. Even so many decades later, we are all still bewildered by the beauty of this films lighting and shot composition. Because of this, silhouettes are utilized masterfully, and shading for character building is also mastered. Even without color in the film, it feels as if the movie is alive in that sense. It’s just proof at how phenomenal a movie can appear, just by its lighting. 

The shots ‘The Night Of The Hunter’ (1955) shows off to us are something mythical in their own right. I’m no longer talking about lighting, but instead, the composition of framing in each scene. There is a wonder to how each sequence looks flawless. A young boy and old man staring out a window, a woman in a car under a lake, the silhouette of a man riding a horse over a hill. There are so many shots that come off as seamless. What’s incredible about this as well is that it seems to be a second nature for the creators, and that it wasn’t shoehorned in. That’s cinematic magic right there. 

A big factor that I noticed on this rewatch of the film was the humor it factors in. Whether it was intentional or not, I found the picture to have a sense of hilarity underneath its horror. What amplified this factor of my noticing it was watching the movie in a full theater, and experiencing the waves of laughter out of it. Sometimes this would come from the child performances, while other times it would be a funny quip you might not hear today. You might be afraid in the fact that it might ruin the tone of the flick, but I assure you, it only helps. 

I of course cannot talk about ‘The Night Of The Hunter’ (1955) and not speak upon Robert Mitchum’s masterful performance. In my mind it is still his best, and his most kinetic. Coming off in a charming but sinister format, he melds into the scenes as his drive frightens the audience. Everyone he is paired up with gives him a new style to act with. It’s one of those performances you don’t see often, but when you do, it stands the test of time. Shelley Winters, and Lillian Gish both give off some fantastic performances as well, and even more importantly, they go toe to toe with Mitchum. This is acting at its finest, even if it might seem dated in a few minds. 

I could return to this movie every month and still find something enjoyable out of it. From the frame work that positions this film perfectly, to the haunting performance from Robert Mitchum. There is a slew of comedic moments in the film as well, and its pacing is done just right. There are hardly any faults in ‘The Night Of The Hunter’ (1955), and when they are, it just becomes part of the dance. There is something truly special about Charles Laughton’s only directorial outing, and it’s worth a watch 70 years later. If you haven’t gotten the opportunity to watch ‘The Night Of The Hunter’ (1955), I assure you, it’s a monumental masterpiece in the art of cinema, and it’s worth the hour and a half.

Don Hartman’s ‘Holiday Affair’ (1949) is a traditionally styled romantic comedy from the 1940’s. The story brings some light hearted humor and enjoyable dramatic moments, but in no way blows me away. What factor really makes this a more decent film is the acting and chemistry the leads of the project have. From the very beginning, o noticed this strength of the film, and it thankfully resonated the entire way through. ‘Holidays Affair’ (1949) is a good movie to put on around this time, even if much of the meaning behind it seems to age a bit strangely. 

‘Holiday Affair’ (1949) is about a woman who ends up having to choose between her fiancée who is a practicing lawyer, or a jobless stranger who gifted her son a toy train. Though choice, I know. The predicament is really silly in the broad spectrum of the film, and it really doesn’t make too much sense when you spend five minutes thinking about it. That is what the catalyst of the story pertains though, and it ultimately will end up how movies of this era did. This is still a feel good concept though, and it makes for a fun 40’s film. 

With this idea being shown, it’s worthy of conversation to say how charming this film really is. Setting aside the pass this film gives to cheating, there is still a real light hearted tone all around. Being released four years after the Second World War, I’m sure there were many high spirits in the States, and that resulted in films having an abundance of light hearted joy. Even the awkward and tense moments don’t have any kind of suspense to them. This is partially what makes these movies easy to watch, even if there is not much weight behind them. 

What helps draw the lead Janet Leigh to the jobless drifter is that he’s played by Robert Mitchum. I tend to always enjoy any performance he puts in, but in ‘Holiday Affair’ (1949), it’s especially nice to have him on screen. Leigh and Mitchum have a very receptive demeanor towards one another, and it shows very clearly on screen. From the second they meet, you can tell there is an organic connection they have. Both actors play this out as the movie goes on, and it certainly helps solidify the pictures success. 

The holiday romance film is a genre that doesn’t always seem to be the most prestigious, but it’ll certainly always have an audience. ‘Holiday Affair’ (1949) nuzzles itself into this genre, even if at times the romance makes no sensible decision. Romantic holiday movies have been made for many years after this one though, and it’s clear to see why. The backdrop of the Christmas tree and snow covered neighborhood gives something of an intoxicating feel to cinema. So having a picture like this set itself up in the Christmas season helps its case as well. 

So you can clearly see that there are pros and cons to Don Hartman’s ‘Holiday Affair’ (1949). The story is certainly very wacky, and in my mind, doesn’t promote anything worthy of note. The tonality and charm of the picture gives off a great sensation of how the 1940’s, post war felt though. The Christmas backdrop and the two leads finding a great stance with one another ends up making ‘Holiday Affair’ (1949) an enjoyable watch. So I don’t need to be overwhelmed to be pleased with a picture like this, because the charm of it is nice enough.

My Voyage To Mr. Scorsese: Part 29

“Can you find the wolves in this picture?” - Ernest Burkhart

There is really something to say for the fact that Martin Scorsese at eighty years old, constructed a hands down masterpiece in the form of ‘Killers Of The Flower Moon’ (2023). This historical epic is one of the most powerful pictures of the 21st century, and its range in storytelling should never be overlooked. I took off a day for work back when this was released in theaters, just to witness Scorsese’s work. Revisiting it now, I realize it still holds up, and marks such an impactful triumph in cinema. Much like I said about ‘The Irishman’ (2019), ‘Killers Of The Flower Moon’ (2023) will go down as one of the greatest from one of the greats. 

‘Killers Of The Flower Moon’ (2023) is based on the award winning book by the same title. It follows a historical massacre of sorts as the melding of the Osage tribe with American settlers went airy. The crimes committed are really something horrible, and I found it to be more gruesome than I remember. An enormous amount of senseless killing occurred, just so certain people could capture financial gain and take land that was out of reach. This story is an eye opening one to the history of the 1920’s, but it’s told with such grace and humility,l. 

Even with those ideas being expressing in ‘Killers Of The Flower Moon’ (2023), this is also just a gangster western. It isn’t exactly either of those genres per-say, but, the tropes are there from both. The cowboys and natives are expressed in a much more complex terminology here, but that calls back to the westerns of Scorsese’s time. Of course, he needs to bring the gangster flick into many of his pictures, and it’s here as well. Showing off the crimes that are committed in the name of greed. It’s a wonderful blend of genres that Scorsese manages to deliver in this beautiful picture. 

Cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto captures a landscape in film that seemingly takes is audience into the world. When the camera stands still on these open fields as the sun settles in the sky and the breeze dances with the grass, you just escape. Forrest a few moments, you forget you’re in a film. I absorbed the beauty in such a way that I lost myself in the film from time to time. The key staging and blocking is done very well, but the visual detail behind the landscapes frames are what makes ‘Killers Of The Flower Moon’ (2023) such a masterclass in the art of cinematography. 

You can admire so many elements of ‘Killers Of The Flower Moon’ (2023), but one that really stands out in an emotional way is the score. Composed by the late Robbie Robertson, this film leaves a lasting legacy on his name and work. Combining the gorgeous tones of the Osage music with a subtle but elegant thriller score, the sound just melts into the page. There are moments where its build is so grand that you are forced to focus on its impact in the story, while at other times, it suits a nice background touch. There is no question on how remarkable this score is, and Robertson will always be remembered for it. 

Two leads that follow Scorsese from picture to picture show up in ‘Killers Of The Flower Moon’ (2023). Leonardo DiCaprio plays the lead as a simple witted man who gets controlled by all sides. It’s always memorable when DiCaprio doesn’t play the smooth talking handsome man. The fact he bends into this is what makes so much of the movie. Robert De Niro is the villainous archetype, in which he controls so much around him. He’s haunting as William Hale, and it proves he isn’t too old to deliver some of the best acting. Both of these leads are wonderful, but it takes something truly special to out perform them.

Lily Gladstone gives a performance that manages not only to captivate the audience with its heartbreaking portrayal of determination, but she also manages to out-act two of the greatest living actors. Gladstone has a sensibility to her in this movie that we don’t often see in a Scorsese film. She is demanding, while also giving off such a tender passion for her family. The way she bends her emotions on screen is something of a formidable characteristic. Gladstone was the better choice at the academy Awards this year against Emma Stone, but sometimes it doesn’t work out in that sense. 

The length of ‘Killers Of The Flower Moon’ (2023) is discussed in the same vein as ‘The Irishman’ (2019). Some might find the project to run too long and have too much fat on its sides. To that I say again, I’m very disappointed in that reading. This is a film made by a man who knows exactly how he wants each shot to appear and feel in the audiences mind. There is no fat to this film. The over extension of scenes is done with a powerful purpose, and it signifies elegance in the story. So I will never make a comment on how this movie needs to be shrunk down for time restrictions, because that’s simply would not be what this film is about. 

There is conversation on how this could be one of Martin Scorsese’s final films. None of us want this to be the case by any means, but it is the truth. ‘Killers Of The Flower Moon’ (2023) is a remarkable piece from a director in his eighth decade on earth. The Academy Awards gifted this film with ten nominations, but unfortunately zero wins, the third time for a Scorsese picture. That doesn’t mean this film is worth any less. I admire what was done here from Martin Scorsese, and his craftsmanship is almost like no other. I hope to see him work on another film, but if not, this is one of the greatest ways you can send off a career. 

It might take three and a half hours to watch through ‘Killers Of The Flower Moon’ (2023), but there should be no excuse to not want to witness such a powerful film. Powerful is the key word in describing ‘Killers Of The Flower Moon’ (2023) because it hits such heights that many films struggle to reach. Martin Scorsese crafts a world with such a magnificent set design, while allowing these characters to complexly navigate the landscape. Every frame of this film is made for a reason, and getting a chance to revisit it has brought me such an enlightenment of cinematic knowledge.

My Voyage To Mr. Scorsese: Part 28

“I heard you paint houses.” - Jimmy Hoffa

I have now gone through almost every single Scorsese film, and it all comes down to ‘The Irishman’ (2019). In my opinion, which I am well aware is a differing one from many. I find this to be the work that Scorsese worked his whole life and career to get to, and it turns out to be his strongest project in my mind. This film is a gangster epic like no other. The picture explores not only a world of crime, but the sentimental side of aging and being forgotten. I can understand everyone’s arguments for a number of his other movies being the greatest, but since I saw ‘The Irishman’ (2019) in theaters six years back, I held this as his triumph in a career. 

This film is the top of the mountain for Martin Scorsese. Some might argue that ‘Taxi Driver’ (1976), ‘Goodfellas’ (1990), or ‘The Wolf Of Wall Street’ (2013) is the top, but I beg to differ on every account. Yes, those pictures were all masterful in their own right, however, I still feel that hardly anything compares to ‘The Irishman’ (2019). This is the film that manages to showcase how an aging man can still craft some of the most compelling and inspiring stories out there. Not a second of this film is wasted, and Martin Scorsese knows that for a fact, because he hit his finest film, even this late in his career. 

Martin Scorsese has been making movies since the 1960’s. Many films have gone down as all time classics in cinematic history. I find ‘The Irishman’ (2019) to be an accumulation of Scorsese’s work over all of that time. This is the concluding film of the pictures with De Niro and Pesci as they made some phenomenal works together. Everything that Scorsese learned about filmmaking over the years came down to telling this story. It’s personal and saddening, while also just being an exciting crime flick, like many other ones he’s made. 

A critical commentary piece I hear about ‘The Irishman’ (2019) is that it’s too long. Three and a half hours certainly isn’t an easy watch for a Friday night. What I say to that is, every second of this film is in here for a purpose. Do we really think Martin Scorsese is adding fluff to this movie just because? Absolutely not. Every moment that you might think feels like a waste of time, is something that feeds the characters in order for us to understand it better. So yes, this is a very long film, but every second means something, and I really have no time to hear that it’s “way too long”.

You can view this as a gangster flick in one eyesight, but I find the ideas of aging to be much more compelling. Scorsese, De Niro, Pesci, and Pacino are all heading into their 80’s by this point, and it is clearly something that all think about. So making a project about the process of a full life, and reflecting on it and asking what it all means is beyond powerful. It seems that the fear of being forgotten to time is also a standpoint here, and though I cannot imagine Scorsese ever being forgotten to history, that statement is still prevalent here. It’s very poignant and thoughtful, and it has been articulated very well in ‘The Irishman’ (2019). 

The union gangster flick is also on display here. Following the story of famed union leader, and possible mafia insider Jimmy Hoffa, there is going to be an abundance of crime to explore. So don’t worry if you think this will just maintain itself as a meditation on the process of aging. ‘The Irishman’ (2019) is still a full hearted gangster film. You’ll get all of the classic tropes from pictures like ‘The Godfather’ (1972), ‘Goodfellas’ (1990), and ‘Casino’ (1995), all be it, in an older fashion. The crime story is still alive, and ‘The Irishman’ (2019) is one of my favorite contemporary tellings of it. 

I tend to not enjoy pictures that span a characters whole life, but ‘The Irishman’ (2019) does it in a very special way. We start off with Frank when he is first introduced into this world. All of the complexities that come with it are on full display. The conclusion of the film follows Frank as he is aged out, and the only one around from this era of men. It’s a perfect contrast to discuss the process of aging, while also allowing the film to stretch its ideas in a more nuanced way. This is one of very few films that I find this works, but there is so much more inside the project to consider as well. 

The de-aging is what comes in question a lot when speaking about his project. Yes, it looks rough at times. When we are first introduced to Frank as a younger man, it almost comes off as a jarring revelation. It smooths out as the film goes on, and I found myself becoming accustomed to it. Scorsese noted his dislike for the technology and its result at one point, which is understandable with how it looks in some sequences. What will say is, I’m glad they used this instead of recasting this ensemble, because then where would the movie be?

Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci, and Al Pacino all join forces together in this epic gangster flick, and who could ask for a better cast? Not to mention the slew of supporting roles that knock their performances out of the park as well. This is the first film Pacino does with Scorsese, but the other two leads are quite familiar with the director. This late stage project with these creators shows that they all still have such a powerful presence on screen. Scorsese manages to get some wonderful work out of all of these actors, and you couldn’t ask for a better group to deliver such a remarkable story. 

So after this rewatch of ‘The Irishman’ (2019), which has to be the sixth or seventh time I’ve seen the film, I realized it is still at the top of my list for Martin Scorsese films. It helps that o have gone through the rest of his pictures just to solidify that point. Many won’t agree with this, but the ideas that flow through this picture are something magical and powerful. Movies don’t get made like this anymore, and I’m grateful that this one did. Martin Scorsese is something of an inspiration to cinema, and ‘The Irishman’ (2019) is a perfect example of this so late into his career.

My Voyage To Mr. Scorsese: Part 27

“The price for your glory, is their suffering” 

I had been looking forward to rewatching Marin Scorsese’s ‘Silence’ (2016). A revisit of the film felt necessary since the project is so dense and contextualized. This is a fantastic work of art though. A truly grueling film to sit through, ‘Silence’ (2016) examines what it means to obtain faith and lose it. The lengths of struggle that are endured within this film invoke a great semblance of resolve. Martin Scorsese had this project in the works for many years, and by the time it was released, many, including myself found some real beauty within the picture he created. 

Martin Scorsese’s ‘Silence’ (2016) is a picture about suffering for a cause greater than one’s self. There is nothing lost in the context of this statement as moves its characters forward in a brutal way. The line that’s spoken about one’s glory is only gained through another’s suffering seems resonant in so much literature and cinema. Scorsese’s films deal with this idea in full, but hardly many in such a specific way outside of ‘Silence’ (2016). Take that as you will, but realize when you go into the film, that is much of what is shown. 

Denouncement of a higher being is another topic of discussion that’s explored in ‘Silence’ (2016). It’s a very curious topic to see being dissected, especially from Scorsese. We know that he has said many times before she has struggled with his faith. Because of this, he makes movies about one’s struggle and grappling nature with it. The priest who denounces god in ‘Silence’ (2016) does not do this because he looses faith, at least it’s not presented this way. That is what the next idea brings.

At what lengths can one man go before he fails his own beliefs? In ‘Silence’ (2016), we see one man suffer and describe his torment right before he denounces the one thing that brought him to his life as it was. On the other hand, we see a different priest challenge this type of suffering, and manages to righteously believe in his own god. Though there is an extraordinarily powerful sequence when he is spoken to by a higher power, you can still sense there is no loss of faith in his mind. Seeing these two ideas grapple with one another configures the thesis of ‘Silence’ (2016). 

Outside of this film being a remarkable conversation of religion, this is also a wonderful looking picture. Being filmed in Taiwan, the landscape is full of nourishment. Setting this in the 17th century, it was key to make this film look authentic. Because of this, it ends up taking in so much landscape and beauty from the world. The cinematography is on point every step of the way, and you know there was an abundance of time that went into making this project look the way it does. So don’t only expect a heavy hearted tale of religious questioning, but indulge in the beauty the film gives off as well. 

Andrew Garfield gives perhaps his strongest performance to date in ‘Silence’ (2016), and I’m sure many would agree. His range of compassion, struggle, forgiveness, and anguish are all on display. He comes off in such a way that he feels as if he studied the faith since he was a young boy. It’s palpable to see him on screen as he takes on one of the most subtle, but equally powerful journeys a film could showcase. With Adam Driver and Liam Neeson in the supporting roles, you can imagine how strong the performances will be once you watch the final project. 

It seemingly took Martin Scorsese a very long time to create this film, and for good reason. His connection to this story comes from the novel this was based on. His connection to the story seemingly rang with a passion as he always had it ready to be made. Even in the directors older age, his fight for the beauty of cinema stands strong and alive. With this being one of his most recent films, it’s a wonder how he can create such magnificence in the world. ‘Silence’ (2016) is one of those films you might miss of Scorsese’s, but I assure you, that shouldn’t be the case at all. 

It takes years of craftsmanship and many decades of devotion to a faith to conclude a work of art like ‘Silence’ (2016). Even with big time Hollywood stars in this picture, the film never forgets what its mission is. Delivering a project about faith and persecution, while teaching the audience its history as well. There is so much to absorb within ‘Silence’ (2016), from the messaging to the cinematography, to the films own faith. You can find something truly beautiful without ‘Silence’ (2016), even if you are not part of the religion. That is how grandiose Martin Scorsese’s work truly is.

My Voyage To Mr. Scorsese: Part 26

“The name of the game, moving the money from the clients pocket to your pocket.” -Mark Hanna

Martin Scorsese’s ‘The Wolf Of Wall Street’ (2013) is a complex picture to navigate. Over the last twelve years, this massive undergoing of cinema has been glorified, ridiculed, praised, scrutinized, and dissected in many different ways. With how opinionated this film is, it’s no wonder so many ideas about it have come and gone in all different directions. Ultimately, as most viewers know, ‘The Wolf Of Wall Street’ (2013) really works. Sure, this is one of the most energetic and chaotic films ever to grace the screen, but somehow it seems to really deliver a message about greed, corruption, and the disillusionment of the human mindset. It’s a fantastic piece of cinema, and I’m sure many would agree with that sentiment. 

‘The Wolf Of Wall Street’ (2013) is a semblance of power corrupted, and it showcases this statement very clearly. The true story of a stock broker who games the system for his own benefit. You will watch this picture and find yourself fuming mad at what these people got away with. How the style of salesmanship is utilized to manipulate people buying stocks is corrupt to its very core. There is nothing redeeming with this acting, even if a generation of people thought they learned salesmanship skills from the film. Unfortunately, art imitates life at times, and this true story really does hinder the financial world in many ways. 

The real question about ‘The Wolf Of Wall Street’ (2013) is what does the film say about the character of Jordan Belfort? The real life man makes a cameo in this picture in the concluding scene, and you begin to wonder, why? Some saw this as a glorification of the world, and how they wanted to join the stock trading world. I don’t think for one second Martin Scorsese or anyone involved in this film meant to make that the idea. This is a film that showcases the worst people out there, and how their downfall can come hard. Even if it’s seen as a flashy type of delivery, the picture still knows what it’s trying to say. 

I had described this film to someone as a very wirey picture. What I mean by this is the tonality it brings forth is seen as something not connected to itself. There is so much energy that fuels this film, and it runs quickly through its ideas. Because of this, I get the sense the film is amping itself up, and ultimately gaining more and more steam because of that. You can come into ‘The Wolf Of Wall Street’ (2013) with whatever expectation you have, but when it comes down to it, you’ll hardly be able to catch your breath when viewing the chaos exhibited here. 

As much as this film dives into subject matter Martin Scorsese knows well, I would still say this is a different flavor of his work. Take the sequence from ‘Goodfellas’ (1990) where Henry Hill is hopped up on cocaine and paranoid out of his mind. Expand that into a three hour film and you’ll have the context of Scorsese’s ‘The Wolf Of Wall Street’ (2013). This is very energetic, which Scorsese knows, but for some reason, it feels different from the famed directors work. That isn’t a bad thing at all, it’s just worthy of note. 

The scale of this film is a massive one, and it takes a real progression into wealth and its misbehavior. Filming in New York, we get a great view of the city and the world that integrates with it. You realize watching this film that there are so many stories going on in this city, and some intertwine while others never meet. It doesn’t take long to realize how big this world is, and how complex lex everyone’s worries are. That is a masterful thing ‘The Wolf Of Wall Street’ (2013) conveys to me and I’m sure much of its audience. 

I don’t wish to misread the context of the investigative side of this film, but there is a moment I found to be quite interesting. When Kyle Chandlers character finishes his raid, and he sits on the subway going home, he looks across the tube and sees the mundanity of his life, much like Belfort expressed earlier. I like this shot a lot, because it makes us wonder just as much as the character on what wealth can bring, and what taking down that corrupt wealth can provide. It’s more of an open book question than a thoughtful answer, and it gives me more appreciation for the film all together. 

Leonardo DiCaprio gives one of his strongest performances as Jordan Belfort in which he plays a real life character that always has to be on. DiCaprio is in almost every frame of this picture, and he creates a structure around himself in which he maintains full control. This has gone down as one of DiCaprio’s best roles, and it certainly should have brought home some gold. With the effort he puts into this role, you can really notice how comfortable he became as an actor in this time. It’s one of the most entertaining performances of the 21st century, and I’m sure many would agree. 

I very much enjoy the work of Martin Scorsese and his New York piece, ‘The Wolf Of Wall Street’ (2013). This is by far one of his most energetic films that delivers a lot of context into the financial capital of the world. There is a good reason a lot of viewers enjoy this movie, and I can certainly understand the appeal of seeing such outlandish lifestyles on screen. ‘The Wolf Of Wall Street’ (2013) is a very crazy picture, but it’s calculated in many ways. There is an honesty behind the films purpose, and that’s why it has gone down as one of the greats in the modern era of cinema.

Can I say, Victor Fleming’s ‘The Wizard Of Oz’ (1939) is just as charming today, as it was when I was growing up. This film brings out such a magical sense of movie making that very few movies have done over the years. It’s clear as to why ‘The Wizard Of Oz’ (1939) has held up over so many decades. The craftsmanship, the stories artillery, the eclectic style are all just so mesmerizing to see on screen. You don’t have to be a child to enjoy this movie, but I will say, this is a perfect movie to get someone young into films, because it is a work of art. 

Before we dive into the context of what this film is saying, I have to mention the usage of color in this 1939 film. What an absolutely gorgeous looking film. The technicolor Three-strip camera is utilized for ‘The Wizard Of Oz’ (1939) to give something of a majestic and magical feeling. The brightness of the picture is so apparent that you can’t get it out of your head once the film is down rolling. The brightness yellows and blues and greens are dancing on the screen begging to be absorbed into the film. It’s a masterful tool, and it makes ‘The Wizard Of Oz’ (1939) that much more incredible. 

The set design of ‘The Wizard Of Oz’ (1939) cannot go unnoticed as well. You can’t clearly see the time and effort that went into the sound stage this movie was filmed on. Of course there is its fair share of perspective paintings in the background, but the design in the foreground is remarkable, even to this day. This also goes along with the fantastic costume design that the movie examines. From Dorthy’s blue and white checkered dress, to the bucket of bolts the tin man is displaying. Even the wicked witch of the west has a fun design that would go on to become one of the most iconic villain looks to cinema. Appearance was everything in this movie, and it made the film truly stand out. 

Even with ‘The Wizard Of Oz’ (1939) being more of a film that is rooted in its appearance, the ideas behind it also stand out. This is obviously a movie about someone’s connection with the people they know. The movie is a dream sequence that involves characters from Dorthy’s real life, and it comprehends them so a young mind can understand each emotion. It’s a very smart way to write this story, and it fits into what the film needs to succeed. You can’t watch this and see many different ideas flowing through the script, and that’s what makes this great on so many watches. 

I need to mention the legacy ‘The Wizard Of Oz’ (1939) created. Not only was this a revolutionary film for its time, this was also a picture that crafted so many ideas that movies still use today. The economic storytelling of what is good and evil is so prominent, but it figures so clearly. This would go on and make The Wicked Witch of the West one of the most iconic movie villains in cinema. On top of that, everything around these characters are also great fantastical tropes that really help grow the creative ideas for decades and decades to come. 

I think ‘The Wizard Of Oz’ (1939) is perhaps the perfect movie to introduce to a young viewer, if you want them to start being receptive towards films. This is an easy family watch along, so the younger viewers can start to learn about what makes movies work. I know this was informative when I was younger. Though I might not have been able to articulate a sentence about it on my first watch in any meaningful way, I still had a great appreciation for it. ‘The Wizard Of Oz’ (1939) is just so well made, and it has a fantastical story you can get sucked into right away, that it should simply be sort of everyone’s film viewing experience. 

I’m positive that so many viewers will hold ‘The Wizard Of Oz’ (1939) close to their hearts as they go on a journey through cinema. This is one of those touchstone films that changed everything about how we see the movies. ‘The Wizard Of Oz’ (1939) is creative, expansive, and heartwarming on many fronts. It’s solidifies the beauty of the technicolor film camera, as it flourishes with some of the greatest color on set designs anyone can comprehend. This movie is the type of film that helped me grow into enjoying movies, and I’m sure many other viewers can share that exact same sentiment with me.

I need to take something for the headache I just acquired from watching ‘Wicked: For Good’ (2025). I don’t mean a Tylenol, but something stronger, like a big old glass of liquor. Listen, I went into this knowing I wasn’t going to be seeing a film I wanted to see. So with all of that, this judgment I express onto the film comes from someone who has no connection towards the musical, and I certainly couldn’t stand the films. This follow up film was definitely a step down from ‘Wicked’ (2024), and I struggle to understand some of the choices that were made. What I will say at the end of the day is, ‘Wicked: For Good’ (2025), was wicked bad, and I’m glad it’s over, for good.

I went back and rewatched ‘The Wizard Of Oz’ (1939) after seeing ‘Wicked: For Good’ (2025), because there are a lot of tie ins between the films. What I ultimately couldn’t understand was if this movie was going to recreate sequences from the original 30’s one, why would they purposefully not line them up more neatly? There are a number of things throughout this film that seemingly make little sense when you watch it side by side with ‘The Wizard Of Oz’ (1939). I’ve heard arguments about this not being the real subtext of the original film, and to that I say, why have it in there then? What is the purpose of showing us callbacks to that film if you don’t want this to be apart of it? Maybe I’m the one who is confused. 

I appreciate the fact that there is an abundance of viewers out there who have great appreciation for ‘Wicked’ (2024) and ‘Wicked: For Good’ (2025). I’m sure the musical is a better rendition of the story than these movies are, but I wouldn’t know. What I fail to understand is the purpose of a lot of this films writing. I can’t process the plot holes this movie refuses to explain, or the laziness the story presents. Sure, a lot of this is building off of its predecessor, but there is a certain amount of context a movie needs to succeed. Maybe if the important dialogue wasn’t sung at random moments, the audience could grasp some of the ideas. 

How does this movie manage to exist when it comes to its run time? I can’t imagine a film that’s based on a stage play that runs for three hours can be successful when it’s stretched into fives hours and two movies. I’ll tell you how they did it. Instead of providing substantive content, we see Glinda stepping on a bubble maker way too many times, just to get a laugh and to extend the run time. It seems silly to have this much fluff in a movie, but I suppose it would have been odd to make this film an hour and a half. I really think it would have been a stronger delivery if the films were just a three and a half hour running picture, instead of this elastic sequel that feels stretched to its limits. 

So what I’m really getting at when I’m talking about ‘Wicked: For Good’ (2025) is that I might not be the most well versed in musicals, but I can name a rough film when I see one. I want everyone to see this and enjoy it to their own extent. I truly had little to no enjoyment out of my viewing, and I question why I even came back to it in the first place. There are so many elements you can pick apart, but I frankly think the script just drowns so much of this. At least ‘Wicked: For Good’ (2025) is over, and I really don’t think I need to revisit it anytime soon.

The third installment in Rian Johnson’s Knives Out films comes in the form ‘Wake Up Dead Man’ (2025). This film doesn’t spark the excitement that the first project once did, but it does bring more feeling to me than the previous project had. There are pros and cons to this overall picture, but at the end of the day, I had fun with the film as a whole. The cast is a step up from ‘Glass Onion’ (2025), and it seems like there was a bit more thought put into this script. I’m glad I saw this one on the big screen as well, and I’m sure many viewers will get enjoyment out of it once it’s out in a wider capacity. 

‘Wake Up Dead Man’ (2025) is the first film in this trilogy that doesn’t focus on wealth within its characters. In fact, the absence of wealth is often times more important to the story than not. Before we saw a famed mystery writer who owned millions, and a private industry billionaire who owned his own island. In ‘Wake Up Dead Man’ (2025), the focus is on a priest who is struggle to keep control of his congregation, which only includes a few members. It’s an interesting tonal shift, and I think it’s done with a purpose to make sure there isn’t too much repetition in the scripts. I found it to work for what the context of the movie was, and I’m sure others will find the same. 

How often do we get an honest to god church mystery like this one? There are a few projects that seem to come close, and I’m sure I’m missing a number that hit it on the head. However, the setting fits right into a mystery like this. The context of the characters and their desires end up leading to a thoughtful and logical story. The church setting brings out many different expectations for the script. The discussion of faith, the argument of many sins, and the power struggle that comes off in a questionable way. I thought it was a very smart location to set a mystery into, and it ultimately made the film work for me. 

You can see this as an unfortunate situation, or one that makes you feel clever, but I did manage to figure out the culprit of the crime fairly early on. You have to turn your mind on when you’re exploring a murder mystery film like this, which sometimes might lead to a hyper fixation on things that don’t matter. The movie was sneaky in its delivery, but one quick point of comedy ended up leading to what I found out was the answer. Even when moments would shift around to change up the idea of the murder, it still came to fruition. That doesn’t mean this was a poorly written mystery by any means, and that’s doesn’t make me a genius of movie watching either. I’m sure many viewers will pick up the answer as well, especially when you can watch this at home. 

There is a muncher darker shading of color to this film that stands out to me right off the bat. The film poster is like this, along with the colors of the film itself. There isn’t as much of an issue here, but it certainly takes a major note considering how full the previous pictures looked. Even ‘Knives Out’ (2019), which seemed a bit dim on lighting, filled every scene with a noticeable amount of wardrobe flourish. The black white and gray this movie mutes itself in is purposeful, and changes the emotion of the film. It works for what it wants to do, and I appreciate it doesn’t try and make itself a cartoonish interpretation of the last films.

The cast of ‘Wake Up Dead Man’ (2025) is made up of some great leads from the past and present. Josh O’Connor is the lead of the film, as he showcases his ability to lead an ensemble. Daniel Craig returns as Benoit Blanc, and though he feels a bit more toned down, he is still a welcomed presence. Josh Brolin is the supporting role that stands out to me, in his third major project this year. Glenn Close, Mila Kunis, Jeremy Renner, Cailee Spaeny, Kerry Washington, and Andrew Scott all bring their own levels of humor and drama to the story as well. Leave it to Rian Johnson to bring some great names in acting together to really sell an ensemble. 

It’s tough to really compare a franchise like this against itself, but it is certain to say that ‘Knives Out’ (2019) is the best of them. ‘Wake Up Dead Man’ (2025) is a very fun addition for this series though, and I really had a great time watching it. The characters all seem to build off one another in a more organic way than the second picture. The story brings a bit more sharpness back to the mystery, while also having a good amount of humor to fluff the inside of the dialogue. The themes and tones are a step away from the previous two films as well, and I think that’s helps make this more interesting to watch. At the end of the day, this was yet another successful murder mystery film from Rian Johnson.

‘Glass Onion’ (2022) comes to us from Betflix as a sequel to the critically and commercially acclaimed Rian Johnson film, ‘Knives Out’ (2019). I remember there being an abundance of excitement around this film when it first came out, and I was relatively high on it once I finished it. Now I look back on this rewatch and realize it wasn’t as grand as I had wanted. This is still an interesting piece of filmmaking, and a fun mystery that tries to keep the audience in the loop. Unfortunately, there are a number of elements that don’t work here, and it ends up damaging much of the films shell. I’m sure many viewers will still have a great time with ‘Glass Onion’ (2022), and thankfully, so did I. 

I enjoyed ‘Glass Onion’ (2022) the first time I saw it. This rewatch I was a bit more damp on its ideas, but I still found there to be some fun moments. What I think it comes down to is the script just isn’t as sharp as the previous film. ‘Glass Onion’ (2022) wants to be so much like its predecessor, while also giving a unique look at a mystery as well. Blending contemporary ideas of a pandemic into the film also doesn’t help, but ultimately the script just doesn’t have as much push as I first expected. There is an almost scooby-doo quality to this movie that acts as a less intelligent form of mystery movie making. If that’s what the idea was meant to be, I truly. Ant understand that. 

The difference between the first and second film is that in the former, Blanc is thrown into a rich world of mystery, while in the latter Blanc is the center of a story that forces itself to be built up around him. That concept is very key to what makes these stories successful. Don’t get me wrong, I love seeing Daniel Craig play the sleuth southern detective, and I enjoy seeing him in many different areas, but the film feels almost too constructed around him. Sure, there are backstories to these other characters, but ultimately, it feels as if the story is forced onto this world without as much merit as ‘Knives Out’ (2019) created. 

Here is another major difference between ‘Knives Out’ (2019) and ‘Glass Onion’ (2022). I’m not saying this is for better or worse, but instead as a point of conversation. ‘Knives Out’ (2019) is a film set more into the idea of all of these characters wanting something that stems from one character’s death. ‘Glass Onion’ (2022) is more focused on what all of its characters already have. It’s a subtle difference, but in some ways, it changes the entire trajectory of the project. Motive is everything in a mystery film, and it’s tough to sell it, especially when every character is already winning. 

‘Glass Onion’ (2022) ends up telling much of its story through a series of narrated flashbacks, which cut away from the mystery at hand. I suppose I didn’t realize that as much in ‘Knives Out’ (2019), but even then, there was still something different. Late into ‘Glass Onion’ (2022) we receive some stretches of flashbacks that almost seem pointless by that point in the film. It fills in certain gaps, but ultimately I would have wanted to see the film ground itself in the contemporary a bit more. This doesn’t hinder the picture too much, but I thought I’d make note of it. 

Obviously ‘Glass Onion’ (2022) is making an aggressive statement on the Epstein Island that has been in the news plenty. A rich billionaire owns a private island where he invites his famous friends out. It’s a bit on the nose, and that’s was certainly the point. We have a governor, an online celebrity duo, a genius mechanic, and a model. It’s just like Clue for the contemporary celebrity. You can’t watch this movie today and not think about the connection it’s making to reality in that sense. Rian Johnson seems to enjoy winking at the audience with this kind of stuff, so it was certainly expected. 

So even if ‘Glass Onion’ (2022) is an obvious step down from ‘Knives Out’ (2019), I still found it to be an entertaining follow up. The style doesn’t suit my taste of films though, and many of the ideas just don’t seem to click with one another. I get the satirical tone that is brought forth from Rian Johnson’s script, but it seems to be a bit less nuanced than it was in ‘Knives Out’ (2019), and that’s saying a lot. Some viewers might connect more with this more updated style in the movie, but ultimately, we all want a good mystery. So even if ‘Knives Out’ (2019) has been proven to be a success in many fronts, that doesn’t always mean what follows will do the same.

Rian Johnson’s ‘Knives Out’ (2019) is a creative film, while also having the entertaining value of a colosseum battle. The picture explores some interesting ideas about greed, family, and what people deserve, which makes the entire film more compelling to view. The cast is stunning in ‘Knives Out’ (2019), and to this day, I still cite as one of the best ensembles working at the highest level of their careers. I might be ambivalent to Rian Johnson most of the time, but I sure do adore his film ‘Knives Out’ (2019).

I find it very difficult to have a truly original mystery in films any more. It’s a well evolved genre that has more interpretations on it than anyone can count. So when I first came across ‘Knives Out’ (2019), it was more of a breath of fresh air to see a mystery that really worked. What I appreciate the most out of this film is that along the way, if you pay close enough attention, you should be able to discover what the answer really is. There aren’t any cheap throw aways that would be impossible to guess. Instead, there is a very sharp mystery written, and that’s one thing that always makes me want to come back to the film. 

Distrust is the number one tool that makes this mystery so energetic in its own way. There is a distrust from character to character, but also from audience to character. We never really know too many expectations from these characters, except for the obvious ones that are presented in the front of the film. However, as the story goes on, trust is utilized, weaponized, and mishandled in many different ways. It always keeps us on our toes, and because of that, you have to stay sharp and attentive to each action being done. That’s how a good mystery unfolds. 

There is a unique quality to ‘Knives Out’ (2019), that might have some connective tissue to older films, but crafts a contemporary story on its own. You can cite pictures like ‘Murder On The Orient Express’ (1974) or ‘Clue’ (1985) as obvious predecessors to ‘Knives Out’ (2019), but that doesn’t mean it’s a copy and paste kind of idea. Instead, Johnson takes the framework of the mystery film, but makes it into something special here. There is more intrigue and creativity here than most films choose to have, and that’s is yet another reason on what makes this film so rewatchable. 

I had gone to see ‘Knives Out’ (2019) a number of times in theaters when it first came out. One of those times I took my mother and step father to go see it, because I was raving about it. After we left, my step father made a comment about not enjoying the family and their argumentative state throughout the whole film. I cite that as something I enjoy though. It isn’t as heavy as some movies could make it, and the campaign to see these characters onto someone who is essentially a stranger is entertaining through and through. There is a competitive nature with this family, but the ground work for them being with one another is fantastic at the end of the day. 

Rian Johnson clearly wears his politics on his sleeve when making films. I often times don’t appreciate that in my movies, but for whatever reason, it clicks a bit more here. There is a lot of comedic framed conversations about politics, even if it isn’t always so in-depth. There is a character who is cited as the president and there are arguments about his personality, and executive choices which is very close to the contemporary arguments. The film also settles around the conversation of immigration and many of the points seem topical to today’s political atmosphere. Often times when politics in films are this heavy handed, it doesn’t work, and it might not be my favorite part of this script, but I wouldn’t cite it as ruining the film by any means. 

What the hell is the famed James Bond actor Daniel Craig doing in this movie? He’s playing a southern detective who seemingly chews on every single syllable that comes out of his mouth as his demeanor brings out such a sense of hilarity that we didn’t know he had. I love every second of it. Craig plays a sleuth detective named Benoit Blanc, and outside of his humor for the material, he also comes off as a brilliant investigator. Craig is obviously having the most fun of his life in ‘Knives Out’ (2019), and it’s a welcomed change for the stoic actor to be a bit more hammier than usual. Love it or hate it, Benoit Blanc ends up gluing much of this film together with Daniel Craig’s performance. 

Outside of Daniel Craig as Benoit Blanc, the remaining cast is chock full of some iconic performances. There is a slew of actors over many generations here, and they all seem to be stepping up to the plate and give some of their strongest performances. Michael Shanon, Jamie Lee Curtis, and Don Johnson are in some of their most hilarious roles in the film, while Toni Collette, Chris Evans, and LaKeith Stanfield all bring a lot to the story as well. Ana De Armas and Christopher Plummer give off a very unique and unexpected chemistry with one another, and really end up making a charming film out of their scenes. It isn’t everyday you get an ensemble like this that really knocks it out of the park.

It really doesn’t get much better than ‘Knives Out’ (2019) in my opinion. This is a sleek, classy, and hilarious mystery that interacts with its audience, just as much as it interacts with its characters. I cannot over emphasize enough on how clever this script really is, and it falls into a pretentious state from time to time, but the overall cleverness of it makes up for that fact. With all of this, plus a cast that does a wonderful job exploiting the story, I’m sure most viewers will have a lovely time putting ‘Knives Out’ (2019) on, and either seeing it for the first time, or having a good revisit like I did.

My Voyage To Mr. Scorsese: Part 25

The new era of Martin Scorsese films included projects with Leonardo DiCaprio, and they took Scorsese into a whole new direction of filmmaking. ‘Hugo’ (2011) is one of the films the comes as a surprise to many, but when realizing the impact of the project, we see the beauty of what is explored. There is something magical within ‘Hugo’ (2011) and I resent myself for not understanding it as much when I was younger, even when this is Scorsese’s first quote on quote family film. There is something breathtaking while also being comforting in the film, and rewatching it today, I realized how fantastical it all really is. 

The Magic of the film lies within the visuals, and the wonderment of the story. There is a sensation that runs through ‘Hugo’ (2011) that gives the audience the warmth of a childhood experience. The mystical elements of the film come to us as fiction, but seem surreal to the stories case. The way Scorsese shoots the picture comes off in a mythical way, and it makes the entire film feel light on its feet. Almost like dancing. I adore how he made this picture feel like a fairytale, because this is poetic for that very reason. 

With this, there is an element of science fiction as well, but again, it comes off in a more magical way. The spectacle of the makes for a visual feast of moving images. You can absorb so much with the color pallet presented here, and you can really find what makes this film function underneath. There are plenty of ways to intellectually capture this feeling of bewilderment, and Scorsese seems to understand that. The visuals are just as important to the film as the context of the story, and it makes for a wonderful time. 

‘Hugo’ (2011) is a story about a young boy with the same name, trying to move his way through life without the understanding of many aspects. What he finds himself connecting to is the art of moving pictures. There are two sides to this conversation. The young boy who might be a hooligan at times, but has a good heart, and an adventurous spirit. Or the kid who is lost in his own reality, and attempts to run away at any chance he gets. These are both melded together in order to create a real function of the childhood experience.

This is not only a movie about a childhood life, but it’s also a deeply rich film about the art of movies. There is a lot of subtext into how movies were made and performed, but the real idea lies in what movies make us feel. There is a deep emotionality to this idea as the characters experience so many new worlds through the art of film. There is an honest interpretation of how movies make these characters feel, and it’s heart warming to see, just as much as it is interesting. That must come from the love Scorsese has for this era, as he makes such an effort to prove this point. 

Martin Scorsese’s ‘Hugo’ (2011) is a family film in a broad context, but for some reason, I didn’t connect with it when I was younger. It took a few years, and now I’m right on board with how the film wants me to feel. That is the beauty of getting to go back and watch these pictures again. You’ll always have a new context to the film, even if it’s for the worst. However, in the case of ‘Hugo’ (2011), my adornment of the film only grows as I’ve gotten older, and my appreciation for the special is truly overwhelming, as this is such a charming and lovable film about film. 

I certainly don’t understand what I was missing when I first saw ‘Hugo’ (2011), and I don’t really appreciate how damper I was on it once. Sure, if you’re going into this looking for a typical Scorsese film, you won’t get it, but ‘Hugo’ (2011) still brings an abundance of cinematic experiences to the screen. This is a movie about the childhood experience, while exploring the vision of cinema at the same time. It’s a wonderful piece that really solidifies what Scorsese is attempting to make of his career. So though this is one of the more over looked Scorsese films, I still implore many people to see it.

My Voyage To Mr. Scorsese: Part 24

‘Shutter Island’ (2010) is a flexible mind trip of a film that comes strangely into the repertoire of Martin Scorsese. Because of this, the picture is shot and delivered in such a specific and calculated way, that it comes off as high class art instead of a warn down genre piece. There is so much rich context within the film that clearly has a lot of inspiration from films of the past. You have to work to understand ‘Shutter Island’ (2010) and it certainly is a picture that should be viewed more than once. It’s a complex and calculated picture that still has many strong elements to it today. 

This could be considered Martin Scorsese’s closest attempt at the horror film genre, excluding maybe ‘Cape Fear’ (1991). The tone of ‘Shutter Island’ (2010) is frankly quite dissimilar from Scorsese’s typical works, and it seems like he is trying hard at something new this late in his career. Something about the suspenseful and horror-like tone connects with me, and it shows that he has a lot of admiration for the genre. Of course, this isn’t a straight forward horror film, but the intensity within the thriller aspect certainly makes this movie feel close to the exciting genre that is horror. 

With the horror topic being said, this is also a police procedural film that we as audience members follow along with. This is clearly Scorsese’s interpretation on the film-noir genre as a police mystery unfolds. There is the femme fatale in the picture that the hardened but broken down detective has to find and secure. As the picture goes on, there is more and more that unfolds, until we get to the concluding moments where all is revealed. A story line like this seems like it could come straight from a Mitchum era crime flick, but with a more hardened tone. It’s a clear depiction of that genre work that Scorsese is always so good at. 

There is a great devotion ‘Shutter Island’ (2010) has to films of the past. I could dig deep into the history of cinema and most likely find a good number of pictures that inspired this one. The film knowledge that Scorsese has clearly indicates that he is pulling from something he admired at one point in his life when it comes to moving pictures. There is just something honest about the feeling of ‘Shutter Island’ (2010), and I sense its references come from so many classics of the 40’s and 50’s, while also playing into the grit of the 70’s. That’s what makes filmmakers like Scorsese so key to the art of movies. 

I mentioned before that this is a great film to watch multiple times to understand. If you’re lucky enough to go into ‘Shutter Island’ (2010) without knowing the concluding twist, then you’re in a very lucky place. Once you figure out the final moments of the film, it’s still a great adventure to go back and watch it again. I think many movies should be viewed twice to really understand its meaning. However, ‘Shutter Island’ (2010) almost needs this treatment as it serves so many purposes when you go back and piece together all of the little nuances presented into the pictures frame. 

The grittiness of ‘Shutter Island’ (2010) makes the film feel as if it was scraped off the bottom of a grease trap. That might sound unappealing to some audience members, but it’s the idea of this that makes the movie function how it’s supposed to. There is a grit placed over the screen that makes the picture feel damp and dark when running through the island. The bleakness that arises from this concludes a more mysterious tone. Not every picture needs to be a glimmering visual of cinematography. Sometimes making the film feel this way is the objective of the creators. 

‘Shutter Island’ (2010) is something of a fantastical creation by one of the great living directors. Looking back at his filmography, you wouldn’t guess Mr. Scorsese to have made something of this caliber, but it somehow works. This is a great picture to pair with ‘Cape Fear’ (1991) as they are close in tone for Scorsese, but that doesn’t change the fact on the bizarreness of it. ‘Shutter Island’ (2010) is a smaller film with a wildly complex story. I know Martin Scorsese understood his assignment, and like he always does, made something of an anomaly to cinematic history. 

Martin Scorsese’s ‘Shutter Island’ (2010) does what it sought out to do. Craft a thrilling and suspenseful picture about the insanity of one man’s mind. The cleverness comes in how the picture is delivered, and the creativity the camera work and blocking allows. Leonardo DiCaprio does a fantastic job as the lead of this film, and his effort to the work is something to be admired. The overall picture is still a success today, even if you’ve come across the movie and seen it before. There is a lot to see and witness in the film on another watch, and that’s what I implore many people to do with ‘Shutter Island’ (2010).

My Voyage To Mr. Scorsese: Part 23

“When I was your age they would say we can become cops, or criminals. Today, what I’m saying to you is this: when you’re facing a loaded gun, what’s the difference?” - Frank Costello

Here it is. The film that vindicated Martin Scorsese over all of these years, and awarding him his very first Academy Award. Thankfully it wasn’t for a film that seems mediocre in comparison to his other films. ‘The Departed’ (2006) is a remarkable force of ingenuity in cinema, and on this rewatch, I still found myself hooked to every second of screen time. Following up as a remake to the Hong Kong classic ‘Infernal Affairs’ (2002), you can see where the groundwork was placed, but we also get to experience how the Scorsese touch amplifies the stories rambunctious soul. ‘The Departed’ (2006) is one of those movies that not only became one of the strongest best picture winners, but also a fantastic ride that can be rewatched every year. 

First of all, what makes this movie so engaging to its audience? I find the biggest strength to that notion is how smart this script truly is. The writing behind this story gives the audience enough to play with, while also shielding us for other aspects. Because of this, we get an almost mystery style crime film that interacts with its audience every step of the way. You have to see the film to understand what I’m talking about here. The way this script allows itself to be complex and interesting without making the audience feel parochial is a true bonus as to why this overall picture works. 

‘The Departed’ (2006) is a bit different from the typical Scorsese gangster piece, but it solidifies his career in the genre. Going out to Boston, ‘The Departed’ (2006) takes on a new vision or organized crime on a more intimate level. The level of violence blended with sleekness of the characters are still here like in ‘Goodfellas’ (1990), and ‘Casino’ (1995), but there is an almost dirtier feeling to the picture. However, the story allows us to see how the crime circuit operates in Boston, and it connects well to the crime films of the past. I wouldn’t say this is the best example of gangster pictures, but it comes close to being one of the coolest. 

Here is how the story presents itself to us. We follow two characters that have no involvement with each other’s identities. One is an undercover cop that is infiltrating the gangster crime circuit, while the other one is from that crime circuit, and he’s infiltrating the Boston police department. The back and forth of showing us what’s working and not can be tricky, but somehow, the balance is matched on point. We have to conclude our own findings when it comes to how the story presents these ideas to us. First off, a lot of the story is meant to be intertwining and a bit confusing, but it always brings home the ideas. Secondly, there is a mutual amount of trust from the film to the audience that makes this feel more cohesive. It’s a thrilling story that allows us to work with it, you can’t beat that. 

Scorsese is known for his crime films set in New York, but ‘The Departed’ (2006) takes us into the urban chaos of Boston, Massachusetts. This city is no stranger to the crime narrative that stems out of it, and films like ‘The Friends Of Eddie Coyle’ (1973) makes it legendary in its own right. The city structure is still here as much as it is in Scorsese’s other films, but the tone of the characters certainly aligns with the characteristics of the New England state. I have no issue with the film taking its time in Boston, and it honestly helps the story on so many more unique levels. 

Leonardo DiCaprio comes back to Mr. Scorsese again for a third time, and it’s obvious the connection they have with one another. This is a great performance from the actor, even when he’s up against the likes of Matt Damon, Jack Nicholson, Mark Wahlberg, Alec Baldwin, Vera Farmiga, and Martin Sheen. Each performance is top notch, and the intense energy they all bring to the film heightens the scale of what’s happening. ‘The Departed’ (2006) might come off as a more toned down film compared to ‘The Aviator’ (2004), but what makes it feel large is the sheer talent in the tremendous acting performances. 

‘The Departed’ (2006) is historically not your typical Oscar winning film. It’s gritty, gruesome, and often times intense in a not so prestigious way. However, it was a statement from the Academy in 2007 when this film took four of its five Academy Award nominations home. Was this just to anoint the director, Mr. Scorsese? Perhaps that is one argument that can be made. I find this to be one of the outside choices that might not be your first though. However, it goes down as one of the more formidable films to take home the best picture Academy Award. It’s not solidified as one of the greats, and for very good reason. 

So there it is. Even after a dozen or so rewatches, I still find ‘The Departed’ (2006) to be a flat out masterpiece. The story is sharp and clever, while the filmmaking style is consistent and engaging. The cast knocks it out of the park, and it surprises me that more nominations didn’t go around. However, at the end of the day, this is the film that announced Martin Scorsese as one of the legends to the Academy Awards. A bit late, but still worthy of the title. ‘The Departed’ (2006) is as strong as everyone says it is, and getting to watch it again makes me appreciate every frame that much more.

My Voyage To Mr. Scorsese: Part 22

“Sometimes I truly fear that I’m - losing my mind. And if I did, it would - it would be like flying blind.” - Howard Hughes

There is something truly special, and almost magical about Martin Scorsese’s ‘The Aviator’ (2004). This film takes on another historical legacy, but instead of shrouding it in violence, we see a man whose perfection in film is what inevitably corrupts his vision to succeed. Leonardo DiCaprio joins forces with Scorsese for their second outing in what could be one of their best, but most looked over collaboration. Outside of those two, this film is a massive force of creative filmmaking. The production design, the elegance, the scale, and the excitement are all prevalent when you sit down and watch ‘The Aviator’ (2004). It’s taken a number of years for me to really appreciate this feature, but now I can truly say I have an abundance of adornment for it. 

‘The Aviator’ (2004) is a stunning project about a man who wanted to create something larger than himself. The picture centers around Howard Hughes, a progressive filmmaker in the 1930’s. We see the scale of his desire in this picture as his projects grow and evolve into something more complex at each step. His desire to craft something like this is out of the self preservation of his own name to history, while also being the man to make something larger than himself in the minds of everyone. Scorsese delivers these ideas very concisely, and it makes the audience understand the power of desire. 

What goes hand in hand with this idea of desire is the toll it takes on one man’s mindset as he grows more frail and frustrated with the lack of control. We see the character of Howard Hughes fall into a sort of madness as he struggles to maintain control of his projects. His dejection to the “suits” that control his progression is clear and almost frustrating for us to see. However, the unreasonable direction is also a way to look upon the character as well. ‘The Aviator’ (2004) glorifies and scrutinizes the way this man’s life was lived, and it’s up to the audience to really navigate their feelings on the matter. 

I find this picture to be a great example of what a “great man story” really is. Movies like this are centered around the ideas of people in history that create or do something on a massive scale that is too impactful to be ignored. ‘Oppenheimer’ (2023) is one of the clearest examples of this in the modern era. However, these types of movies have been around almost as long as cinema itself. ‘The Aviator’ (2004) fits perfectly into this category of film as we see the life and times of Howard Hughes. What’s important to the story is that we see the struggle and falls of the man as well. A great man film does not need to glorify, but certainly explain the life that was lived. 

Having seen ‘The Aviator’ (2004) a great number of times when I was younger, one thing that always stood out to me was the scale of this films production. Even when watching the movie at fifteen years old, I could comprehend the amount of work that went into making this film as large as it is. Scorsese does this often with his films, but the production design on ‘The Aviator’ (2004) is one that really sticks out to me. From the models crafted of the real planes to the air shoots in the sky, I found much of this film to rely on its massive footprint. The picture works because of this, and it makes the audience realize what the character is struggling to work with. 

Leonardo DiCaprio stars as Howard Hughes in what I have always said was one of his strongest performances. He didn’t take home an academy award, but he certainly would have deserved it if he did. The Chang won his character through this film is a semblance of what the actor can really formulate on screen. He is paired up with Cate Blanchett as Katharine Hepburn in a performance that would take home an Oscar. Blanchett is also wonderful in the film and it took until this rewatch to truly appreciate that. Scorsese is not only a master of craftsmanship, but leading his actors to their absolute best as well. 

Martin Scorsese would not take home an Academy Award for ‘The Aviator’ (2004) which almost seems criminal to a point. As I said before, this is a film of great scale and full of extraordinary intelligence. Not every director could go on and make this story as successful as Scorsese did, and that’s saying something to his mentality. I find the direction to be the glue that holds all of these elements together in the film. That is the case for so many pictures, but it really takes a genius like Mr. Scorsese to do that for a film of ‘The Aviator’ (2004) caliber. 

The rewatch I have done with ‘The Aviator’ (2004) is one of the more informative ones I have done recently. I always appreciated this picture since I first saw it, but it’s taken some growing up to really comprehend the impact it has. I adore so many factors of this picture, and with the scale of where it’s at, I could certainly see this picture not working in someone else’s hands. ‘The Aviator’ (2004) thankfully has a very strong and impactful place in the world of cinema, and even today, viewers like me can go back and rewatch the project so many times, and still absorb something new.

Clint Bentley’s ‘Train Dreams’ (2025) is an empowering characterization of a man who is aimless in the world that he is striving to achieve so much in. With a deeply powerful and emotional tone to the story, you will find a lot to discuss out of it. I have been looking forward to this picture for some time, but now I can see it was worth that wait. ‘Train Dreams’ (2025) holds so much power in its visual storytelling, while also formulating a story about grief and anguish, around a world of simplicity. Something touched me deep inside while I was watching ‘Train Dreams’ (2025), and the emotionality that I gained from this viewing experience will be something special I hold onto for some time. 

Solitude is the essence of ‘Train Dreams’ (2025) as the character of Robert delves into a deep into an independent style of living. Not only is this case in the physical, but the emotional as well. The life style of logging that occurs in ‘Train Dreams’ (2025) leaves the character on the move, and unable to root himself in. With this solitude, he seems almost lost without a reality to go back to. The roaming of the land is showcased literally, but the dejected emotions from Robert is clear as well when we experience the solitude with him. 

What is ‘Train Dreams’ (2025) really about when you get down to it? The common man in an unfolding life. There is some semblance of mundanity in the picture that paints the world full simplicity. It’s boils itself down to being a film of one man who struggles in every aspect of his life, but deep down there is something truly heart warming about his efforts. You can throw a stone in any direction and hit a movie like this that discusses the certain topics of a normal man, but the font that ‘Train Dreams’ (2025) conducts. 

‘Train Dreams’ (2025) comes off to the common ear as a slow paced drama that has much to do about nothing. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Though the pacing comes off with a quieter tone, there is still an abundance of rich story to absorb. I find films don’t need to have the flow of a quick river stream ti be successful, but others might deem it necessary. ‘Train Dreams’ (2025) takes its time with showing us what we have to see and what we should see. There is no momentary lapse of hesitation on the film’s triumph when it comes to this, and that’s why so much success is found in the movie itself. 

Cinematography is an obvious conversation to have about ‘Train Dreams’ (2025), due to the sheer importance of what it brings to the film. I know I won’t be the first to make this comment, but because of the films remarkably stunning visuals, it comes off as if it’s taking reference from the works of Terrence Malick’s films. The gorgeous landscapes of the woods, the broad and open fields, the very sharp and detailed countryside. All of this fills into a beautiful looking project. It’s one of the strongest examples of cinematography this year. 

What does nature mean to this film, and how does the concept of the films manual growth into it change the subject matter? The nature of this world is rooted in a dense forest that cloaks the screen. It’s magnetic to envision this as the character tries to grow. The beauty of the shooting makes this so much more apparent, but the impact that something so wild and primitive can have on this films conversation is worth having. The desperation and desire these characters feel is important to see, but the nature that grows and almost feels alive around them is all that much more impactful to this growth. 

Joel Edgerton is one of those actors that I never had on my radar that much, but when he showed up in a film, I was often pleased. ‘Train Dreams’ (2025) is by far his most impactful performance to date. He is effective as the character of Robert in his emotionality, while also deriving an immense power through his silence. The supporting cast to him also do a phenomenal amount of acting in this picture as they carry the world around Robert. Felicity Jones in particular gives an outstanding performance, and gives a drive to the whole story that is needed to carry on. I don’t mean to gush over these performances as much as I am, but you have to see them for yourself to truly appreciate. 

There is so much more I can speak about when it comes to Clint Bentley’s ‘Train Dreams’ (2025). I plan on giving this film another watch very soon so I can dig into the context even more so. This might not be the lightest hearted watch of the year, but it has come down to be one of the most impactful in my mind. ‘Train Dreams’ (2025) will sweep away an audience in the blink of an eye as the story drives so many deeper meanings outside of it. With a gorgeous presentation on top of this, you’ll be able to understand the straight forward beauty this picture brings to its viewers, and for that, I look forward to another rewatch soon.

My Voyage To Mr. Scorsese: Part 21

“He was the only man I ever killed worth remembering” - Bill ‘The Butcher’ Cutting 

I’ve seen Martin Scorsese’s ‘Gangs Of New York’ (2002) many of times, and I’ve always had admiration for the flick. Only on this rewatch though, did I find a deep seated appreciation for the film like I hadn’t had before. The power and intensity this story brings is to a great level, and it flourishes with not many moments of dapperness. The beguiled film that is ‘Gangs Of New York’ (2002) brings director Martin Scorsese into the fold of the 21st century with a bang. I was absolutely delighted with my rewatch of ‘Gangs Of New York’ (2002), and I’m sure I’ll be watching it again, many times over. 

‘Gangs Of New York’ (2002) centers around the five points of New York, and the gang that ran it with power. It’s an excellent view point of this world and time and the history behind it. You’ll enjoy this for sure if you like a classic gangster piece. The class and nuance aren’t as prevalent like in ‘Goodfellas’ (1990) and ‘Casino’ (1995), but there is certainly an abundance of the gangster picture here. With warring factions taking over land, you’ll get the fighting, the intrigue, and the bands of crooks, just like a classic gangster picture should be. 

Not only is ‘Gangs Of New York’ (2002) an exciting gangster piece set in the 1860’s, but it is also a thrilling political piece as well. The film shows how the gangs and Bill The Butcher took power not only through violence, but in elections as well. Sure, the votes were taken through violence, but I often love to see the other side of a world that is shrouded in anger and crime. Seeing these characters rise to the top is gripping, and though some might find it on the more mundane side of things, it only excites me more to rewatch the film. 

Here is a story that is deeply rooted in the life of Irish immigration during the mid 1800’s. We follow not only an immigrant making a home here, and the struggles that ensue, but the opposition that comes from the racist view points. The film is very clever at pairing these two together as the war for New York rages on. There is a physical altercation aspect to the script, along with a political one as well. Both sides fight to seek power, but ultimately, it all whittles down to the struggle that occurs on this side of someone making a life. 

‘Gangs Of New York’ (2002) settles us right in with an explosive intro that is seldom forgotten. With its impactful and abrasive violence being sequenced all over the screen. If you haven’t a weak stomach for Scorsese’s style of violence, this will certainly not be the film for you. Pairing an entire battle sequence up with some impactful visuals doesn’t only stop at the beginning. We follow the story as much more of this type of filmmaking continues, and ultimately concludes the film in a very memorable way. 

The style of ‘Gangs Of New York’ (2002) is rooted in the 1800’s New York class. This is a very different depiction of the time and place from Scorsese’s other film, ‘The Age Of Innocence’ (1993). In place of the posh and elegant wardrobe, we see a warn out and tattered vision of the city. The gangs that control everything might seem like they come from a fighter class, but ultimately, still seem to thrive in the streets. The costumes are grandiose for sure, but there is a hint to the real dirt underneath it all. 

Not every performance in ‘Gangs Of New York’ (2002) works. I’m not here to talk about that though. With an extensive cast that includes the names of Leonardo DiCaprio, Cameron Diaz, Liam Neeson, and Brendan Gleeson, there is ultimately one name that sticks out. That is of the legendary performer, Daniel Day-Lewis, in one of his most electric performances as Bill ‘The Butcher’ Cutting. Day-Lewis is the most electrifying thing about the picture, and the legend you hear of this performance is all true. I am still stunned today at the accent work, the physicality, the range, and the power that’s brought with this performance, and I can watch it almost every single day. 

At one point in my life I think I found ‘Gangs Of New York’ (2002) lower on my rankings of Mr. Scorsese’s films. After this terrific rewatch, I would say that is certainly not the case. What a powerful and compelling film that drives a very thoughtful and clever story through. The script is very well made and paces along with a strict regiment that makes you adore the film that much more. The director is stunning and pair this with some fantastic acting, and you have a legendary film that’ll live long into the life of cinematic history. Even if it’s a blood soaked romp about hooliganism.

I’m sure that people traveling for work would bet their entire per diem on saying ‘Predator: Badlands’ (2025) was going to be a decent film. They would have won the allowance honeypot if that was the case. A well made story that follows a member of the Predator alien breed called the Yautja. This story has a few misgivings that didn’t suit me as an audience member, but overall I found the film to be effective on what it wanted to do. The concept is what we want from a late stage franchise piece like this, and it helps that there isn’t too much representation. ‘Predator: Badlands’ (2025) certainly seems like a success in many folks’s books, so you can’t argue with that. 

The new story structure in ‘Predator: Badlands’ (2025) suits the sequel well. We don’t return to mercenaries getting hunted, nor do we throw the Predator into earth. This feels as if it’s an outsider film, which it mostly is. The Predator is thrown into a world where he is the prey, and now he needs to hunt with that. It really is a different concept compared to the other films, and I enjoy the fact that this was the way everything went. Movies like ‘Predator: Badlands’ (2025) give the franchise longevity, and ultimately grow the ideas within the film. 

The violence in ‘Predator: Badlands’ (2025) might seem more amplified to an audience, but when you realize the unrealistic nature of it, I’m sure some can stomach the concepts. The film is full of CGI monsters getting appendages cut off, and split in half. It’s great visuals for an audience that loves these kind of movies, and I would say it’s done well in comparison to some of the other pictures. There really is a lot of creativity in the violence though, and you’ll be able to pick out what makes sense and doesn’t from it. 

I have always been a bigger fan of ‘Alien’ (1979) and the franchise that ensued. ‘Predator’ (1987), and the films that followed were fun, but never as strong as what I saw on the other side. That being said, these Predator films have really made a new name for themselves in the 2020’s. With ‘Prey’ (2022), ‘Predator: Killer Of Killers’ (2025), and now ‘Predator: Badlands’ (2025), we can all see the fan base is having a great time. It’s helpful to have a jolt in the series like this, and the fact that it’s three films in a row is a good sign. I’m sure there will be another stumble, but movies like ‘Predator: Badlands’ (2025) are certainly doing justice to the films that came before. 

So I wouldn’t bet my bottom dollar in saying ‘Predator: Badlands’ (2025) is going to go down as the strongest film in the franchise, but it did well at what it was asked. The film has a lot of energy to it, and there is a lot to say about how this deviates from the original source material, but keeps some firm grassroots. Seeing this on the big screen might have enhanced my interest as well, though I’m sure it’ll find a decent viewing home on a streaming service. This is where the franchise of The Predator is at, and I can only assume a slew of projects are coming down the pipeline. So buckle up, cause we know it’s coming.

I will concede in the fact that ‘Predator’ (1987) and the franchise that followed has never been one very noteworthy of me to comment on. So when it came to this animated adaptation in series, I wasn’t chomping at the bit to see it. What I will say after this viewing though, is that the film is much more than you might think it is. ‘Predator: Killer Of Killers’ (2025) is a great concept that expands the world these movies created. So if you’re a fan of the Predator movies but shy away from animation, you should still check out ‘Predator: Killer Of Killers’ (2025), because it’s in good hands. 

The story structure of ‘Predator: Killer Of Killers’ (2025) is not one straight forward story, but in fact an anthology through the history of humanity. This film showcases three different human warriors and their stories as they come across different Predators in their time. The film doesn’t conclude in all three of these characters meeting, but I won’t spoil what that conclusion looks like. I can’t say I needed the ending the way it was put off, but the newly formed structure was entertaining to say the least. 

Getting to see three different types of warriors in history fight against the Predator seems like a fan fiction story. Dan Trachtenberg clearly is a fan of this series, and him taking it on like this gives the audience a vessel in excitement. We see the Viking like Warrior in ‘The Shield’, the samurai warrior in ‘The Sword’, and strangely enough, a young boy who pilots a plain during the Second World War in ‘The Bullet’. There is plenty of action and violence that ensues when these characters come to battle, and that’s exactly what the audience needed to see. 

The animation style is something I could speak on, but there isn’t much to mentioned in some people’s eyes. It doesn’t hinder the viewing experience, and because it’s animated, there is a lot more they could have done for a lesser budget. Would I have preferred to see this in a live action format, and I think if it was done well, could have looked stellar. The animation didn’t hinder my experience though. The style was decent, and it has that new animation paint wave to it, which works for the most part. I can’t complain about this though, because the story was good enough to look past the film being animated. 

‘Predator: Killer Of Killers’ (2025) is a nice entry into the decade spanning franchise. I haven’t been the most impressed with much of these films, or at least not with an over enthusiastic critic. This first animated edition isn’t my favorite from the bunch, but it does fit in nicely to what the audience really wants to see. This is action packed with a brilliant story. Splitting the film into thirds was a curious choice, but ultimately paid off in the end. What it comes down to is the fact that ‘Predator: Killer Of Killers’ (2025) didn’t need to be bombastic and explosive in the series, because it has done just fine as a new addition.

Dan Trachtenberg’s ‘Prey’ (2022) is a very welcomed addition to The Predator franchise, especially after whatever in good gods name ‘The Predator’ (2018) was. ‘Prey’ (2022) is a very fun, but very smart action film that takes a whole new approach to the franchise. Along with this being a great story to add under the series’s belt, this is also a wonderfully made film. ‘Prey’ (2022) achieves much of what the previous film couldn’t, and that’s on every front. I found myself enjoying this picture much more on this rewatch than my first viewing, and it certainly made me have more respect overall. 

What makes ‘Prey’ (2022) stand out so much from the other films is its primitive landscape it’s set into. The Great Plains are this films focus point, and the Comanche tribe that live on it are its characters. Being set in the early 1700’s, it’s great to see the film explore the idea of different time periods, and how the predator adapts to it. Not only this, but the villainous predator itself is more of a primitive figure in the film as well. The lack of technology from the previous films makes this picture feel so much more exciting and interesting to view. 

With that being said, this is also just a fantastic action movie. I’m not sure why I didn’t respect that from my first viewing a few years ago, but it certainly is one heart pounding heavy weight of an action flick. Whether it’s a bear getting the life kicked out of it, or a one on one duel with the leading warrior and the predator, there is always something to be seeing. Some moments of computer graphics might hiccup the film, but the concluding result is very strong. 

What I’ll say is though this isn’t a perfect looking film when it comes to its CGI, I do think it does much better than its predecessor. The reason I find this more impressive is that there is clearly more detail going into the construction of these visuals. Making water and hair move coherently in films like this is difficult. Though you can certainly catch a few times it doesn’t click, I still have to stand up and salute the effort. ‘Prey’ (2022) is no where near as egregious as ‘The Predator’ (2018) on this front, and I think everyone should take that as a win. 

‘Prey’ (2022) honestly needed to just not have the personality of shoe glue to really succeed after the last film. Thankfully, this is the picture that really brings the franchise into the 2020’s, and it’s on the right track. Daniel Trachtenberg has now come out with three Predator films in the span of three years, and each one has their own charm and entertainment. ‘Prey’ (2022) is the first that really showcases the motion heavy action with the well structured ideas that a movie this late needs. It seems promising for now, but I’m sure there will always be a bigger fall for a long running franchise. 

I’m thankful for the fact that I rewatched ‘Prey’ (2022), because I forgot how decent the overall film really is. Dan Trachtenberg did a fine job on his first outing with a Predator film, and it seems that he’s on track to really make it his own. ‘Prey’ (2022) solidifies the fact that there is a lot more meat on the bone when it comes to these types of action sci-fi flicks. Creativity is still alive, and it can utilize films like ‘Predator’ (1987) to make it flourish. That’s the best idea I see out of ‘Prey’ (2022), and thank god ‘The Predator’ (2018) didn’t kill the franchise.

Here is the slop I really don’t have time for. This is the type of movie that hyper fixates on comedy while trying to be a transformative action flick. Unfortunately the movie is too shallow to understand its own misgivings, and ultimately fails on so many fronts. I was bored to no end through most of this film, and the attempts at hilarity just made me roll my eyes that much more. I knew this project wasn’t going to be a winner from the reviews I had always heard about, but truthfully, these are the types of movies I strive to avoid.

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy a good Shane Black film. I often site ‘The Nice Guys’ (2016) as one of my favorites of the 21st century. The difference with that films writing and this one, is that ‘The Nice Guys’ (2016) has intelligence inside of it. The humor flows with its story, and nothing feels forced. ‘The Predator’ (2018) often feels as if it stops in its tracks to tell a joke or give a wink to the audience. It doesn’t benefit anyone involved in viewing this. Fred Dekker isn’t a slump most of the time either, but for whatever reason, these two writers coming together just didn’t benefit this long running franchise. 

Not only is this film devoid of humor, but it also seems to have the unique talent of sucking the humor out of the room as well. There are more issues than the half assed comedy in the script. This story simply just doesn’t know what it wants to be. A suburban chaos machine where a killer alien wreaks havoc? Perhaps it is trying to be a men on a mission flick like ‘The Dirty Dozen’ (1967). Keep in mind, these questions are rhetorical because I think the storyline itself doesn’t have enough context to make sense itself. I could dig deep into those issues, but what good would that do?

I wanted to say that the roughest aspects of ‘The Predator’ (2018) was its script, but then I saw the computer graphics. What a disgusting and truly anguishing appearance ‘The Predator’ (2018) has. Some of the costume design of the alien itself is neat, but it’s everything around it that fails the concepts. I couldn’t really comprehend what I was seeing when the visuals would look so low quality. I couldn’t figure out how this was even remotely the case since the technology had gone so far by 2018. It’s just another example of how practical work is often superior than the opposition.

I had heard the rough undertaking many viewers had with ‘The Predator’ (2018), and it certainly had me thinking. I had hoped that my enjoyment of Shane Black’s works would carry me through this with a more positive mindset, but that certainly wasn’t the case. ‘The Predator’ (2018) is a completely lost film to itself, and maybe that’s ironic because it’ll certainly be lost to time as well. I guess if you consider dragging the audience across the finish line just to make a franchise piece like this a win, then good on ‘The Predator’ (2018).

I will still stand by my amusement for the third installment in the Predator franchise, promptly called ‘Predators’ (2010). It took two decades for a third addition to the series, and I still have a lot of fondness for it. I used to rewatch this on cable television when I was younger, and it had always thrilled me. I might be a bit less high about it today, but I still get a decent amount of entertainment from the picture. The story is very good, and the mystery behind it drives a wonderful plot. The action is intense and heavy and it ultimately just boils down a very fun time at the movies. 

The script in the first two Predator movies were effective, but lacked a great sense of complexity. That isn’t a fault of the film, and in the case of the first one actually helped it. However, in the 21st century, everyone seems to want to add more complexity to their films. The way this story in ‘Predators’ (2010) unravels with the audience is very smoothly executed. It isn’t done perfectly like certain films, but it does allow the action fandom to really invest in these characters. I certainly think ‘Predators’ (2010) has one of the more well rounded scripts in the franchise. 

With this being said about the script, there is more than just the horror and action and sci-fi included in the film. Now we receive some impressive mystery aspects as well. We crash land on a planet that we get to know very little about with characters that are unfamiliar to us as well. As the characters trudge through this forest, more people come into the fray and big events follow. The story is sharp enough to be able to know what to give us and what to withhold. The blocking of the predator itself had been done already, but the curiosity the script brings when not allowing us to have security with the characters is all that much smarter as well. 

It took two decades from the second installment in this franchise, ‘Predator 2’ (1990) to this one, ‘Predators’ (2010). Why the long wait? After all, the sequel to the original was only a three year gap. ‘Alien Vs. Predator’ (2004) and ‘Alien Vs. Predator: Requiem’ (2007) were both released in the 2000’s, and that’s clearly jump started the fandom again. It seemed the franchise could benefit from some new source material. Though those pictures in the 2000’s are sloppy and incoherent, you can be thankful that this was the resolution to be made after those pictures received their energetic recharge. 

I’m trying to really dive deep into myself and figure out why ‘Predators’ (2010) works for me more than most of the other films in this franchise. The nostalgia of it certainly helps my momentum, but I think there is a different reason as well. The sheer coolness of the film ‘Predators’ (2010) is really what makes it work. The tone is a bit grittier than ‘Predator’ (1987), and there isn’t as much of an 80’s action star gloss to it. Instead, this is a rough and tumble kind of film, and though it’s from a poor era of action flicks, it still has some heavy attitude to back itself up. 

You can say what you want about ‘Predators’ (2010), but I will always stand by this film. There is a lot to eat up in this picture, and all sorts of action movie fans will get a great kick out of this. The building of characters as we curiously follow each one joins the group is a great structure to build. The confusion within the mystery benefits the script instead of hindering it. The film design is done quite well, and though it might not have the greatest computer effects, it still does a lot with what it has. I will ultimately always enjoy this picture because of my childhood, but thankfully on this rewatch, I was vindicated for my feelings of enjoyment.

‘Predator 2’ (1990) by no one’s surprise in the title, is the follow up to the classic John McTiernan film, ‘Predator’ (1987). This sequel is a lesser interpretation of the previous picture, but it doesn’t go without merit. The film brings the Predator into a futuristic Los Angeles for a wild ride against a one man army. The picture doesn’t necessarily grow much off of the last feature, but it does give us some more exciting moments with the Predator character. I would rather watch the original many times over, but this still lands on a few fronts. 

The sci-fi elements of ‘Predator 2’ (1990) are just as present here as they were in the first film, and there is a bit more added as well. The city of Los Angeles is now a dystopian war zone for the characters, and the Predator is here to hunt. This isn’t a complex script by any means, but the genre elements are still there. There is once again a blend of the action with a sci-fi, while having “horror” as much as you can be. These films stay consistent with the style of genre building, even if other subsets of the film don’t work. 

In place of the jungle forest of Central America, we get a stylized landscape of the Los Angeles city here. For a positive on this, it’s nice to see the character of the predator taken out of its first environment. It makes the film feel more unique to its own concept, even is all of the meat to the picture is the same. I enjoyed the film taking this turn in location, and I thought it worked. Sure, it might seem a bit lazy to do, and the flow of the city doesn’t meld as neatly as you might think. I just appreciate that it wasn’t a copy and paste of first films setting.

I suppose you can refer to ‘Predator 2’ (1990) as a film set in the future to its contemporary shoot. Though it only takes place seven years from 1990, it still takes its liberties in being in “the future”. I really found this to lack any sort of necessity, but the film makers didn’t feel the same way. With futuristic firearms and a dystopian layout, you’ll scratch your head at the concepts being purposed. Why not make this contemporary to the time? It feels like a wasted effort that dragged the picture away from what everyone really came to see, the Predator. 

Overall I still have fun watching ‘Predator 2’ (1990) even when I know it’s a massive leap down from the first film. There are some things to enjoy, while others to shy away from. The script feels rushed, and the concepts don’t seem solid enough. At the same time. There are still some great moments of the Predator alien doing its thing. I had seen this years back and might have been harder on it then, but it still is worthy of some questioning commentary. So don’t expect to get something as cool as ‘Predator’ (1987), but this is still a good double with it.

John McTiernan’s ‘Predator’ (1987) is the first installment in the decade spanning franchise. This sci-fi action piece is always fun to come back to for whatever reason you might choose. The campiness of the 80’s is in full swing here, with some truly absurd action set pieces to set down the tone. Holding strong in the hallmark of cinematic history, ‘Predator’ (1987) might not be considered fine art, but it certainly does its part to entertain. Say what you will about the sequels that follow, this is a great start to something fun. 

This nifty little action picture from the 1980’s blends the sci-fi genre, with the formally mentioned action one. A little bit of horror to throw into the mix and now you’ve got yourself ‘Predator’ (1987). These genres don’t trip over one another in the film, and it seems to have a cohesive flow overall. The sci-fi elements come from a futuristic alien that wreaks havoc over the characters. The action feels like a Vietnam war flick, while the horror is fall into the suspense that coincides with these other tropes. It’s a well written script that could easily get lost in itself, but ultimately succeeds in the long run, and the longevity of the picture holds that up. 

The story is relatively straight forward when you watch ‘Predator’ (1987), and though you can poke holes into the script, I find it to be a very decent one. We follow some mercenaries as they are on an undisclosed mission, but they get caught up with a killing machine alien called the Predator. It’s fun, it’s easy, and it doesn’t take a lot of brain power to get right into the story. This is what a lot of action movies of the era did well at, and today, there is too much convolution to the genre. Sometimes it’s nice to see a film that doesn’t insist on over explaining concepts, and instead just lets us ride along for a good time in the action world. 

80’s action is something special to a lot of people. It’s telling to see how many movies came out in this decade and are still having a run of sequels today. ‘First Blood’ (1982), ‘The Terminator’ (1984), ‘Robocop’ (1987), and ‘Die Hard’ (1988) all formulated in the heat of the 80’s, but still have their names in decades past. The action is truly over the top and absurd, but that’s what makes it so much fun. The over exaggerated violence is meant to take away much of the films reality, because that’s not the intended viewing experience. ‘Predator’ (1987) is a great conversation piece on this topic, and that’s why it still holds up today. 

The cast of ‘Predator’ (1987) is a lot of fun, only for the reason it has some great performances from some solid action hero’s. Arnold Schwarzenegger is the obvious lead as he plays his own character in the same way as always. Carl Weathers is another addition that I am always giddy to see in any film, and Jesse Ventura is here as well. Bill Duke makes some impactful screen time, and it helps raise everyone up to their 80’s action best. Don’t expect Shakespeare, but certainly appreciate the campy delivery these legends give off. 

I couldn’t be happier with this rewatch of ‘Predator’ (1987), especially because I didn’t see it on cable this time around with a slew of ad breaks. The movie is energetic and kinetic in all the best ways, while holding a very engaging story for the audience. You’ll feel like you’re right back in the chaotic era of the 1980’s when you delve into ‘Predator’ (1987), and it’s for the best. A cast that solidifies what makes a fun action movie, plus some great effects really nails this picture down as a classic for all the right reasons.

My Voyage To Mr. Scorsese: Part 20

Martin Scorsese’s ‘Bringing Out The Dead’ (1999) is the second feature the famed director would do in the last year of the twentieth century. ‘Bringing Out The Dead’ (1999) is an interesting film about insomnia, over indulgence, and paranoia. The film is very interesting, and suits a tone of chaotic suspense. The haunting visuals plays as a lever to give the character a warped level of reality. You can piece together so many different techniques and film styles that are attributed to ‘Bringing Out The Dead’ (1999) and ultimately admire the film, though it might end up on the lower end of Scorsese’s filmography. 

‘Brining Out The Dead’ (1999) follows a late night ambulance driver as he suffers from intense insomnia, and drowns himself in the work. Because of this key point, the film begins with an immense haze over the tone. As the character is depriving himself of the sleep, the audience begins to feel his struggle. With this, the picture becomes more and more manic as the events feel more frantic from the leads point of view. You can sense the struggle that goes along with the lack of sleep here, and there is a clear idea behind that, which ultimately equates to the filmmaking style. 

Over indulgence is another point I made of this film as we see our lead Frank, played by Nicholas Cage, consuming some intense substances. Alcohol is one while he is on the move, but more is involved. This connects with the idea of insomnia and makes the film feel more frantic because of it. This practice of filmmaking was done by Scorsese multiple times, but most notably in ‘Goodfellas’ (1990). It creates a chaotic atmosphere around the story and the characters, which helps push the frightening characteristics of the story. 

Paranoia is yet another underlying tone of this picture. ‘Bringing Out The Dead’ (1999) might not express this in the full visual of the run time, but it certainly plays a factor when you seek to understand the ideas underneath. The unsureness of the characters around Frank play a major roll to the script. I found many of the supporting parts to be untrustworthy, even when they seem warm at times. Once again, this is a trope that is not uncommon to a Scorsese film. It heightens a lot of the intensity within the film, and makes for a more thrilling experience. 

The haunting visuals in ‘Bringing Out The Dead’ (1999) are worthy of note as much of this film wouldn’t work without them. With all of these factors coming into play, it’s key that the movie has a visual representation of these emotions. The haze over the picture gives a mysterious look to New York City, and it makes the surroundings feel more intense and spooky. This isn’t a horror film by any means, but many elements of what make a genre piece like that are here. You can find a lot of visuals crafting a frightening tone to the city, the characters, but most importantly, upon the audience. 

I certainly didn’t find ‘Bringing Out The Dead’ (1999) to be Martin Scorsese’s strongest film, but certainly one I enjoyed plenty. Being made the same year as his film documentary, ‘My Voyage To Italy’ (1999), I could infer that the splitting of tasks took something away from this one. At the end of the day though, this is a masterclass film of paranoia that is made by a legend of the industry. There is a lot to absorb in ‘Bringing Out The Dead’ (1999) and the film works on so many levels. So don’t be deterred from its lack of fame, and instead, enjoy the ride it brings us along on.

My Voyage To Mr. Scorsese: Part 19

‘My Voyage To Italy’ (1999) is Martin Scorsese documentary film about the pieces of Italian cinema that shaped his view of the art. The picture is extremely thorough in its exploration of the Italian films, and it leads to a run time of over four hours. This might come off as something undesirable for some audiences, but those who love the history of movie making would find honest enjoyment out of ‘My Voyage To Italy’ (1999). Watch this film as a passion project to the great artists of the past. You’ll get to explore the love letter created in ‘My Voyage To Italy’ (1999) by Mr. Scorsese, and see the love he has for such a beautiful art form. 

Martin Scorsese crafts a documentary here that is a whole hearted passion project to the films that inspired him. Scorsese narrates the film throughout and he clearly blushes over the facts of the films he’s showing off. His growth in knowledge is only triumphed by his passion for the art. It’s amazing to see how one man can be so passionate about one style of art from, when many people might think of him in such a different way. ‘My Voyage To Italy’ (1999) is a remarkable passion project from a very passionate man. 

There are two ways in how you can read ‘My Voyage To Italy’ (1999). This could be seen as a film studies picture in which we explore the artistry that Scorsese views. You can also see the documentary as a historical work of art, exploring the history of the Italian nation and the art that stemmed from it over the years. The way this picture explores not only the historical roots of Mr. Scorsese himself, but the history of the nation as its turmoils became more public, you’ll be able to say you experienced a school like lecture about the history of what art came from a war torn country. 

The in-depth nuance of the film is the other way of discussing this picture. If you take a film studies class, this should be a picture that is put on the top of your list. It not only shows how anyone can pick apart the nuances of films, but it also indicates a way of talking about them. Scorsese has the eye to notice every single detail within the movies, but he never harps on anything that isn’t important enough to say. The way he dissects each picture he goes through is with grace and care, as if it was a patient on an operating table. That is what makes this film education picture so masterful. 

Here is a romantic look through cinema as we watch through the films that made the nation so impactful on this front. The film chronicles each year in order as Scorsese remembers the ones that stood out to him. he glorifies these pictures in beautiful ways, and he almost seems to dance with them in a verbal sense. The way each moving picture is described, finds itself on a pedestal above all else. There is something romantic about the way these movies are explored, and it only indicates Scorsese’s love for the art once more. 

There are few documentaries that are will to be so dense in their delivery, but understands the importance of its subject matter. Because this film is over four hours long, it can be viewed as a chore to get through. I would argue on the contrary to that belief, as it’s more of a meditative viewing experience, that allows the audience into Martin Scorsese’s thought process of how he sees films. ‘My Voyage To Italy’ (1999) is a complete documentary that has narration pace ya through the films of each year. Having Scorsese put so much time into the film, you’ll understand what he adores and admires. 

Martin Scorsese digs through a few decades of Italian cinema to get his point across. Time frame was not the only thing he studied here though. The directors that crafted these pictures were also admired. Names to the likes of Roberto Rossellini, Michelangelo Antonioni, Mario Bava, and of course Federico Fellini are all expanded upon here. Each director has already had their name in the halls of history, and having Scorsese solidify them in greatness only emphasizes more on what they did for the history of cinema. Each film created by these men makes an impact on the art we see today, and Scorsese doesn’t let us forget it. 

I knew it would be a tall task sitting down for a four hour feature that was mainly in a different language. The second the film started, I knew I was in. There was not a moment of ‘My Voyage To Italy’ (1999) that wasn’t engaging, intellectual, or flat out phenomenal. You could say that the documentary might have needed some cutting, but to you I say, a master like Scorsese knows exactly how long to shoot a shot, and every second is worth watching for it. There was something magical about watching ‘My Voyage To Italy’ (1999) and I implore many to seek this out.

“It doesn’t cost anything to try”

I had very little expectation going into Richard Linklater’s ‘Nouvelle Vauge’ (2025). I adore the picture it’s making direct reference to, and I appreciate Linklater as a director overall. Something in the back of my mind said that this wasn’t going to work though. After a few moments of having the film on, I realized how mistaken I was. What a charming and thoughtful picture about the making of ‘Breathless’ (1960). The style is in line with the French new wave cinema style of the 1960’s, and it feels as if we’re in an exploration of ideas and creativity. I was extremely pleased with the picture I came across, and the fact that it has such a quiet release is dampening to me. I really enjoyed my time with ‘Nouvelle Vauge’ (2024). 

The French New Wave era of filmmaking grew tremendously in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s. Some great directors of this time were François Truffaut, Agnès Varda, and of course, Jean-Luc Godard. The ladder of this group is the exact tactic Linklater hones in on to make a film about his style of making movies. The style is on point for this era. The loose production that seems aimless at times. The overlapping conversations that seem to speak over one another, and the wandering through streets as the camera follows along are all prevalent here. It’s a style that Linklater would adapt later in his career, but ‘Nouvelle Vauge’ (2025) is the most literal interpretation of the art form. 

Because ‘Nouvelle Vauge’ (2025) is challenging itself by practicing the art of this era of cinema, many other factors play in as well. Linklater decides to go with a 1.37 : 1 aspect ratio much like the original, but he also makes some more creative choices outside of that. The film is in black and white, and spoke almost entirely in French. So the American audience might not click as strongly for the film. You would have to be someone who enjoyed ‘Breathless’ (1960) to really connect with ‘Nouvelle Vague’ (2025), so you could get behind these creative choices.

Movies about making movies is something of a magical feat. ‘The Stunt Man’ (1980), ‘Ed Wood’ (1994), ‘Mulholland Drive’ (2001), ‘Once Upon a Time… In Hollywood’ (2019), and ‘Babylon’ (2022) are all phenomenal except of this concept. ‘Nouvelle Vauge’ (2025) showcases a true story of the chaos that came with making ‘Breathless’ (2025), and though it challenges itself with a historical telling, it still finds itself being very effective. The ups and downs of making a film are well known to be complex, and this picture wears that on its sleeve. It’s a gift that we get to witness from a different filmmakers point of view on how movies are made, and I was very pleased with the final product. 

There is a sense of chaos that runs through the entirety of ‘Nouvelle Vauge’ (2025), that might seem constructed at first, but is apparently clear to not be once viewing. It’s the subtext around the chaos that interests an audience member, and seeing how the lack of formulation can be an art form onto itself. ‘Ed Wood’ (1994) is a great movie to keep in conversation with this one because of that fact. The looseness of what the creators inside the film are doing, and the subsequent range the reach in not having the most structured of plans. Because of this, art is made. 

Jean-Luc Godard is just as much in conversation with this film as the director Richard Linklater. The two directors have a lot of similarities in their craft with Linklater clearly learning from Godard. As I mentioned before, it’s clear that Linklater took a lot of inspiration from Godard and the French New Wave era of filmmaking. It’s key to note how Godard’s behaviors in the film mirror something of a maverick to cinema, which Linklater could be considered as well. It just doesn’t surprise me one bit that this is the film Linklater wanted to make, considering its connective tissue these directors have with one another. 

I was immensely pleased with ‘Nouvelle Vauge’ (2025) and its storytelling about one of the great films from French New Wave cinema. You have to understand and appreciate ‘Breathless’ (1960) to really connect with Linklater’s telling of how it was made, because I found much of it to be deeply rooted in that films reality. The style pairs up remarkably with the French New Wave look and feeling, which was just a treat to see for me. Overall I was very impressed with ‘Nouvelle Vague’ (2025).

Osgood Perkins’s ‘Keeper’ (2025) is going through a reputation of being a weak film on certain fronts, of which I don’t necessarily agree with. This is by far the weakest of the directors three contemporary films, but I still found myself enjoying the picture in certain ways. I wasn’t blown away by a lot of the films design in story, or the concluding acts, but other factors still made this a healthy horror movie watch. Perkins’s is really banging some movies out right now, and all I can really say is how much I appreciate the fact that his dedication to the horror genre is coming in multiple different forms. 

The sound design that ‘Keeper’ (2025) exhibits, or the lack there of in times helps produce an organic sense of suspense for the audience. ‘Longlegs’ (2024) mastered this in its own way, and the aggressive bursts of sound can become a jarring trope to say the least. What I appreciate more about the film is that it doesn’t feel as if it needs to be bombastic in its sound design. The silence helps build up suspense, and it raises tension as we don’t know where the story is going. Other films do this in successful ways, but I thought it was worthy of note in ‘Keeper’ (2025). 

Not only is sound utilized quite well on the film, but the hyper fixation on visual detail is as well. The production design of the house we spend this film in is gorgeous, all be unique. Getting to explore the visuals of the home in such a way helps extract such a vision that Perkins wants to show us. The sharp edges on the camera frame makes the entire film feel like a crystal clear film. It almost seems too perfect in some moments, and once the script gets dirtied up, it provides the contrast of how clean the picture can be.

Blocking is key in ‘Keeper’ (2025) and I called its number right off the bat. There are some very awkward camera angles in this picture that are right in the audiences face. The foreground is often prevalent in view, but so out of focus that you have to take note of it. The background is where the aggressive focus lies, and it makes a clear and cognitive showcase. I found this style to be quite interesting, especially because of how much it’s utilized in the film. I’m sure everyone will be able to pick this up right off the bat, because it’s too hard not to notice.

Blending of genres doesn’t always work in ‘Keeper’ (2025) and I can see how that is where this film lies in contempt. The script is certainly not as strong as Perkins’s other films, and there is a table talking idea here, but that’s not how movies should be made. The genres of horror that are used here don’t seem to meld together in a positive way, and it makes the story incoherent at times. I can tell for the most part at what this was trying to get at, but ultimately, it’s the fault of the film, and that’s where much of the negativity stems from on my part. 

So there are certainly an abundance of pros and cons you can divulge from ‘Keeper’ (2025), and I can comfortably state that I understand why this picture didn’t work for everyone. Whether it has to do with the writing, the framing, or the acting, I can see how the pendulum would swing either way. Perhaps my reaction to this film has a lot to do with my adornment for Perkins’s and his work, but even if that’s true, it’s his talent on screen that I found to be effective. There are many more mishaps in this film over his previous two pictures, but something inside me still enjoys the film I just watched.

My Voyage To Mr. Scorsese: Part 18

Martin Scorsese’s ‘Kundun’ (1997) is a remarkable meditation on the Dalai Lama. The picture chronicles the 14th person to take this mantel, and it goes from his childhood to his adult life. Films that spans such a broad amount of time can come off as something I don’t enjoy, but I must say, I was very impressed with the film and how it paced itself through the life. With gorgeous cinematography, and a brilliantly in-depth analysis on these characters, a story that I knew little about brought me into the world in such an impactful way. When watching through Scorsese films, certainly don’t skip on ‘Kundun’ (1997).

The practice of patients is explained in ‘Kundun’ (1997) as it’s a key not only in understanding the religion, but the story as well. Patience is an art form onto itself, and the way it’s dissected here gives the audience a real understanding of its importance. The film is patient with the characters, as the characters are patient with their surroundings. Everything that is hurled towards these figures is meditated into a calming sense of seclusion. This might come to no one’s surprise as the picture burns slow, but the messaging behind it is much more important because of it. 

Rebelling through peace is another motive of this film, as we experience the Dalai Lama choosing this path when pinned against a massive force. When Chairman Mao is introduced into the story, the historical viewers can foresee the dangerous aggression the film might head towards. However, because of the peaceful art of utilizing restraint is added into the fact, we find a sensation of control from the Dalai Lama, as he refuses to bend in a particular way. The rebellious idea of the picture might be kinetic, but the restraint is much more powerful. 

The religious conversation needs to be had when speaking about most of Mr. Scorsese’s film, and ‘Kundun’ (1997) is a vibrant one to explore. Scorsese explores many facets of religion in his films, whether it’s straightforward in a telling of missionaries, or even Jesus himself, or a more subtle way in discussing how religion effects those who are morally corrupt. ‘Kundun’ (1997) is curious in the factors of showing us the importance of the Tibetan Buddhism faith. You don’t need to have a wide understanding of the religon to be invested into ‘Kundun’ (1997), because its calculated vision does much of this work. 

I found ‘Kundun’ (1997) to be a very beautiful film that explores the landscape of Tibet in such a poetic way. The landscapes we travel through in the film is painted onto the screen in very prominent ways to really showcases the world’s beauty. I adore a picture with such impactful visuals, and ‘Kundun’ (1997) does this very well. Filming in Morocco, we get to really see how the land is full of nourishing images, and there is so much to soak up on a first time watch.

‘Kundun’ (1997) is another Scorsese film that I missed a long time back when I first went through his films. Much like ‘The Age Of Innocence’ (1997), I believe seeing it once I was a bit older benefited my experience with the film. ‘Kundun’ (1997) is very specific in its vision, and displaying it onto the screen in the way it does makes for such a rich viewing experience. This film is a slower burn, but the point of what it wants to show us is not lost to this fact. I certainly appreciated ‘Kundun’ (1997) very much, and I’m glad I finally got to seeing it.

My Voyage To Mr. Scorsese: Part 17

“There are three ways of doing things around here. The right way, the wrong way, and the way I do it. You understand?” - Ace Rothstein 

As ‘Cape Fear’ (1991) was one of my most watched Martin Scorsese films, ‘Casino’ (1995) was one of his most pivotal. I first saw the film during an impressionistic time in my movie watching career. I clicked with the style right off the bat, and it made me grow to love the art form. Many of Martin Scorsese’s films did this for me, but only a few truly hit me hard in the heart. ‘Goodfellas’ (1990), ‘Cape Fear’ (1991), and ‘Casino’ (1995), plus ‘The Irishman’ (2019) a number of years later. I can really only say that I adore ‘Casino’ (1995) and this rewatch made me fall in love with it so much more. 

I would find it fair to say that ‘Casino’ (1995) is up there as one of Martin Scorsese’s coolest films. It’s an impressive feat to see a movie like ‘Casino’ (1995) run as long as it does, and it keeps up the energy and sleekness the entire run. Every part of this picture is down right cool. There is not much room for the film to fault here, and no matter what’s happening on screen, even to the most extreme absurdity, there is still a consistent level of coolness to the entire picture. From the characters and their electrifying presence, to the seamless music drops, you’ll certainly leave the film feeling its tone. 

The showcase of power in ‘Casino’ (1995) is one of a kind, and you can truly feel the heightened level of scale because of it. The characterization in ‘Casino’ (1995) is not about a rise to this power, but the capability that comes with it. We witness how these men in Las Vegas control so much around them, and fuel a seemingly never endless flow of money. It’s a stark reminder that people are always striving to achieve power in whatever way possible. ‘Casino’ (1995) gives us a look at how these specific individuals harness immense power and utilize it in many ways.   

There is a style of narration in ‘Casino’ (1995) that gives us intertwined communication. ‘Goodfellas’ (1990) focused its narration on one point of view, as we looked deep inside an individuals mind and thoughts. ‘Casino’ (1995) ping pongs back and forth between multiple characters. Though these conversations are blind to one another, they do seem to be in a form of unison. The inner thoughts of the characters are exploited in this way, and it helps give us a pathway through the story and many mechanics of it. This is a very well done trope that is seemingly perfected by Martin Scorsese’s directing style. 

As viewers of this film, we get brought into the business side of this world on a more personal and in-depth level. Not only do we get to learn about the underbelly of Las Vegas, but we actually get to witness the experience of running a casino. I must not have appreciated this aspect of the film the first few times I watched it, but on this viewing, I noticed how personal the characters got with the audience. We’re allowed to see the way these characters work, and it’s mesmerizing on how they present it to us. It might be glorified in one sense, and villainized in another, but the fact of the matter is, we get the inside scoop of how these men ran casinos, and how they succeed in their wealth. 

The class of the film goes hand in hand with the sleekness of it. ‘Casino’ (1995) is a picture about people who live in a higher class than most Americans, even if it’s for the wrong reasons. The suits, the drinks, the lavish houses, and all the money come into play with this fact. You can step outside of your life and step into a three hour journey of class with this. There are ugly parts for sure. The aggression and violence that comes with the class, but ultimately, something is glorified here with the style of the movie. It might not be that way to everyone, but it’s hard to doubt the effect of its classiness for sure.  

There is such an abundance of violence in ‘Casino’ (1995), that a conversation about the film cannot go unmentioned. Whether it has to do with the gun shots ringing through the screen, the car bombs that are tactically placed, the car bombs and baseball bats that indicate the aggression of the film, it’s all prominent for a reason. This could be easily seen as one of Scorsese’s most violent pictures, because it doesn’t shy away from a single moment of truth. It certainly won’t be for every viewer, but the effect of it definitely makes a statement about the story that we live through for a number of hours. 

Scale is a major factor to what makes ‘Casino’ (1995) so successful. ‘Goodfellas’ (1990) was more intimate on a level of a small burrow in New York. ‘Casino’ (1995) expands the idea of organized crime to its greatest level, and it grows as the movie goes on. We see such a progression in the lives of these characters, as they are around such massive set designs. The casinos, the architecture, the costume design, and the extras surrounding the film makes this feel grand in every sense of the word. I loved the scale of what ‘Casino’ (1995) brought to us, and I’m sure many other viewers felt the same way. 

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention what this film did to the art of cinematic smoking. First of all, you can count on one hand how many moments Robert De Niro wasn’t gulping a cigarette down, and oh is it classy. The framing of smoking in ‘Casino’ (1995) is something of an art form in its own right. The sleekness of the drags, the light catching the smoke as it bellows into the camera frame, and the haze it brings the entire film is too notch cinema. You might have been thinking about taking up smoking at one point in your life, but if you watch ‘Casino’ (1995), that’ll clench it. 

There is so much you can say about ‘Casino’ (1995) and its phenomenal tones and story. There are very few movies in Martin Scorsese’s catalog that can come close to triumphing ‘Goodfellas’ (1990), but I would safely state that ‘Casino’ (1995) might be runner up. Building off of the gangster genre of films, this picture takes crime to a whole new level. Expanding our horizons not only in a story sense, but with the capability of the artistry as well. You’ll never regret for a moment watching ‘Casino’ (1995), because it’s one of the best things you can watch to fill three hours.

My Voyage To Mr. Scorsese: Part 16

“You gave me my first glimpse of a real life. Then you asked me to go on with the false one. No one can endure that.” - Newland Archer 

The period piece romantic drama, ‘The Age Of Innocence’ (1993) is a very well made depiction of New York in the 1870’s. Director Martin Scorsese had a real vision in creating this posh and studious world, and allowing the characters to explore their own reality. Though you might not think of ‘The Age Of Innocence’ (1993) when you talk about New York movies, there is still as much to absorb here, than a lot of other pictures set in the massive city. This film just so happens to be deeply rooted in the upper class work from the 19th century. It makes for an interesting story, that might be a slower burn, but still excellent at the end of the day. 

What I really appreciated about ‘The Age Of Innocence’ (1993) is the fact that it’s a mature drama for adults, and there lacks any semblance of childish behavior. The movie centers around a complex relationship with some characters from an upper class world. They showcase the back and forth dealings between everyone, but it doesn’t overly emphasize certain points. There is a lot to unfold in the film, and it certainly seems like a project that would have gone over my head if I was it when I was younger. I can appreciate it now for its maturity and grace. 

The relationship drama can be a relatively straight forward story that involves comedy, drama, and turmoil, or it can be a complex and thoughtful piece on desire. ‘The Age Of Innocence’ (1993) is most definitely the ladder in this case. The script does not want its audience to sympathize with the characters in their wrongdoings, but it does give us characteristics of charm from all ends. This makes the movie more dense in its storytelling, and therefore a more interactive watch. Relationships like this in films can quickly go awry, but it settles in quite nicely here in ‘The Age Of Innocence’ (1993). 

The Scorsese period piece is done often, but not exactly like this. ‘Gangs Of New York’ (2002) is the closest in time frame, but it’s in a different font. With a more violent demeanor to Scorsese’s 2002 film, you can pair that with this picture and have a wonderful double feature. The dueling sides of a torn apart city following the civil war. Scorsese has an affinity with making stories rooted in this city, and getting the different blends of what he wants to showcase is always a wonderful experience. ‘The Age Of Innocence’ (1993) portrays New York City in a very romanticized way, and that is a great factor to why this picture works. 

The costume design is much of what makes this movie what it is, and it certainly doesn’t disappoint. Taking on the upper class style from the 1870’s in New York, there is a lot of freedom this story can create with its visuals. The elegance of the suits and dresses are hard to be overlooked. It makes the film flow into one’s self, and you can almost take out all the sound and still appreciate how the picture is conveyed. It was certainly key to get these costumes correct for a film like ‘The Age Of Innocence’ (1993), and if you’re a fan of this fashion in film, you won’t be disappointed one bit. 

Daniel Day-Lewis partners up with Martin Scorsese for their first collaboration together, and they make cinematic gold. Not only is Day-Lewis a star in this film, but as is Michelle Pfeiffer in a wonderful performance of her own. Winona Ryder is the third addition to this cast, and it rounds a circle of very talented creators. I can’t go out of my way in saying this is the greatest from each actor, but it certainly indicates how strong they all are. Working in a time period of the past, but still resonating a love story that seems timeless, that’s what the inevitable goal of these actors achieved. 

There was certainly a semblance of embrace when I watched ‘The Age Of Innocence’ (1993) as I had not seen it before, and was very excited to dig into it. The Martin Scorsese picture is well tuned on its own merits, and though it might not have the same tone as you would expect from a New York Scorsese film, it still has impressive bouts of talent spilling onto the screen. I knew I would appreciate ‘The Age Of Innocence’ (1993), and it seems like a shame I didn’t get to seeing it earlier. However, I’m certain o wouldn’t have been able to appreciate the picture at a younger age, which needs to be kept in mind.

My Voyage To Mr. Scorsese: Part 15

“Every man… every man has to go through hell to reach paradise.” - Max Cady

Though ‘Cape Fear’ (1991) might not be my favorite of director, Martin Scorsese’s, it is certainly the one I’ve seen the most. This film was pivotal to my learning experience of the cinematic world. Though it took a number of years for me to get around to seeing the original Mitchum film, I still found this project to be deeply impactful and exciting. The dueling leads of Robert De Niro and Nick Nolte are perfectly paired against one another, and the growth the film gains through a families turmoil is shown in an in-depth way. Much of the project is keeping the audience in suspense, and you can’t deny the film does it well. ‘Cape Fear’ (1991) is certainly one of the greats from a director I have always loved. 

Scorsese’s odd man out thrillers are one of his subjects of the films. ‘Taxi Driver’ (1978), ‘Raging Bull’ (1980), ‘The King Of Comedy’ (1982), and ‘Shutter Island’ (2010) are the others that fall into line here. Scorsese is great mat the gangster flicks, and the religious commentary pictures are amazing as well. Movies about one man versus society are also interesting to view. It showcases how he might feel fighting against the studio system, while also just giving the outsider a voice, even if it’s for the worst. Max Cady is that voice here, and as diabolical as he is, it makes for a compelling and gripping story. 

The thrilling effect of ‘Cape Fear’ (1991) still works today as much as it did when I was 15. I’ve seen the movie many times over, and I still get excited each time I see it. From the beginning sequences of negative footage and a voice over, to the concluding action sequences, you can tell a lot of work went into making a suspenseful thriller. Much of this comes from the blindness we have of what could happen, and the intimate details that we get to peak in on. All of this cumulates into a wonderfully functioning picture that dictates how thrillers should be made. 

The dueling leads of Max Cady and Sam Bowden express a deeper function of the duality of the legal system. One man, Cady, who is a devilish character that in his eyes was cheated by the system, fights back against the legal man that supposedly fought for him. The shading on Sam makes the picture a bit more in-depth to study, while the absurdly horrific side of Max Cady gives little to be misunderstood. Pairing two actors like this in these roles say a lot, and almost gives the movie a different perspective of acting stardom. 

Martin Scorsese’s ‘Cape Fear’ (1991) is a remake of J. Lee Thompson’s 1962 film of the same name. The original is more of a film-noir piece that exploits the corruption of the world then. The remake is an example of the modern struggling system in the 1990’s. Both pictures are fantastic in their own ways, and sitting down to watch them back to back is not a horrible experience. Robert Mitchum and Gregory Peck play the dueling roles in the first project, and though it might not be as memorable, they are still outstanding. Seeing both movies, you’ll experience a different watch along, and that’s makes them both fantastic to view. 

What I gain each time I watch this is the level of confidence the movie achieves. Confidence in its character development, confidence in its editing style and creative nuances, and of course, the palpable Robert De Niro. Each time I sit down to view this film, I remember the things I first loved, and I also gained some new insight on how Scorsese loves to work. You can know the story and how it ends, but still go on a thrilling ride each time. There are not as many movies in my mind that have the same rewatchability factor that ‘Cape Fear’ (1991) has, and that should stand for something. 

Robert De Niro is at his best in ‘Cape Fear’ (1991), playing Max Cady. This isn’t a role that would win him an Academy Award, but it is one that has always stood out to me. Cady is not like De Niro’s other roles, and the range of fear he strikes into the audience is one of a kind. His intimidating demeanor controls the screen, and his complex figure as a character is something to truly admire. I always found this to be one of the directors strongest works, even if others might not resonate as deeply. 

‘Cape Fear’ (1991) might be a remake of a classic 60’s film, but it cements so much ideas into the 1990’s. I love how Scorsese paced this picture, and the way he structured a fractured family is chilling while also compelling on every level. The film holds up after so many rewatches, and it continues to still be a thrilling experience, even when you know what’s coming. The nature of this picture comes off as primitive fighting against the structured, and it’s telling to see for the time. You have to admire such a small work with such a loud delivery, and that’s what Scorsese nails so many times over.

It has been six years now since Quinten Tarantino released his magnum opus, and my favorite project he created, ‘Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood’ (2019). The film still has a remarkable presence in my home, and after showing my girlfriend this picture, I knew it was still as palpable today as it was six years before. The legacy this movie has provided is one of a picture that was knowing fifty years prior, but somehow is all the same here. With a phenomenal cast that stuns the screen, a rock steady script, and a production design that refuses to let you, you know you’re gonna be in for a treat. There is something magical about ‘Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood’ (2019), and I’m at the brink of being gitty every time I see it. 

Now that we’re six year divorced from the initial release of this project, we have just received a coffee table book about the making of ‘Once Upon a Time… In Hollywood’ (2019). This book is a detailed account on the making of this project. Getting to read about the scale of this film is overwhelming to a point, and hearing it through detailed contexts and engaging interviews has been fun to read up on. The novel of ‘Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood’ (2019) was released a few years back and that was a very lovely read which expanded much of the story. What I’m saying is, if you didn’t get your fix after watching the film in length, you’ll have plenty to read up on and admire in these books. 

The politics of this picture is an interesting one to dive into. Though you might not think of the project as a directly political film, it sure does have so opinions. Though the creator might not find himself in the same mindset as these characters, Rick Dalton sure does have some opinions about the generations around him. There is a wave of old fashioned conservatism that flows through these characters, and it’s rooted in their traditional value. It isn’t always political to state something is conservative, and ‘Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood’ (2019) is closer to that line. The traditional man who is letting life pass him by is the idea behind how these characters function, and wanting the good old ways is the conservative idea.  

What ‘Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood’ (2019) did to the contemporary group of actors is something special. Rewatching the picture now, you get to see a slew of actors who have now gone on to be nominated for Oscar’s, and even win one, plus hold on to the cultural status of movie stardom. ‘Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood’ (2019) is a movie about aging out movie stars, but the poetic thing about it, is the movie stars it created. The first time I came across most of these actors was in this film, such as Margret Qualley, Austin Butler, Maya Hawke, Sydney Sweeney, and Mikey Maddison. Not to mention what this film did to the stars like Brad Pitt, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Margot Robbie. Tarantino has an eye for talent, and this film cements that fact. 

So there is a bit of a surprise that a sequel is in the works for ‘Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood’ (2019), at least to me. I found this project to be immortal, and there was no need for anyone to touch it. Tarantino is back in the writing chair for the film, but handing the reigns over to his friend and directing contemporary, David Fincher. I do not wish to speak on this sequel in great length as I have no idea what could be entailed with the story. My excitement is overwhelming though, and getting an opportunity to watch a follow up will be one hell of a ride to say the least. 

What is the ultimate legacy ‘Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood’ (2019) obtains? Outside of the next generation of movie stars the film created, this movie is one held in the hall of fame of the greats. Though this picture only took home two academy awards, I was sure it would sweep the year of the awards. With films like ‘Parasite’ (2019), ‘The Irishman’ (2019), ‘Marriage Story’ (2019), ‘1917’ (2019), ‘Ford V. Ferrari’ (2019), ‘Joker’ (2019) and so many more, it was clearly a contested year to say the least. I ultimately found myself loving ‘Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood’ (2019) the most, and its legacy will forever be an Unbreakable one in my mind.

I have stated my love for Quinten Tarantino’s ‘Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood’ (2019) many times over. I have a great fondness for the profound film that was created here. Every time I come back to rewatching the picture, I find something new to admire about it, and it makes for such an exciting viewing experience. I’ve seen the picture enough times now to where quoting it is second nature. The appeal of the sleekness to the characters is almost like no other, and the production as a whole is successful in every right. The legacy ‘Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood’ (2019) carries is one of prominence, and I’ll forever adore the movie Tarantino brought us.

Edgar Wright’s ‘The Running Man’ (2025) solidifies what the modern era of action filmmaking is. An Arnold Schwarzenegger adaptation with an angry tone, and a lackluster delivery, but some heavily jolted action that livens up the script. I overall found this picture to be fine. I wasn’t impressed with it, and though I didn’t find the project to be bland by any means, I still found myself underwhelmed at a point. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy Wright’s films, and Glen Powell isn’t a film wrecker for me either. I just find the modern action film to be a bit formulaic, but that’s doesn’t mean I had the worst time at the movies, and there is certainly some things to really get out of this project. 

‘The Running Man’ (2025 is giving the same social commentary today as the original film did in the 1980’s. Instead of being a satire on the extremes of TV game shows of the 80’s, and the gladiatorial culture our entertainment devolved into, the reboot is more on the look down of a higher class onto its neediest. This is the themes many movies explore, and ‘The Running Man’ (2025) does it with a very loud voice. It’s great to compare these two films and their ideologies together, and though some light just want to watch a crazy action packed flick, others can philosophize them as well.  

The emotionality of ‘The Running Man’ (2025) has been spoken about. Lot of recent. The original film had a contingency to have this angry tone, but nothing like Wright’s version. The point behind the picture is that this character of Ben is the angriest fella in the world. If that’s the case, why didn’t they go all the way? Instead, there was a push for an angry tone, but nothing outlandish or extreme. Maybe the movie is mad at someone or something, but ultimately its inability to make a decision on the tone half the time can come up as a fault of the flick. 

The action that ‘The Running Man’ (2025) provides is perfect for the contemporary audience. With a very quick paced editing style that doesn’t hold on to too much mundaneness in between set pieces, I’m sure a lot will give great attention to it. There are some strongly made set ups of action that burst onto the screen in fantastic ways. Though some other elements of the project hinder this showcase, it still makes a noteworthy display. Edgar Wright is a well rounded action director, even if his films come in different fonts, and ‘The Running Man’ (2025) is a straight forward example of this. 

Did we need a remake of the classic Arnold Schwarzenegger film ‘The Running Man’ (1987)? I suppose every movie has its time in the reboot pistol, and the Stephen King story came around to it. The connections between both movies gives off the same frame work, so if you’ve seen the original, it’s easy to follow along. Throw in a reference to Arnold on the currency of the film, and you’ll catch this pictures number. There isn’t much originality to this script, and though the city scape is expansive here, and explores a lot of the futuristic world. Other than that, there isn’t much more to gain from this film that you couldn’t enjoy from the first one. I suppose every movie will have its day in that light though, and today’s was ‘The Running Man’ (1987).

Overall ‘The Running Man’ (2025) is decent, but nothing spectacular. I had fun watching it in a theater hall, and I’m sure that helped grow my experience some. I wouldn’t go out of my way in saying I adore much of this movies meat, but I do find it to be a curious review of its predecessor. I would most certainly enjoy going to see the original film again over this remake, but that’s is just my taste. I’m glad others like this movie, and just because I’m a bit more numb to the modern action genre, does not mean I can’t appreciate its attributes in a certain way.

My Voyage To Mr. Scorsese: Part 14

“As far back as I can remember, I always wanted to be a gangster.” - Henry Hill

Here it is. This is where Martin Scorsese joined cinematic immortality. This is one of cinemas impressive miracles. ‘Goodfellas’ (1990) provides the most of humanity, while still struggling with one’s self. A fault in the viewers eyes, delivers a story in the creators mind. There is not a film of gangster violence here, instead, it is a picture of the struggling man who refuses to give up on his faith. Though it is presented through different methods, it is still a story of those who fight for their faith against all odds. I find ‘Goodfellas’ (1990) time and time again to be one of the most poignant and inspirational films that are dedicated to cinema. If you haven’t come across ‘Goodfellas’ (1990) yet, do yourself the biggest favor you can do, and watch it. 

The quintessential gangster film is rooted in ‘Goodfellas’ (1990) and it’s not hard to see why. There is an abundance of films that came out after this release, and though they tried to capture the same tone, there was hardly anything that struck the iron like this. Crafting a world around organized crime is a fascinating story, but it’s driven so much in this with its rich context. The violence, the cooking, the craze, and everything else is formulated in ‘Goodfellas’ (1990) that would carry onto the contemporary style of films. 

‘Goodfellas’ (1990) is a Coke-fueled crime film with the energy of a mustang. While the story is coherent and engaging, there is also an energy that stands out to its crazed ideologies. By a certain point in the film, when characters are actually Coke-fueled, the speed and energy becomes something different. The editing contends this as there are many quick cut moments to confuse and throw off the audience. There are moments of true hectic nature, and it stems from the characters inability to comprehend his drug usage. Paranoia leads the game there, and ultimately is impressed onto the audience. That is what sets the tone for this cocaine fueled vision. 

Pacing is paired along with this context, as the movie keeps its steady but kinetic energy with the source material. Thelma Schoonmaker dictates the tone here, and as she paces the film in a very calculated way, we find ourselves on a ride of a lifetime. The almost frantic cuts can be a topic of discussion, but I see that the movie that runs for two and a half hours flys by, and it’s worthy of note. There are many facts as to why this helps the story, and many tools are utilized. It can be cited that Spielberg is one of the best at this craft, but the partnership of Scorsese and Schoonmaker is another one. 

Narration is a major factor to the success of ‘Goodfellas’ (1990) in my mind. Films can suffer from this trope, especially because they feel as if they are copying ‘Goodfellas’ (1990). What I love about the narration is that it helps the audience fall right in line with what the characters are thinking. We are now thrown into a world we might not be familiar with, but we gain all of the information in a clear and concise way. ‘Goodfellas’ (1990) is very conscious of this tactic, and because of that, the narration doesn’t fade out. We are on the hip of these characters, and it makes the film much more immersive.  

Outside of being a great gangster flick, ‘Goodfellas’ (1990) takes on themes of family, friendship, and relationships as a whole. Right off the bat, we get a young boy who wants to be a part of something, and as they dig deeper into their relationships, it showcases the importance. From mafia members who always have each other’s backs, to a wife and husband dealing with marital issues, the movie doesn’t shy away from human experience. It won’t be the first thing you think of when you leave the film, but you’ll certainly comprehend it after some time. 

‘Goodfellas’ (1990) cements many of the people who are involved into film history. Joe Pesci would win his one and only Academy Award for his portrayal as Tommy, but so many more grew from the film as well. My first experience seeing Ray Liotta was out of ‘Goodfellas’ (1990), and he was forever a great in my mind because of it. Robert De Niro gives off an iconic performance, and though he already had two academy awards, this was still one to appreciate as one of his greats. That is the power of what this movie did, creating a shield around these creators for their masterful works. 

I can’t talk about ‘Goodfellas’ (1990) and not mention what food means to the film. Food is such a powerful concept to the movie, because it’s when all the characters seem to come together throughout the film. Whether it’s a family dinner that is blended with cocaine, or an iconic prison cooking sequence, it’s always prevalent to the background. The way food is described in the film is something you would see on the cooking channel, but instead, resonates a passion in this gangster flick. You might not deem it important at first, but when you see the film, you’ll understand what it means to the characters as a whole. 

Scorsese’s triumph comes in the form of many movies. ‘Taxi Driver’ (1976), ‘The Last Temptation Of Christ’ (1988), ‘Casino’ (1995), ‘The Wolf Of Wall Street’ (2013), or my personal favorite, ‘The Irishman’ (2019). Have your pick of them. ‘Goodfellas’ (1990) is the quintessential film most viewers think of when you hear the name Scorsese. Much of his other works seemed to build to this gangster epic, and the way he manages to consolidate decades of film history into one powerhouse project is perplexing to say the least. It’s a testament to the craft of cinema, but mostly, the genius of Martin Scorsese. 

There is so much more to say about what a triumph ‘Goodfellas’ (1990) turned out to be. Not only was this film beloved in the 90’s, but it also stands strong today as one of the greatest films out there. We see takes on this picture, and we find a lot of copying done, but nothing will really be like the original content. Martin Scorsese made his magnum opus here, and it says a lot to how it still holds a real frame in cinematic history today. I enjoyed every second of this rewatch, and even after my dozenth time, it still brings more to the table in every time.

My Voyage To Mr. Scorsese: Part 13

“You’re an artist, I’m a painter” 

Perhaps I don’t understand what the full context of some of these stories were inside of ‘New York Stories’ (1989), but I can fairly say some things didn’t work. Three famed directors make their own short films about the city they love, New York City. One is very good, another is fairly decent, but I enjoyed more than I should have, and the other one is an incoherent mess of nothing. It’s strange to see the level of creativity here, and what works and doesn’t work. Ultimately, this project is meant to be a love letter to New York City, and even if it lacks a landing sometimes, it’s still a fun experiment.

Martin Scorsese’s segment, titled ‘Life Lessons’ is certainly the most well made of these three shorts. Delving into the art world of New York City, and expanding the concepts of middle aged mundanity. There is a bit of a complex relationship concept that arises as well, and it’s obvious that was going to be the case. This segment from Scorsese is the most mature of the three, and it enlightens his feelings about New York in a more artistic way. There is a classiness to this short, and it’s no wonder Scorsese completed the best.  

The second segment of ‘New York Stories’ (1989) is titled ‘Life Without Zoe’ and it is just a slog to get through. This short is directed by the fantastic Francis Ford Coppola, and co-written by his daughter, Sofia. This is just an incoherent mess that tries to explore the youthful experience in New York City, but realistically lacks anything substantial in its bones. I found this portion of the film to be lost and confused about its own message, and it really shows how this was co-written by an eighteen year old. 

The third and final segment titled ‘Oedipus Wrecks’ is filmed by the one and only Woody Allen. Though Scorsese’s segment was a stronger project, I found myself having the most fun with Allen’s. This is a look at the jewish family in New York, as Allen typically does. There is a sense of unrealistic nature that comes about in the film, and it really is silly, but something about Allen’s quick paced humor just works. Allowing the worst of the situation to progress into something more is what it’s all about, and Allen delivers it with great hilarity. 

So what is the point about having these three segments cut together for one film? If I had to guess, it was to let three very famous directors from the 70’s express their love for the city they shoot so well. There is nothing intertwined with these stories, and in fact they are split off with title cards in between. There is not much nuance in the picture as a whole to deliver one message. I found it all to be predominantly shallow on the fact it just wants to glorify New York City, and nothing else. 

Why does ‘New York Stories’ (1989) exist? I assure you, I don’t know. It’s an entertaining exercise from three beloved directors, and for one reason or another, not everything clicked. It was great seeing the tones and shades from each director as their story was very clearly lied out. You can get a general sense of whose film is who’s by the story alone, and unfortunately this is on the weaker end of each of their projects. It still seems like there was enjoyment to go around on making these segments, so at least you can go up to bat for that fact.

I am still finding myself trying to navigate how this film made me feel. ‘Die My Love’ (2025) is not a casual watch along film, and the context of the picture grows more strange as the movie goes on. An obvious portrayal of a females post pregnancy depression is explored here, and it comes off in nuanced ways, while also difficultly revealing its traumatic behaviors. Jennifer Lawrence stars in the picture and delivers a chilling but extremely compelling portrait of what this story holds. This won’t be a picture for everyone, and it’s a strange one to discuss, but the discovery of the film in our world is welcome 

Simplicity incorporated with insanity, ultimately constructs mundanity. That is a formative way to see this film, because all of the nuances of those ideas are here and present. There is a simplicity to the front of this picture that only gains more triumph in complexity as the film goes on. A stabilized home is showcased at first, then the walls of structure break down and formulate a more divisive subject. There is much you can read into how the film portrays itself with bigger issues on a more personal level, and I find it to do this with great compassion, all be it, vitriol as well. 

Emotionality is drained from ‘Die My Love’ (2025) and almost seems black and white when there is color to the film. It’s when the movie desaturates its light and seems like a film shot only with a blue tint that the emotions appear to be prevalent. There is no secret at home emotionally drive the picture is, and the usage of color is meant to divert certain expectations on how it’s viewed. The change of desaturations was one thing that threw me off at first, but once you dig your claws into the ideas behind the film, you’ll notice a respectable change. 

I am still a bit perplexed at what ‘Die My Love’ (2025) really intends on expressing onto the viewer. Perhaps a new mother would connect with the film in a deeper way than me, or perhaps it’ll do the opposite effect. Becoming a film about the female experience in a more heightened and exaggerated way is the process to look at the film. I still never like the notion of people saying “this movie wasn’t made for me” because I believe all cinema is meant to express some kind of emotionality towards anyone. This fact doesn’t hinder my viewing experience, though I’m sure a deeper connection can stem from someone who experienced something in this vein. 

Jennifer Lawrence is stellar in ‘Die My Love’ (2025). This is certainly not an easy role she is conveying to the audience, and it takes more physicality to present it. The film allows her to jolt her personality in such ways that you can sense some serious detachment from the actor and the character. You have to appreciate what Lawrence does in this film, especially in the context of what she’s made before. You won’t receive a depiction of character like she does in ‘The Hunger Games’ (2012), ‘Silver Linings Playbook’ (2012), or even ‘American Hustle’ (2013). The focus is on Lawrence, and being able to become flexible with her style will lead to a successful and appreciative viewing experience. 

I enjoyed my time watching Lynne Ramsay’s newest film, and her in-depth reactionary storytelling style was very receptive here. Having Jennifer Lawrence in the lead really brings a lot to the film as well, and it solidifies the anxiety of the picture. There are so many avenues you can venture down to explore this film, whether it’s about relationship turmoil, post pregnancy depression, or just a lack of structural living. There are plenty of talking points that help feed this movies concepts.

My Voyage To Mr. Scorsese: Part 12

Martin Scorsese’s ‘The Last Temptation Of Christ’ (1988) is a passion project from a deeply questioning catholic director. The film brings a lot of controversy along with it, in the contemporary and in the past tense. There is so much nuance, and plenty of depth in how the story of Jesus Christ is presented here, and you cannot leave the movie without having serious thought on what was shown. ‘The Last Temptation Of Christ’ (1988) is a beckoning story that formulates question on many aspects about faith and religion, while also being a focus point on one man’s devotion and curiosity of what he’s always know.

There is no surprise that a movie like ‘The Last Temptation Of Christ’ (1988) is controversial. The film deviates from the original context of Jesus dying on a cross to die for our sins. Instead, the picture gives a new rout in what could have been. That is truly a difficult topic to even begin to navigate, and the fact that Scorsese did it like this, is shocking. His devotion to the catholic faith is rooted in his upbringing, but there is certainly question that comes from him. I didn’t find this to be an exercise of renouncing his faith, but more of an exploration in a specific conversation. 

Biblical films have been made for quite some time, and many of them express the context of the Bible in a more literal way. ‘The Last Temptation Of Christ’ (1988) is a movie that doesn’t want to read anything literally, but instead, formulate a different side of the story. Whether it’s right or wrong to do so, I have no place in saying. However, the fact that it’s as contentious as it was, means it was a worth while film for Scorsese to make. Ultimately that is all that’s being done. A question more than a statement, and though it brings much controversy to the story, in which I fully understand and appreciate, I still find the film worth while in exploring.

Martin Scorsese has a lot of religious tones in his films, and he’s never been shy about sharing them. ‘The Last Temptation Of Christ’ (1988) is one of his more direct propositions to the ideas in whole. ‘Mean Streets’ (1973) discusses the ideas of repenting one’s sin outside of the church, while ‘Raging Bull’ (1980) focused on the unchecked anger of someone who cannot comprehend their own faith. ‘The Last Temptation Of Christ’ (1988) tries and answers much of the real subtext of religion, while showcasing the Bible in a more practical way. It’s interesting to see a director fight with his own beliefs in many ways, and I believe Scorsese does it the strongest. 

I found that not only this ‘The Last Temptation Of Christ’ (1988) squabbling with the reasoning behind the cruxifixction of Jesus Christ, but perhaps himself as well. The way Jesus is portrayed by Willem Dafoe here is not like Jim Caviezel did in ‘The Passion Of The Christ’ (2004). Instead, the emotions that are expressed from him are that of different character. Anger is shown while fear and regret are also felt. I’m not a scholar in this topic by any means, and I cannot speak for how his portrayal related to how Jesus is shown, but it’s a note that I’m sure many people took away from the film. 

‘The Last Temptation Of Christ’ (1988) is certainly very controversial today as much as it was back in the 80’s. This is a difficult story to make, along with a difficult one to discuss. Even for someone who lacks the context of the Bible, it still shows a heavy representation of what the faith might see. Scorsese seems to be brave to have made a movie like this, and the passion he found to make the film gives much more significance in the fact that it exists. This is a film of teaching and retelling, as much as it is a movie of great character in its structural design. That is what Scorsese clearly meant to tell, and I see the effectiveness behind the story he crafted.

My Voyage To Mr. Scorsese: Part 11

“Pool excellence is not about excellent pool. It’s about becoming Something.”

I find that Martin Scorsese’s ‘The Color Of Money’ (1986) might be one of the closest things to a comfort film for me. The tone, the attitude, the energy, and of course, the nostalgic excitement are all what bring me back to this movie, and it’s what delivers so much enjoyment. On this rewatch of the sequel to ‘The Hustler’ (1961), I found significant moments of triumph on personal levels out of the film, and just a framework of remarkable film style as well. The pairing of Paul Newman and Tom Cruise goes a long way here, and it connects the two generations of actors together. What I’m trying to ultimately say is, there is something of a magical film in ‘The Color Of Money’ (1986), and I still enjoy this beyond belief. 

The atmosphere that ‘The Color Of Money’ (1986) brings is exactly the world I want to live in. Not only is the project centered around one of my favorite past times in my personal life, but it explores the deeper context of how people keep going at it. With this, the actual nature of the movie concedes this as well. A bounce around story in a massive city is great, set it during the cold months of winter and you have me hooked. Weather and atmosphere can change how a film is viewed, and it’s for the better in ‘The Color Of Money’ (1986). 

Friendship is a classic trope this movie works to showcase, and the deeper connection between these characters is important in telling a well rounded story. We have a veteran pool player who sees great potential in a new comer, and he helps guide him in a competitive direction. Seeing the banter between both leads is heartwarming, even when arguments arise. The connection with Vincent and his girlfriend, Carmen is also important to the story, and it helps grow a more compassionate framework. It takes a lot to make a relationship like these work in films, and ‘The Color Of Money’ (1986) does it quite well. 

The drive that Eddie has in this story is admirable to see on screen. His devotion to the sport of pool comes off in many ways. You can read the film as a referendum on greed in the modern era, but it also just showcases a longing for nostalgia in the sport. The drive he has for showing someone his range in the sport is noteworthy, but the way he wants to teach is also a factor. The passionate climb to being great is obvious in the film, and you can utilize it as a strong and understanding trope to the world of pool and cinema. 

The passing of the torch is a term that is used quite often, but not always done in the right lens to life. In ‘The Color Of Money’ (1986) it’s crafted to show the old timer, Paul Newman, giving the reigns of movie stardom over to the young and energetic Tom Cruise. Films can help capitalize this feeling when it’s made for pictures, and it’s done with a sense of understanding in character, not only of these two playing pool, but how they are seen in cinema itself. I find it to be poetic when you buckle down into the idea, and ‘The Color Of Money’ (1986) has a more dynamic approach because of it. 

I would argue that ‘The Color Of Money’ (1986) to me is one of Martin Scorsese’s most accessible films for a wider audience. This is not a wild gangster film that exploits the underbelly of New York. Though that is a great framework for the directors style, this comes off as a casual film for the masses. There is a competitive nature to the picture that helps draw an audience closer in for each sequence, while the light hearted banter is something to appreciate. This is a film more rooted in friendship than anger, and it helps solidify Scorsese’s career for a wider audience. 

‘The Huster’ (1961) and ‘The Color Of Money’ (1986) are two great movies to watch back to back. They give the inspiration to get up and play a round or two of pool with some friends, while also just being a wonderful adventure through a city. ‘The Color Of Money’ (1986) will forever be close to my heart when I think of Paul Newman, and getting him in this Scorsese film is something special. The overall film is just fantastic to say the least, and I’m sure I’ll be watching it a few dozen more times in my life.

My Voyage To Mr. Scorsese: Part 10

“What do you want from me? What have I done? I’m just a word processor for Christ Sake!” - Paul Hackett

What in the David Lynch hell was this movie? Martin Scorsese’s ‘After Hours’ (1985) is one of the most rambunctious, and kinetic films I have seen in some time. I must admit, I loved every second of this pictures journey. From the mundane and secluded beginning, to the out of this world ending, I was holding onto every second of the film. You could say that this is one of Scorsese’s only few comedy movies, and even then, there is so much more to admire within it. There is a level of nonstop anxiety coursing through this films blood, and it delivers one of the wildest rides about trying to go home. 

There is one word to describe ‘After Hours’ (1985), and that is anxiety. This is one of those films that takes the anxious moments of life, and compresses them thoughtfully into one movie. Much of the anxiety that’s driven in the film comes from the discomfort of being in a place you don’t know. The lack of control becomes a frustrating technique that is utilized remarkably here. I’m sure everyone can relate once in their lives ti a time they were able to get home when all they wanted to do was sleep. ‘After Hours’ (1985) over exaggerates that point, but it still gives the audience an opportunity to relate on a very anxious level. 

The inability to get home is what drives this movie further and further into a pit of hell. We see this character who takes a chance on the whim, and eventually gets punched for it, by not being able to get home. It’s told through a comedic lens, but once again, the anxiety of not having control over any situation is very prevalent as well. It’s structured so well, and we really only pick it up by the half way point that everything is going against the protagonists favor. Setting the film in one night helps this, and it grows the exhaustion as the picture progresses on. 

The Lynchian behavior of the characters we come across throughout this film is something of a bizarre notion. Though the case for this time is, Lynch had only constructed three films, ‘Eraserhead’ (1977), ‘The Elephant Man’ (1980), and ‘Dune’ (1984), so clearly the thought wasn’t intentional. It would take the year after in ‘Blue Velvet’ (1986) to really see these character tropes connect from this film to Lynch’s style. There is an out of this world bizarreness to the characters, that makes you think the film is set in another world. No one reacts in ways we might think, and it hovers a haze over the mystery of the film. This is perhaps my favorite aspect of the film, even when there is so much more to enjoy. 

New York is the center piece of ‘After Hours’ (1985). The story explores the city in its darkest shades. Scorsese filmed ‘The King Of Comedy’ (1982) a few years before this, and he explored New York during the daylight. ‘After Hours’ (1985) formulates a more sinister vision of the city, while also crafting its chaotic undertones. It’s no secret on how much Scorsese loves the city he always knew and grew up in, so it’s fantastic to see him film it in different shades from film to film. ‘After Hours’ (1985) delivers the idea of urban anxiety in its finest form, and New York City would be the best landscape to provide this to. 

The speed of the film starts off quite slow. It’s only when the character is thrown off by some bizarre actions that the story picks up quicker. By the concluding moments of the run time, when the audience can catch their breath, only then do we realize how quickly only this film was excavating through the story. This tool of pacing is utilized to help keep the attention centered, and the kinetic energy up. There is a reason the film feels like a fever dream at times. It’s because the repetition of scenery in such a quick paced flow makes the entirety of the story feel chaotic and symbolic of a nightmare. 

The hilarity that rests within the deeper context of ‘After Hours’ (1985) can be considered beyond intelligent, or unapologetically parochial. I found the humor to be sharp and concise when it needed to be, and there was never a break of tension to tell a funny joke. That’s the mature and understanding way to showcase comedy in a movie. The humor stems a lot from the bizarreness of the picture, and the outlandish the world that is spinning. There is so much chaos that you can’t help but laugh from time to time, and the film focuses in on that reaction from us. 

Martin Scorsese’s ‘After Hours’ (1985) is a sharp and hilarious movie that will make you bite your nails most of the way through. The fact that the picture utilizes so many aspects of anxiety, and collaborates them into just over an hour and a half of run time. Effective is the strongest vocabulary to design the idea about this picture. This is an effective rollercoaster ride of emotions, and the fact that there are hardly any moments throughout the film where the gas is let off makes this so much more energetic to witness. ‘After Hours’ (1985) is one of the few Scorsese films I had not seen yet, so I can say that I’m quite pleased that I finally got around to it.

Ranking my favorite performances from my favorite actor.

1. The Verdict
2. The Color of Money
3. Hud
4. The Hustler
5. Cool Hand Luke
6. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
7. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
8. Sometimes a Great Notion
9. Nobody's Fool
10. Slap Shot

...plus 46 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

There is almost no doubt in my mind that one of the greatest directors to ever have worked is Martin Scorsese. He seemingly provided some of the greatest contributions to the world of cinema, and I think most viewers understand this. After seeing the wonderful documentary, ‘Mr. Scorsese’ (2025), I decided to take a voyage through his films. The ones I’ve seen, and missed. I could not be more grateful to the man, Mr. Scorsese for what he’s done to the modern world as we know it when it comes to art, storytelling, and of course, Absolute Cinema.

• Mr. Scorsese
• Who's That Knocking at My Door
• Mean Streets
• Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore
• Taxi Driver
• New York, New York
• The Last Waltz
• Raging Bull
• The King of Comedy
• After Hours

...plus 19 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

The horror films from October 2023-2025.

• 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 175 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

The horror films from October 2025.

• Possession
• Hocus Pocus
• Phenomena
• eXistenZ
• Nightbreed
• Spider
• Re-Animator
• From Beyond
• Death Ship
• Two Evil Eyes

...plus 55 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 films that I adore but I find others not seeking such enthusiasm or note.

• Affliction
• ...And Justice for All
• Another Woman
• A Simple Plan
• Bad Times at the El Royale
• Before the Devil Knows You're Dead
• Bone Tomahawk
• Broken
• Calvary
• The Counselor

...plus 44 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

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 200 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

These are Nik Lackey’s 25 favorite films from the 2010’s.

• Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood
• Manchester by the Sea
• Boyhood
• Whiplash
• Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
• The Irishman
• The Grand Budapest Hotel
• Interstellar
• Django Unchained
• Mad Max: Fury Road

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

The 1980’s slasher films I watched through the spring and summer of 2025.

• Chopping Mall
• Cutting Class
• Pieces
• Sorority House Massacre
• The Burning
• Intruder
• Maniac Cop
• Curtains
• Motel Hell
• Pumpkinhead

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

Missing pieces from my viewing experience of Adam Sandler fims.

• Billy Madison
• Big Daddy
• The Wedding Singer
• Mr. Deeds
• You Don't Mess with the Zohan
• The Longest Yard
• Happy Gilmore 2

1. Oppenheimer
2. The Banshees of Inisherin
3. Killers of the Flower Moon
4. The Brutalist
5. Babylon
6. The Tragedy of Macbeth
7. The Iron Claw
8. I'm Thinking of Ending Things
9. The Zone of Interest
10. Top Gun: Maverick

...plus 15 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
• Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo
• The Desert Rats

...plus 10 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 10 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.

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 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.

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.

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.