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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Genre In Retrospect: The War Film - Part 8

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

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

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

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

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

A Genre In Retrospect: The War Film - Part 7

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

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

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

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

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

A Genre In Retrospect: The War Film - Part 6

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

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

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

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

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

A Genre In Retrospect: The War Film - Part 5

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

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

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

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

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

A Genre In Retrospect: The War Film - Part 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Genre In Retrospect: The War Film - Part 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“What did it feel like when you fell in love?”

Devastating, just absolutely devastating. This is a film about two individuals exploring each other’s self consciousness, without ever realizing what really makes us human. There is more torment in this hour and fifty two minute film than there is in most people’s lives. After seeing a film with such dirt and such grit packed so deeply into its crevices, all it made me want to do was conduct a full ablution of myself. ‘Blue Valentine’ (2010) will make you question and pontificate every aspect of every relationship you’ve ever had. There is a powerful triumph deep inside this film makes it so much more than a movie going experience, it makes it an impactful adjudication of life. 

‘Blue Valentine’ (2010) is a gateway into intimacy between two lovers. Their journey is explored, and it is not shy at all to show us every aspect of love. The dark and bleak color toning to the film helps patch together an even more solemn dialogue. At times it almost feels like we are not supposed to see certain things between this couple, and as they grow older, we grow more intrigued. This is not a traditional “love story” as Hollywood likes to give us, and in fact it is closer to ‘Before Midnight’ (2013) than it is ‘Before Sunrise’ (1995). The romance is shown through the early stages, but the film really finds itself in the miserable reality of two people being together who have no prospects of love anymore. This is the tough kind of storytelling that we need in films, even if it isn’t enjoyable in a common sense. 

With dramatic romance films like this, it’s not unheard of to see a slew of nudity and intimacy between the two partners. However, in ‘Blue Valentine’ (2010), the sexual Congress that is conducted is not passionate or loving. The scenes of colpulation lack any form of jubilation between both partners, and it expresses more of the heartbreaking lack of attractiveness more than anything. The glorification of young love can be seen throughout, but the hard withdrawals are even louder. Using intercourse to describe this passionless marriage is risky, but effective in every

On this rewatch of one of my favorite dramatic romance films, I noticed some behaviors I didn’t pick up when I was younger. The subtleties in reactions, and the mindfulness of showing us each notion are very apparent. ‘Blue Valentine’ (2010) is not attempting to be aggressive in its delivery towards the audience, and chooses a more dainty approach. Writer and director, Derek Cianfrance does an excellent job to give us the tools in seeing these reactions. Of course Ryan Gosling and even more so Michelle Williams provide even more clarity through their skills in acting. It’s a tough task to give a show and don’t tell story, but ‘Blue Valentine’ (2010) nails the delivery. 

Another great thing we get to see from our two leading characters is the prospects each one has for life, and the trajectory, or lack there of they obtain. I found this to be so true to life, and very honest to the human condition. Each member of the human race kings for their own goals, and seeks retribution from either themselves or others around them. Sometimes this does not fit a mold someone has for you, and quite often it can crumble a relationship. It’s made very clear in ‘Blue Valentine’ (2010) how much this impacts the story. Whether it has to do with finding another lover, the care taking for a child, or even mundane and simplistic goals, it always takes a role in this film to lead us to an unfortunate inevitability.

Director Derek Cianfrance does a trick with the storytelling of this film that can be found confusing by some, but to me was beyond effective. There is no topiaric structure in the flow, and there are consistent back and froths in the time line. We get to see the span of an entire relationship told in fragments. Even while this goes on, the fragments we see don’t always seem to line up in their own timeline. This really works for me because as an audience member, I get to see the lineage of love and heartbreak, while also drawing the parallels from young love to new hatred. By the end of the film, and the heartbreaking conclusions, the whole story is pieced together to make one beautifully structured story about a single relationship. 

The death of a marriage is something people go through everyday. Whether it’s through the eyes of someone who lost love, or the casualties of the children on the sideline. This is a fact of life. When are can imitate this excruciating aspect, it often proves the importance of it. What we see through ‘Blue Valentine’ (2010) is this broken marriage only breaking even more. There is no prospect of redemption, and it’s apparent how the relationship began. One side wanted love so they wouldn’t be alone while the other side wanted that singular person. The strings were softly woven together, but the fabric couldn’t hold. Hardly any films can get this point of a relationship correct, but ‘Blue Valentine’ (2010) truly expressed it in the most thoughtful ways possible. 

Derek Cianfrance’s ‘Blue Valentine’ (2010) is one of a kind in its own right. I understand the criticism of people who don’t want to see a film like this where sorrow and mourning will be the only emotion you feel afterwards. However, I argue that cinema like this is even more important to see than a fun action blockbuster. The acting, the writing, the directing, and everything in between are just spot on. ‘Blue Valentine’ (2010) is the type of viewing experience that makes an audience member look at themselves and contemplate their decisions in life, and the struggles they endured. I cannot talk highly enough about what this film truly is, and I assure you, it’s something that needs to be witnessed.

A Genre In Retrospect: The War Film - Part 2

‘All Quiet On The Western Front’ (1930’ brings us one of the grandest scale war films in the history of cinema. Even after almost one hundred years of film, this movie is still looked upon as a classic of timeless proportions. There is a progressive nature in the storytelling of this film, and the ideas explained are hardly even mastered or expertly understood today. There have been plenty of greater war epics to have come out since this film, but ‘All Quiet On The Western Front’ (1930) helped solidify what these movies could be. Not just mindless action in war, but a deeper meaning of anguish and horror. Older films like this help guide us through a cinematic adventure, and it’s a perfect lynchpin to start the genre of war in cinema. 

The war time epic is a cinematic experience that we have all grown to know and love throughout the decades. Wars spanning from World War I and II, The Vietnam War, The Korean War, The Civil War, and everything else in between. These films are upscale, large budgeted ensembles that embark a world most of us can’t understand for ourselves. ‘All Quiet On The Western Front’ (1930) is one of the starts to this journey. We see the prolonged battle sequences throughout the film, while also seeing the strain and dedication the soldiers had to protect their lives. There would go on to be better war time epics after this film, but this is definitely a strong start to what would become a very lucrative genre. 

The biggest idea of ‘All Quiet On The Western Front’ (1930) is taken away with the notion of how beautiful war is. War is not a beautiful set piece. It’s brutal and ugly, and devastates more minds than anyone could ever know. Director Lewis Milestone shows this perfectly with the former half of the film being an exercise in excitement for the young boys going onto the battle field. Then once the certain pint in the film hits, you realize this is not a movie about compassion. As the film goes on we see the struggle, and the torment each young man faces. It’s a complex idea to put on screen, and extremely progressive for the 1930’s, but it shows the importance of it then, and it still resonates now.

The 1930’s were a booming time for cinema, and really was the birth of old Hollywood. Of course, outside of ‘All Quiet On The Western Front’ (1930), we got the Universal Monster movies like ‘Dracula’ (1931) and ‘Frankenstein’ (1931). Grand epics like ‘Gone With The Wind’ (1939) made groundbreaking movements for the theaters, while ‘The Wizard Of Oz’ (1939) showed up to be one of the most magical and influential films of all time. There was also so much more genre work done throughout the decade, and it really showed a great trajectory of where cinema was headed. ‘All Quiet On The Western Front’ (1930) really helped this movement, and proved aspects of film most audiences didn’t know. 

The Academy Awards were relatively new at this time in history, and before ‘All Quiet On The Western Front’ (1930) was released, there were only two best picture winners. ‘Wings’ (1927) and ‘The Broadway Melody’ (1929) took home gold and started off the classic history. However, neither film had a depth like ‘All Quiet On The Western Front’ (1930) did. With four nominations at the academy that year, Milestone’s film woul take home best picture and best director. It was a testament to what this picture proved, and it showed the academy was understanding of what cinema could honestly be.

‘All Quiet On The Western Front’ (1930) is definitely an aged movie that some contemporary audiences might not click with. However, for its time, post World War I, it was a grand epic that no one has seen before. There is plenty for the eye to absorb, and it is a film full of ideas along with tragedy. The shots are impressed be for the start of the 1930’s and even today, some of the visuals can come off as a bit graphic. Don’t let this 1930’s war time epic hold a daunting place in your film viewing experience. It might not be everyone’s cup of tea anymore, but it is still a strong war film that shows us the groundwork of what’s to come.

A Genre In Retrospect: The War Film - Part 1

Samuel Fuller’s ‘The Steel Helmet’ (1951) is a riveting tale about one man’s journey through an existential hell that is the Korean War. This movie, though being over seventy years old, is just as impactful now, as I’m sure it was back then. The adventure foreground of the film helps mask a more sinister compilation of forces in the background. The bottom of this film really just chooses to show what the hatred and anguish of war truly is, and how nothing should be glorified. Even though for years after we would come to find a sense of excitement in war films, ‘The Steep Helmet’ (1951) stands resolute and vindicated in proving us wrong. 

There has just been an absolute bluster of Korean War films to have come out since the 1950’s. Titles include ‘The Hunters’ (1957), ‘The Manchurian Candidate’ (1962), ‘M*A*S*H’ (1970), and ‘Heartbreak Ridge’ (1986). These types of films are multi decade spanning, and explore an abundance of different aspects of the war. ‘The Steel Helmet’ (1951) is an interesting one due to the fact it’s not bombastic and loud like the others. We have to endure the mental pain that comes with battle, and the honest tragedy of the circumstances. This is a more honest telling of a story like this, and renders a more impactful blow.

The casualties of war are often explored in films like this, and it can be exploited on all aspects. Civilization crumbles under the boot of war, and the term oil that commences is often more brutal than the fighting. Liquidation of a mental fragment conquers the screen, while we see the tragedy that unfolds. This antiwar film chooses to provide us with such excruciating imagery of fallen men and children, that unfortunately stays in our minds for some time. A city can fall as we see, but the casualties are often more heartbreaking than anything else. 

Samuel Fuller managed to master the Western genre, and the War Film genre in his time on this earth. ‘The Steel Helmet’ (1951) is obvious proof. Fuller would go on to make a few more classic war films like ‘Merrill’s Marauders’ (1962), and perhaps his best known work, ‘The Big Red One’ 1980). Of course, a history in the war helped provide the veteran knowledge of what to put on screen, and clearly it impacted him enough. His vision of ‘The Steel Helmet’ (1951) is not only foreboding to the war, but it’s also sensitive and compassionate to the soldiers. This being an anti-war film helps carry along a better message from a director who knew his facts. ‘The Steel Helmet’ (1951) is the movie to see if you’re a fan of the legendary Samuel Fuller. 

‘The Steel Helmet’ (1951) finds itself to be a film that might not be the most commonly heard in conversation, but quite often raves about once witnessing it. I’m here to tell you, that’s exactly what Fuller wanted. This is not a bombastic film, and sure the battle is important, but it’s truly about tragically over realized horror. Fuller had a real vision for this film, and it really made an impact. I was mesmerized at how my emotions could change through an early fifties war film like this, but that’s just goes to show how timeless this film truly is.

Was it pragmatic for a sequel to be made for one of the most iconic blockbusters of all time? Yes, pragmatism played a big role in bringing in the big bucks. Was it logical to strip down everything great about the first film and make this a blubbery skeleton of a movie? Probably not. I still had some fun with Ridley Scott’s ‘Gladiator II’ (2024), even though I see its flaws. This is far from a perfect movie, and pretty much that is just a slew of aspects from all sides fault. Somethings really worked for me, and made me remember why I love the legendary filmmaker, while other aspects made me realize our society is dying and only wants idiotic storytelling. I’m still glad to have gone and seen this picture though, and I’m sure it’ll be on a rewatch list sometime down the line. 

The greatest sin ‘Gladiator II’ (2024) committed was the fact that the script and storytelling were just lackluster and rehashed aspects of a greater film. The story was pretty flat, and really only felt like a poor rendition of the Russell Crowe picture. However, even with different ideas getting tossed up to mix up the conclusions, it still fell flat and short. By the ladder half of the film, we started to see ideas that made little sense, and really had us scratching our heads. The “twists” were unnecessary, and excruciatingly dull. Even the dialogue was just shallow. I really don’t know how a film that costs two hundred and fifty million dollars could be so narrow minded in its writing. This is by far the biggest downfall of ‘Gladiator II’ (2024).

With a run time of two hours and twenty eight minutes, it’s important to keep the momentum going, and not slow down and allow for fatty parts of the film to build up. Unfortunately that’s exactly what happens in ‘Gladiator II’ (2024). We get a pretty standard structure of storytelling, where there is loads of soap opera dialogue, then every fifteen minutes we get a burst of action. That’s all fine and good, however, it needs to mean something. The exposition heavy moments need to still carry a heavy pace as to not slow down the viewers mindset, and that’s simply does not happen here. This could have easily been an hour and fifty minutes, with better pacing, but unfortunately that just didn’t cut it for the creators. 

This feature is just absolutely riddled with CGI, and it does no favors what so ever. The initial attack of computer graphics was overwhelmingly noticeable when we saw a sprawl of monkeys on the screen. Essentially just blobs of pixels that did no Justice to a creative mind. As the movie went on, it was even more apparent how the quality of this work was going down. All the animals were brutally massacred with this practice of CGI, and that’s because apparently there were no animals on the set at all. ‘Gladiator’ (2000) was a much better example of how to use the art of practical effects to its advantage, while still practicing the new technology as well. Unfortunately this really was a mess of CGI, and it breaks my heart to think about. 

‘Gladiator II’ (2024) is a movie full of contemporary movie stars, all attempting to do their parts. Everyone except for the exception of one truly did not deliver. Paul Mescal was drowsy and uncharismatic through and through. This is a big issue, because a part as important and bold as this, should have much more power behind the eyes. Instead we go Gumby on a hungover day. Pedro Pascal is always charming in his works, but for this role, he had little to no impact, and the bit he did have, made no sense at all. Thankfully we got the legendary Denzel Washington on screen to help lift everyone out of the gutters. His presence truly made this a much more fun watch, and I’m sure recognition for it will go around. 

At 86 years old, the legendary Sir Ridley Scott showed he still had it in him to make films. With this year being one for the older filmmakers giving another shot, like Clint Eastwood, Frances Ford Coppola, and Kevin Costner, it was no doubt Scott would be here too. I love all the output this director does, and even when his films are flat, I find little reason for it to be his fault. Sure he might be a bit lazy (as his cinematographer says), but he’s still doing the work. I implore you to speak out his other works, and see what the master really does, because ’Gladiator II’ (2024) is not the most becoming work of his. 

This is not an atrocity as some people are saying it is, but this is also not the renaissance of cinema as I suggested either. This is a fun yet simplistic film that cost $250 million dollars to make. It definitely should have had some more swing to its punch if it was that lucrative to make. Ridley Scott is not a tarnished name though, and his hand on the project made it better than it could have been without him. Sure, this feels too close to the original that it doesn’t have a unique quality, while at the same time still having too many problematic issues on its own. I understand and respect a lot of the criticism being thrown at ‘Gladiator II’ (2024), but at the end of the day, it’s exactly what it wanted to be, and it definitely didn’t lie to us about it.

Ridley Scott’s ‘Gladiator’ (2000) is an example of how artistically rich films and blockbuster showcases can be one and the same. A product from the new millennium, ‘Gladiator’ (2000) proved us all wrong about how cinema was dying. We were given a strong burst of sanguinity even though it was all a facade for what was to come. There is so much powerful imagery in this film, and it holds nothing back. Packing punches right and left, and getting the adrenaline going through and through. There are moments of non-ambiguous beauty, mixed with a world of overwhelming action. This is some great work from a legendary director like Ridley Scott, and cannot be overshadowed in how impactful it would be for the new century.

Blockbusters are often drowned in thick layers of I.P. now, always piggybacking off of a franchise. Very few times so we get truly original films that make billions. Perhaps ‘Oppenheimer’ (2023) can be the exception, but ‘Gladiator’ (2000) used to be the rule. With a budget of $103 million, and taking home close to half a billion, it’s safe to say ‘Gladiator’ (2000) was quite lucrative. Even more impressive is the practicality of how this film operates. With massive builds, and impressive structures layering the entire film, it’s a wonder how much of this wasn’t done with computers. Of course there was something assistance, but it’s honestly just a strong looking film, that delivers in the box office and on screen, not like today’s CGI riddled works. 

You have to love a good and strong period piece, even if you aren’t a history buff. ‘Gladiator’ (2000) is a perfect fix for history obsessed wild cats, while also still being a great film for geeks of previous film history. Of course the picture takes place in the old midevil times, and it plays to every aspect with respect and purpose. Sure, Scott isn’t known to make the most historically accurate films, but he makes an effort to show us the past and what came from it. On the other hand, we get to see the style of the old peplum’s play out in a contemporaneous setting. The swords and sandals style films from the 1950’s rings loud and true throughout this work. With an honest and caring depiction of these films, it’s obvious Scott and his crew did the work to portray a genre that was thought to be long dead. 

The 2001 Academy Awards were not the most prestigious if I would say so myself. Sure, films like ‘Traffic’ (2000) and ‘Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon’ (2000) were all understood and represented in the time, but the filed was not that complex. ‘Gladiator’ (2000) was definitively the best choice for the awards, and clearly it showed. With twelve nominations and five wins under its belt, including Best Picture and Best Actor, it was apparent how impactful this whole story was. A grand scale blockbuster that didn’t pull its punches earned the right to take home some awards. Thankfully it was recognized by the academy for this as well. 

Russell Crowe is one of the most fun actors to watch on screen. Set aside the controversy that comes with working with him, his performances are impactful to say the least. His portrayal of Maximus in this film has definitely gone down as one of his best. His stoic and pronounceable demeanor helps carry the audience on this grueling and intense journey of loss and action. His silence is often louder than a symphonic band, blaring out the orchestral tune of a long lost hero. Yet at the same time, his physicality drowns out any question of endurance and sacrifice. ‘L.A. Confidential’ (1997), ‘A Beautiful Mind’ (2001), and ‘The Nice Guys’ (2017) are all fantastic roles for the actor. However, ‘Gladiator’ (2000) is the honest to god performance that makes Russell Crowe the actor we all know and love. 

Ridley Scott was already a well renowned director by this moment in his career. You don’t make ‘Alien’ (1979), ‘Blade Runner’ (1982), and ‘Thelma & Louise’ (1991) and not get noticed as one of the greats. ‘Gladiator’ (2000) to this day would still go down as one of his greatest films, and for good reason. His marksmanship behind the camera perfectly solidifies the reason he should make movies forever. He’s gotten a bad wrap in recent years, but I stand by his work, and will fight to the death to defend him. Scott always has a vision that he knows he needs to execute. Love him or hate him, you can’t say he isn’t determined to make something wonderful box office money from the arts. 

Though ‘Gladiator’ (2000) now has its own reputation as a best picture winner, and a classic, it should not be overstated that this is not an overrated film. There is so much fluidity through the story, and it holds a passionate light to films of the past. Ridley Scott cemented himself as a true and honest director in the past, and this work showed he only aged like wine. The acting, the scenery, the music, and the bundle of the film really just works. This was lightning in a bottle and it ages perfectly with the times. After this rewatch, I really started to appreciate what this film really was, and now I can say I’m a real believer of its past prospects.

Coralie Fargeat’s ‘The Substance’ (2024) is preemptively knowing about its own place in culture right now. There is a lot going on in this body horror film about women’s visual struggle, and I can definitely agree to say that this movie is def worth commentary. This horror feature is so precise in its execution, there is no doubt the viewer can obtain a knowledge of filmmaking on a decently prestigious level. On top of that, this is also just an exciting and ambitious genre piece that calls back to the classic films of David Cronenberg and many other fortuitous horror pictures. I can see why this has been such a craze, while at the same time it still surprises me. One thing is definitive though, no one should miss this movie. 

‘The Substance’ (2024) being a very stylized and kinetic film means there are technics in front of and behind the camera. Right off the bat I took notice of the camera work that staged the entire scenery. The usage of quick edits, strong cuts, and unconventional camera movement all fit in perfectly with what the story was trying to be. To add to all of this, the production style, and the usage of color absorb the surroundings as well. There are very few moments, if any, where a scene is not detailed for a reason. Traits like this to a movie of this scale is impressive, but also vital in the connection with the audience. If you don’t understand the meaning of this film, you’ll surely appreciate the craft.

Coralie Fargeat is clearly a fan of cinema, because ‘The Substance’ (2024) is packed full of homages, references, and love letters to many films. The obvious connections are the works to David Cronenberg, and his usage of body horror. The connection of suffering with transmogrification flows through his films as loudly as it does in this one. Other films with clear homages are, ‘Frankenstein’ (1931), ‘The Shinning’ (1980), ‘The Thing’ (1982), ‘Society’ (1989), ‘Pulp Fiction’ (1994), and so many more. Some of these nods are more clear than others, but it’s always a fun treat to dive into a movie and point at the screen in excitement. 

‘The Substance’ (2024) is simply a film about substance abuse, addiction, and loss of control in one’s self. We can see how the addiction to looking young and beautiful can drive one mad, but at the same time, the struggle of withdrawals and overdoses, much like serious drug usage. There is a moment in the film, where we realize all control in the characters self is lost. It’s the tipping point where you realize an end is inevitable, but not likely to be positive. The way we see the hard come downs like someone who is going into withdrawals is stinging to say the least. The pleading and the desire is piercing as the movie doesn’t let you catch your breath. Then, it all runs out, and that’s how the movie expresses the horror of substance abuse.

Beauty is a massive factor of this film, and it’s the entire reason this movie is drawn forward. The verbiage and context made about females and their appearance is all over this film, in complex and divisive ways. To compare this, the film also allows itself to get drowned into a strong color palette of white. The color on the tiling indicates the cleanness of the characters, and the way it can simply be smudges that much more quickly. The standards for these characters are exploited throughout the entire movie, and it helps us sympathize with the struggle. The limits get pushed and for an unfortunate outcome, it’s clear to see how the spiral keeps on turning in their heads 

Some audience members might not appreciate a film that feels like it needs to hold your hand. However, others tend to enjoy it. I stand on the former most times, but with a movie as complex and creative as ‘The Substance’ (2024), I find the necessity of guidance a must. We get a few bursts of explanatory dialogue, because the pacing of the film always allows for it. This also helps create a well structured and unique film. We get a strong start and a guidance of good gesture. The film builds its intensity with a sturdy frame, then allows for a crashing climax into a quickly drawn conclusion. Sometimes a film needs some structure like this, especially if it’s running through unconventional ideas. 

Demi Moore and Margot Qualey both Star in this psychotic and chaos driven film about beauty and desire. Moore really takes on a brave and courageous performance with this role, allowing herself to not be glamorized in the slightest. On the other hand, Qualey pushes the boundaries of what her youth and beauty can do on the screen. It’s fair to say these two actors have a real dialogue between them, and I guess I never noticed that until this movie paired them. Both Moore and Qualey give some stunning performances in ‘The Substance’ (2024), and it’s great to see this style of acting isn’t dead. 

In a body horror film, it’s important to get the visuals and special effects just right. That is the one thing a real fan will be able to differentiate and dissect in any good body horror film. For ‘The Substance’ (2024), it’s clear a bit of both worlds was used. There are some remarkable soecial effects in the film, especially by the last thirty minutes. It’s over the top, ridiculously gory, and so much fun. The creature we see is an obvious homage to the beloved ‘Society’ (1989), and the effects mark it perfectly. Then there is also a bit of CGI that has to be used, at least to the naked eye. With how polished and clear this picture is, I understand the intention. For a contemporary body horror film, I must say bravo for delivering the goods, this is why horror cinema is still alive. 

After sitting through two hours and twenty one minutes of pure adrenaline on screen, I had to stop and think who was this movie getting to? It’s obviously a satire on the female gaze, and how agonizing aging can be. However, this is also just a deeply graphic and over the top disgusting film that isn’t typically the most accessible to a broad audience. However, I still think it’s pretty fantastic that ‘The Substance’ (2024) has gotten the praise it has for as long as it has. This is by far one of the more interesting films of 2024, and you can say what you want, but that’s a fact. I’m glad I finally got around to seeing this, so if you missed it, do yourself a favor and sit down for the ride.

In 2013, Steve Coogan had been playing the character of Alan Partridge for almost 20 years. Now we receive the film with the beloved and hilarious character. Is this a masterwork of comedy like his previous sketch’s showed? No. Is it enough to satisfy the pallet and get us through a long work week? Barely. I still had fun with ‘Alan Partridge’ (2013) for sure, and even if the story isn’t the strongest, Steve Coogan never ceases to disappoint as the beloved bumbling character. This is just the right amount of hammieness we want to see in a film of this caliber, and it doesn’t take too much effort to enjoy. If you’re a fan of the classic Partridge skits, then this is definitely worth a shot. 

Alan Partridge has been a character of Steve Coogan’s for thirty years now. On the other side of the world he is a cultural icon in comedy. His dry British sense of humor is always thought provoking, yet outrageously provocative. Coogan plays the character seamlessly in anything he has to do. Whether it’s a tv series, a radio show, a film, or a podcast, he always gives his absolute best. In this film, he doesn’t disappoint, and even though the humor isn’t on the same level as his previous works, Coogan is still one funny character in this. Even if you don’t enjoy the film itself, seeing it for the character is all worth it. 

I’ve been trying to put my finger on what it is about ‘Alan Partridge’ (2013) that doesn’t work. The character is still funny, but the script is lackluster to an extent. Of course this is a funny situation to put the character in, it still just doesn’t seem to click right. On top of this, there is a lack of flow in delivery that I’m used to seeing with Partridge’s comedy, and the characters around don’t fit just right all the time. I know there is a lot of work put into this, but there is just an almost too polished feel to the film. The authenticity is lacking for the script, and it almost feels like this is the definitive “sell out” for the character. Of course we know this not to be true because we see the character get right on track in the following years, but it’s still worth comment. 

British humor is some of the funniest humor around. Monty Python always did this style great, and helped birth a new generation of comedy. Alan Partridge fit perfectly into the mold of dry delivery, yet witty comebacks. The jaunty voice and the parochial mindset of the character plays out on screen to great comedic effect. The almost lack of justification in its delivery makes this even more funnier than you could imagine. I know some people in America might not understand this trivial style of comedy, but the more you watch it, and the more you think about it, the funnier it truly gets, and Alan Partridge is the king of that. 

‘Alan Partridge’ (2013) is not the type of movie that makes me want to run out and exploit to the whole world because I think of it being a masterpiece. I still had some good fun with it though. Now comparative to the classic bits from the character before, this does not feel the most becoming of the character. Sure it’s a fun and quick watch that doesn’t make you contemplate too much, but it’s also lacking some talents the previous work had. I digress though, and I’ll just say it’s still worth a watch, just don’t expect to get blown out of the water from this picture.

Sandler’s Lot: Part 3

‘The Wedding Singer’ (1998) is a quasi romantic comedy with a musical aspect, and it works for what it is. This is not the type of movie I would go Rush and see a sequel to, and it’s not one that I want to revisit anytime soon. However, it doesn’t the job it was asked to do, and it delivers funny moments of exposition. The story is pretty straight forward, and the beats are pretty predictable, but nonetheless, it’s still a nice and easy watch. Adam Sandler puts in another performance that goes down in some of his more iconic characters, but it doesn’t over extend that like in ‘Uncut Gems’ (2019) or ‘Hustle’ (2022). This is just an easy watch through and through, nothing complex, just fun. 

The 1990’s were booming with this style of comedy. Films like ‘Tommy Boy’ (1995), ‘Happy Gilmore’ (1996), and ‘Dirty Work’ (1998) were all the rave. ‘The Wedding Singer’ (1998) fits nicely into this group of easy going and light hearted comedies. Romance isn’t always an aspect we get from them, but Sandler manages to bring that out of his crew. The structure is pretty formulaic, and you could probably guess every beat to the final scene the second you start the movie. Sometimes comedies like this are necessary though, and they bring an easy film going experience to be audience.

The music in ‘The Wedding Singer’ (1998) is actually some of the best stuff from the feature, and helps guide the story through its performances. We get some fun and original songs that can be crude yet hilarious, and really fit the scenes well. Sandler’s performance with the music fits well as he is going back to an era of singer we all thought was long gone and dead. I’m not saying any of the singing throughout this movie was overwhelming good, but it fit just fine for the feature. 

Adam Sandler loves to play up characters in all of his movies. Whether it’s the bumbling and goofy man child in ‘Billy Maddison’ (1995), or the sympathetic and loving gentleman taking care of a child in ‘Big Daddy’ (1999), he always has a point to make in his roles. His performance in ‘The Wedding Singer’ (1998) is more of a hopeless romantic that strives for love, and poetic Justice in romance. You can say a lot about Sandler and his previous characters, and most of those comments would be true. However, he definitely always seems to be having a fun time, and that’s you can’t deny. 

I won’t be thinking much about ‘The Wedding Singer’ (1998) now that I finished watching it. Frankly I can’t even really think of a time I’d need to watch it again. I suppose this was just one of those movies I needed to mark off the bucket list so all the people who grew up in the 90’s will stop saying “What?! You haven’t seen this classic?!”. I’ve seen it now, and that’s about all I need to say about it. I appreciate Sandler for what he does, even if it has little impact on my viewing experiences.

Say what you will about the films in 2022. It was the year we all got back into the movies, and plenty of people were drawn to the big ones. ‘Everything Everywhere All At Once’ (2022), ‘Top Gun: Maverick’ (2022), ‘The Batman’ (2022), ‘Avatar: The Way Of Water’ (2022), and ‘Elvis’ (2022). Though those movies are loud and expressive, the one that took my heart for the whole year was Martin McDonagh’s ‘The Banshees Of Inisherin’ (2022). This quiet yet lucrative film blew me away, and it has still had me thinking about it today. Every aspect of this film is perfect, from the sorrow to the humor, this film is a canvas that has the most beautiful painting on it. 

‘The Banshees Of Inisherin’ (2022) is a story about two friends where one side no longer wants to be dragged down by the other. It’s simplistic, I know, but it’s also mature and devastating in all the best ways. With this story as the back drop for the script, we get to see a whole new world of ideas played out. The sacrifice of something to grow another’s self worth is a major proponent. The fragile mindset of older men, and the unwillingness to change after so long. We don’t need to see the expressive past, we just get the cold and bitter present. There is so much more to see in this film outside of a friendship falling apart. The struggle and longing the mending, but not actually realizing what the results will be, or how nothing can ever be the same. It’s a brutal truth that McDonagh writes out perfectly. 

We get to play a tourist in the lives of Colm and Pádraic’s lives, but only for a moment. The film spans only a few days in these men’s lives, but it gives us a lifetime of knowledge. The reasoning for the fall out might be contemptible in nature, but the conviction behind it is resolute. We only know this because we get everything from these two men. The loud and the mutters. The silence tells a story in its self, and we get to experience it all from our own eyes. Movies like this don’t think less of the audience, and they give us the tools to understand and sympathize with the characters, even at their lowest ebb. With all the formalities aside, getting to witness a story of this magnitude on a scale this bijou-esk is truly a remarkable experience for any film lover. 

The whole idea behind ‘The Banshees Of Inisherin’ (2022) is that there is a finality to war, and there is always going to be a sense of loss. I know, this isn’t a war film, but at the same time, this picture has more to say than most anti-war films out there. The idea of a conflict with no definitive explanation is prevalent of course. The casualties of war are shown, and the innocence being lost. There are examples of the innocent dying or fleeing, while the battle between two opposing sides shrouds all judgment. Even by the end of this feature, it’s apparent how little has been accomplished with this conflict, and it’s obvious no one ends up the same. With the back drop of a military conflict off the coast, it’s very clear what this entire story is trying to say to us, and it rings louder than church bells. 

There is such a hilarity in ‘The Banshees Of Inisherin’ (2022) and you almost feel guilty understanding it. The parochial empire in Pádraic’s head is upsettingly hilarious, while also being tragically fleeting. The banter and discourse that adjusts the characters mindsets are often beyond dry, you cannot help but laugh at the outlandish remarks. On the surface this should not be a funny movie in any way. However, with Martin McDonagh behind the pen, he manages to deliver a well articulated comedy with so many moments of hilarity. You’ll find yourself crying many times from some great laughs, right along next to some tragic moments. Either way, you’ll feel a lot of emotions while watching this feature. 

The Irish are a proud people who always set their dignity first and foremost. Seeing the cinematic triumph of this culture is one of the more nurturing elements of watching these films. Martin McDonagh is obviously and Irishman himself, along with Colin Farrell, Brendan Gleeson, Kerry Condon, Barry Keoghan, and the remaining cast. This makes the entire experience that much more authentic and genuine. Other great films about the Irish that always have me thinking about their passion are films like ‘Bloody Sunday’ (2002), ‘The Wind That Shakes The Barley’ (2007), ‘Hunger’ (2008), and ‘Calvary’ (2014). There is so much heart from this side of the world, and their films truly show an impeccable craft. 

We are given the opportunity through this film to understand the spacial awareness of an island just off the coast of Ireland. From the pub, to the docks, to Colm’s and Pádraic’s homes. We get to observe, study, and recognize where everything is and the distance in between. Much like ‘Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri’ (2017), this is a small location film, where there is not much extension into the outside world. There is plenty of groundwork lied down to help us view the setting, but none of this is shoveled onto us. The ossification in McDonagh’s writing is spectacular, and the way he is able to take such a beautiful location and make us privy to all of its charms is a talent in itself. 

Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson both star in this tumultuous film, where both men a pitted against one another in a battle for no cause. Gleeson, being one of my all time favorites, delivers an agonizingly melancholic performance that drowns itself in its own mind. The way Gleeson expresses with no words only suits how impactful his voice really is. Farrell delivers a devastating and sympathetic portrayal of confusion and anger. His hilarity bursts out in so many ways, while we still feel sorrow for him as well. Kerry Condon and Barry Keoghan also deliver some of the more emotional beats in this picture, and Keoghan’s dejected nature of love breaks my heart every time. This is one beautifully acted film, that really shows the heights of what a performer can do. 

There was a crime committed at the academy awards in 2023. ‘The Banshees Of Inisherin’ (2022) took nine nominations and zero wins. Say all that you want about the other films, I truly hold this as the finest film of that year. Martin McDonagh is a craftsman and a genius whenever he works on a film, and this is one of his best. The accumulation of a wonderful and well seasoned cast, with one of the strongest written scripts in years, plus a steady and gentle hand behind the camera leads to a project like ‘The Banshees Of Inisherin’ (2022). I would be amazed to hear any sort of meaningful downside on this picture, because this is art at its finest.

Martin McDonagh lampoons the film world with this profound and stylistic small town film about grief and substitution in one’s life. ‘Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri’ (2017) is not a film that follows a topiaric structure by any means, and often throws the audience off kilter because of its jarring and intense moments of mourning. An ensemble cast shows us the masterful and precise details of acting, and how so much can be said with so little. This film forces us to struggle with the characters, while finding a deeply rooted sympathy in their grief. I fell in love with this feature the second I experienced it, and now it holds a place in my top films of all time. ‘Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri’ (2017) is such an important movie to witness, and it holds so much weight gassing anything else that try’s to compare. 

There is a brutality of self awareness in McDonagh’s third feature film, where so much is understood by the characters, while at the same time, guilt dilutes reason. A fear of cause and effect are always discussed throughout this picture, and plays a massive role in what decisions are being made. This is not all for nothing. We see characters grow from their actions, and we see others challenge harsh inevitably. It’s tough to say many of these characters are truly good people, and many of them struggle with what they give to their world. At the end of the day though, each one understands where their place is, and the control they can have with their outcomes. 

Humor is often used in Martin McDonagh’s scripts as a tool to remove us from anguish. As we see in his previous films like ‘In Bruges’ (2008), and ‘Seven Psychopaths’ (2012), no character is truly happy or ignorant to pain. However, the usage of light hearted and often crude humor helps ground what needs to be expressed. This is writing at its best. There does not need to be a joke every second to keep the laugh track going. This is just a representative of real life. Even on our darkest moments, humor fixates itself to help levitate the stress. ‘Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri’ (2017) does a fantastic job at melding those lines. You can find yourself laughing and crying in many different stages of the film, and that’s why this is some of the most top notch writing. 

Sympathy through loss is another idea that flows through this picture like water. Mildred is a tragic force that upholds sympathy for those around her. She finds brightness in everyone, even after disposable tears are run through. We understand her pain of losing a child, and we understand the guilt she feels from her actions and words. However, that never holds Mildred back from accomplishing the upmost care for the world around her. Even the side characters find this in themselves, and it proves that though the world this movie settles into is bleak and brutal, everyone still has some kind of good in them. It’s just how we choose to express it. 

Small town settings are always enjoyable for a film viewer like me. The intimacy characters show towards each other makes so much more of a difference than a city film. This is the type of small town where everyone knows each other’s business, and their names are muscle memory to one another. When we see characters interact and show a sense of remembrance, it makes everything feel so much more real. The key to world building is not having a massive amount of characters coming today. The key is to have them woven in and have a history that we’ll never see, and McDonagh does this impeccably.

Workshopping grief has always been an aspect of film that I find very interesting. I don’t need my movies to be like a cookie cutter picture that has an open and shit film. I don’t need everyone on screen to have the brightest smiles or the most boisterous of laughs. Deep seated sorrow is perhaps one of the most honest emotions, and seeing it portrayed in film is much more important to me. ‘Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri’ (2017) nails this with its delivery of sadness. Each character has this in them, and though it can be subtle, it’s clearly all still there. These are the types of features I love to observe and understand, even if it’s tough on the mind. 

The cast of this picture is one of a kind. Frances McDormand leads the cast with her most personal and intuitive role to date. Woody Harrelson and Sam Rockwell provide the opposing side to her, while also delivering tender and complex feelings. Caleb Landry Jones, Kerry Condon, Clarke Peters, Lucas Hedges, Sandy Martin, Peter Dinklage, John Hawkes, and Samara Weaving also arise throughout the movie and provide some of the best commentary on Mildred’s life. This movie has such a strong cast, and each actor manages to deliver their own perspectives of life, what more could we ask for? 

Martin McDonagh has been one of my favorite contemporary directors for some time now. With his previous films ‘In Bruges’ (2008), and ‘Seven Psychopaths’ (2012) being some great work in the comedy world. His follow up film to his one, ‘The Banshees Of Inisherin’ (2022) ended up landing the number one spot of my favorite films of that year. McDonagh has a sense of rawness and compassion for his films that we don’t see too often anymore. His complex style of writing mixed with his care for camera work meld together to create some of the strongest picture of the 21st century. I am always looking forward to seeing what McDonagh does next, and his time in the awards circuit will be here soon. 

I am not being facetious when I say ‘Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri’ (2017) is in my top ten films of all time. There is a true and honest feel to the entirety of this picture, and I absolutely adore every second of it. You will experience and express every emotion under the sun when you watch this film, and it’s all for the best reasons. With a cast that is to die for, and a script that is so well articulated, there is no doubt everyone will connect with this picture. I implore everyone to spend of time and watch this hilarious yet tragic film about one woman’s journey for justice.

Edward Berger’s film, ‘Conclave’ (2024) is the type of movie that gives me hope for our future in cinema. Though this is a deeply cynical, and down beat film about the loss of faith, it is still cloaked with a mesmerizing religious/political thriller to suit the pallet. There is so much to see throughout ‘Conclave’ (2024), and the visual diet is nothing to scoff at. There is penance in the movie for its own belief in today’s world. Often reflecting on the contemporaneous misconceptions of our political and religious landscape we all strive to ignore. There are issues with some aspects of this film, especially on the ladder half of it all, but through and through, this is such a strong contender for a nominations run, and I cannot wait to go back and revisit this riveting work of art. 

Ambition plays a massive role in what can and cannot be done under one’s devices. Particularly the downfall that comes with a greed riddled ambition. We see subtle changes throughout each characters mindset in the film, and we are never often told, but more shown and forced to interpret their desires. The script is very well constructed as to not letting us fall behind on these ambitious ideals. Once we step into this world, and the doors are shut, we experience a level of vitriol on one of the quietest levels. There is no need to explosive outbursts or inclusive violence, instead, an agonizing facial adjustment will do all the work. 

Though ‘Conclave’ (2024) is a film about the conduction of a conclave in the Vatican, we learn pretty quickly this is more to do with the game of politics than it does religious belief. The process of the conclave is a voting system with all the same elements of back room politics. The smoky stairwells that shade coercion amongst the Cardinals is nothing outside of the realm of ‘House Of Cards’ (2013). There is a thieving and conniving sense of each character, even when one appears to be forthright. This is the beauty of a political thriller, and it never lets the audience in on exactly what anyone is thinking. ‘Conclave’ (2024) does a better job at showing us the art of politics than most political films can. 

On top of this being a straight forward political intrigue film, this is also just a wonderful little thriller that keeps the audience on the edge of their seat. Very few moments are wasted in the act of suspense, and the film continues to unfold itself as it goes on. Secrets and mystery’s seemingly arise out of no where, and keeps this story always moving. I could easily have seen this as an Agatha Christie novel from way back when, or an Alfred Hitchcock thriller from the 1970’s. Of course it would never be made as we see it today, but the elements of suspense we look for in classic thrillers is all there. 

One of the most obvious and astounding take aways from Edward Berger’s film is the remarkable cinematography and the profound usage of color. Red is blatant and vulgar throughout the entire picture, and it never leaves the presence of the screen. Stark whites and dimmer shadows also drown out the scenery, and indicate the regal aspect of what we are seeing. Though the red bursts out as a representative of anger and frustration, the flatter colors help ground the importance of the situations. Many of the shots are just stunning as well, and really give this whole film a feeling of prestige. 

Ralph Fiennes as Cardinal Lawrence leads this cast of remarkable actors. Stanley Tucci, John Lithgow, Lucian Msamati, and Isabella Rossellini all help make up the support cast from behind, and it is a really treat for fans of genuine acting. Each member gets their own time to shine, while also blending shades of trust with one another at the same time. Even though these parts are not traditionally “showy” there are beyond impactful. Fiennes especially, takes a massive leap as playing a Cardinal who is struggling with his own faith, and has to deliver such a loud conviction. This movie does not need the actors to move judiciously to get the point across, and in fact, it makes the whole story better when that isn’t the case. These actors are at the top of their class, and ‘Conclave’ (2024) is a perfect example of this. 

Unfortunately, ‘Conclave’ (2024) is not a perfect movie, as most aren’t. If the script attempted restraint from the commentary on the contemporary political landscape, perhaps there would have been fewer eye rolls from me. I understand how timely ‘Conclave’ (2024) is, especially because I watched it on Election Day, but that does not mean it needs to be so tongue and cheek about everything it wants to say. This does not need to be a sly film that makes the audience exhaustingly laugh when a reference is made about them. The ending falls a bit flat for me as well, and almost felt like there was no need for it. Though I understand what the film is attempting to say, at the same time, I think it would have benefited much more to leave an ending like this on the back burner, and have the film wrap up with the facts the audience was already given. I understand the choice, and I conclude my predications about it.

‘Conclave’ (2024) is the type of slow burn thriller I always look for, and I’m lucky to have seen it in theaters. There is a surmounting range of drama and suspense throughout the entire picture that really keeps the audience in hand. The unambiguous ending might leave the audience feeling betrayed, but it certainly doesn’t fail the film all together. The conclusion is all that it says it is. The ending of a motion picture. No matter what, I absolutely believe this is worth a watch, and it’s such a strong film that I cannot wait to see it again.

This is one pistol packing punch of a film if I’ve ever seen one. ‘We Live In Time’ (2024) is a film that allows us to be witness to one of the more emotional and sentimental viewings of two people’s lives. This isn’t a feature for the holy hearted (though it was the first movie date I went on with my girlfriend). There is intense sexual tension throughout the picture, while also finding a home in a tender souled spirit. I didn’t know much about ‘We Live In Time’ (2024) going in, but I was very pleased with the entirety of the picture.

I found one of the most interesting aspects of ‘We Live In Time’ (2024) to be how honest the whole story truly is. No one character is truly good or truly bad. There is a realism to the struggles and motivations of both leads. Moments happen that might make the viewer angry, and not understand the structure, but that’s just reminiscent of life itself. There is an agonizing pain behind many of these decisions, and understanding that the end goal is not to succeed but to strive in a moment is all too real to life. There are plenty of romantic dramas out there that deal with this idea, but ‘We Live In Time’ (2024) really nails that on the head. 

The raw and exposing elements of a relationship are presented throughout this whole feature, and it makes the audience reflect on their own actions. Some films are afraid to show the sexual intrigue between two people, and most are too shy to actually show it, not this one. The passionate love making, the intense and brutal arguments, the agricultural structure of a steady relationship, and how simply it can crack. These are all ideas played out in the film, and it makes for a more in-depth and interactive viewing experience.

Two massive points of this film are the ideas of dealing with loss and grief. The mourning for someone you can’t see anymore or the struggle of losing control in a situation that is bottomless and chaotic. Grief is such a powerful emotion to express in cinema, and it’s often not done appropriately. ‘Manchester By The Sea’ (2016) and ‘Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri’ (2017) are two phenomenal examples of grief being exploited in powerful ways. ‘We Live In Time’ (2024) does not reach that level, but it makes such an impactful effort. Just because a movies deals with issues like this, does not always mean it is a horrible film, in fact, I would argue it to be more meaningful than a random romance. 

‘We Live In Time’ (2024) is its own film about the struggles of a relationship, but it also pulls a lot from movies of the past. Noah Baumbach’s two domestic dramas, ‘The Squid And The Whale’ (2005) and ‘Marriage Story’ (2019) are both great examples, and even directly referenced. The sequence of the father and daughter cooking together like her mother did with her once before is a loud and charismatic homage to ‘Kramer Vs. Kramer’ (1979). Domestic dramas are not the easiest films to pull off, but getting the chance to look back and reflect on the previous works only benefits the contemporary style. These are stories that happen every day in life, and being able to delicately show them is a testament to film. 

Florence Pugh and Andrew Garfield both give career bat performances in ‘We Live In Time’ (2024). Each actor goes through a bevy of agonizing and heart warming emotions on screen. Every second their interactions play out is worth note, and not a moment is wasted. Both actors are in their early era of performing, and if this film helps indicate anything, it’s clear that they are both talented through and through. Whether it’s a marvel film, and intimate and dramatic adaptation, or just an original indie film, they both prove they have what it takes for greatness.

These are the types of films I always look for when I’m searching for a romantic drama. The intimacy can be seen as overly dramatic, while even being awkward at times. One thing is true though, this is the type of cinema that makes you reflect on relationships and romance. Moments throughout the picture are tough to see, and sometimes even hard to keep your eyes on. That’s what makes ‘We Live In Time’ (2024) an honest and pure cinematic viewing experience. There is no fluff, just honesty in drama.

“I can’t beat it. I can’t beat it. I’m sorry.” 

‘Manchester By The Sea’ (2016) is a developed look into the absolute abyss that is mind crushing sorrow. There is so much to unpack in a performance that is so subtle and so quiet, yet more pronounced than any I have ever seen. This film tackles the mourning, loss, and grief of loved ones like no other film has before. There is a pressure out onto the audience to witness, not how horrifying tragedy is, but how brutal solitude can be from it. I’m sure we have all connected with such an idea, and many of us cannot comprehend how desolate we feel after tragedy, but if one work of art can show us that feeling, it’s ’Manchester By The Sea’ (2016). 

This is an unforgiving portrait that does not glorify the contemporary man’s life who deals with struggle. The movie is lewd at times, and it can also be outrageously funny. However, what writer and Director Kenneth Lonergan pontificates about most is the art of patience in storytelling. There is a steadiness throughout the script that almost never shows its hand at its faults. The story is happy to linger on the dull and empty moments when Lee is shoveling snow, or drinking a beer. These moments express nothing in a substantial scene, but what it does show is the mundane destruction of loneliness on a mind. 

I have never seen a movie in my life that is more fitting into the genre of “Tragedy” and it is specifically designed that way. Though this is a quiet film that isn’t fast paced, there is still always something happening. Anguish and tragedy are the themes of this daunting feature, and the more the film develops, the more is packed into such a stressful idea. There is a nonstop motion in the script where once you think a rock bottom is hit, there is always more to be packed on and there is much further to go. By one point in the film, something so tragic happens, it leaves everything in absolute desolation, while at the same time, giving some much reason and purpose to why the way things are. 

The usage of humor throughout ‘Manchester By The Sea’ (2016) could sometimes be seen as misplaced or not appropriate. I would argue though, it’s more real and genuine to have than not. In moments of dejection and mourning, there are glimpses of humor that peek through, even if only the audience recognizes it. This sparks up difficult emotions from a viewer, because we what we’re seeing is beyond agonizing, then seeing a glimpse of humor sprinkled in makes us realize there is possibility for emotional adjustment, even in the worst moments. This was such a smart way to write a story, and genuinely makes the film more humanizing. 

Flashbacks are prominently displayed throughout the duration of the feature, but we are never given indication when the time frame changes. Kenneth Lonergan trusts the audience enough to piece together what time frame we are being shown. From the usage of big things like when Joe is alive or how old Patrick is, to the little and subtle details like the expressive nature (or lack there of) in Lee. These are the things we need to pick up to understand the meaning of the character and story itself. Even when the film goes back to the tragic moments that was a catalyst for everything that prospered, nothing is actually bogged down by time. We see the moment, and that’s it. The point of the movie is not a grand tragedy told in a flashback, it’s about the outcome of never coping with it. 

One of the biggest take aways I had from this viewing experience was the fact that ‘Manchester By The Sea’ (2016) was not cinematic in anyway. It almost feels like Lonergan is intimidated by the pressure of grandiosities in cinema. This is not a big film. This is not a loud or charismatic or fast paced movie. This is simply just a story about a man who is fighting with his own mental stability. Nothing is showy, nothing is in your face or big. The point of ‘Manchester By The Sea’ (2016) is how it lacks the characteristics of a traditional cinematic force. It’s definitely something to truly appreciate about Kenneth Lonergan and his creation in this art. 

I view a lot of this movie as Lee being out on his own, and struggling with so much impacted loss. The fact of the matter is, the movie doesn’t even hide the fact he isn’t on his own. He’s given an opportunity to take care of his nephew Patrick, but Lee still struggles with the idea of ownership. He knows Patrick is a better person than him, even if he sees road bumps in the road for him. He’s afraid to take ownership of another human life after the tragedy of his own. However, once seeing the transitions he could make, he only saw a child that could have been his in Patrick. All grown up and ready to fight. It’s such a heartbreaking realization that really hammers home the ideas of the whole film.

Lee Chandler can be expressed as one type of man. He is someone who is lost and wandering the world in such a dejected way, nothing seeming can console him. Lee attempts to find massive amounts of solitude in himself, while still drudging his way into the memories of trauma. His monotonous demeanor only seemingly wishes to be left on its own. Once something or someone has left, it’s an individual’s job to make the attempt in not drowning in their own sorrow and hatred. Finding solitude in someone else is not an easy ask, but finding it in one’s self like Lee does, that’s just devastating through and through.  

‘Manchester By The Sea’ (2016) makes a remarkably brave decision. Most movies that deal with stuff like this would never have been able to come to a conclusion quite like this one. The point of this whole film is not to overcome any kind of mourning or grief someone might have. In fact, the point of the film is that people simply don’t overcome this type of thing. Some people go through moments that are so agonizing, and so bleak, that falling back into a routine with absolutely no prospect of success is what they want. This is not how Hollywood movies are made anymore, but I genuinely think it’s more honest than almost any other movie. 

Like I explained before, this movie is not cinematic one bit, and what helps mat all of that down is the coldness in the feature as well. There is the obvious and apparent coldness of the scenery, and there is the even more obvious coldness of the characters. Having this film set in Massachusetts during the cold season was a brilliant idea. I could feel the freezing nature cut through the screen and it made me want to bundle myself up. The snowy landscape pairs immaculately with the grey overcast backdrop. Coldness is a tool used through the movie to show how one can warm others up in a time of coldness, and it also helps show how some people choose to freeze and disappear.

Lee Chandler is played expertly and tragically by Casey Affleck. Being award the Academy Award for best leading actor in this film helped cement his work. The character of Lee is beyond complex, and as I’ve discussed, tragic through and through. The fairest characterization of him is that he is reserved to the world that continues around him. Not only is he reserves to the world around himself, but he is also closed off to the audience and refuses to be a narrator for us. We were never invited into this characters life, and having to witness the lugubrious struggle he faces makes it only worse when you know it’s now all delving into exhaustion. Casey Affleck plays this character absolutely remarkably and puts in a performance of a lifetime. This is the role to look at when you want to see true pain through silence. 

So needless to say, Kenneth Lonergan’s ‘Manchester By The Sea’ (2016) is a film that I thought was worth some deeper commentary on. This movie ranks in my top ten films of all time because of the humanistic nature of everything. This is a movie that pulls no punches and regards the audience in such a high light. ‘Manchester By The Sea’ (2016) is a mature and intelligent film that helps provide a greater look upon self sorrow, depression, and mourning. Every single aspect of this feature is perfect, in its own flawed ways. This is a brutal film that delivers so much context, you don’t want to pass your life by without seeing such artistic craft.

Horror-October 2024: #45

John Carpenter’s ‘Halloween’ (1978). What more is there to say about this film than it is an utter masterpiece. My requisition about this film is that there would be no slasher movies today if ‘Halloween’ (1978) was not made the way it was. This is a truly suspenseful and thrilling film that has the upmost salubrious delivery. Everything from the visual feast we are served to the cast of almost nobody’s, all the way to a score that makes almost every other one weep. ‘Halloween’ (1978) devoutly cements itself as one of the finest structural films to ever have been released, and it is always a must around the Halloween season.

If you want to talk about suspenseful films from the 1970’s, look no further than this cultivating classic. ‘The Exorcist’ (1973), ‘The Texas Chainsaw Massacre’ (1974), and ‘Jaws’ (1975) are all up there with ‘Halloween’ (1978) as some of the most thrilling and nail biting pieces of cinema. ‘Sorcerer’ (1977) of course takes the cake, but ‘Halloween’ (1978) gives the rest of the films a run for their money. The tonality of each scene is daunting with luminous tension creeping all around. Even when no action is occurring, and the score is drowning out the scene, that’s where all the intensity is built up. Carpenter truly knows how to deliver a suspenseful picture with a well fleshed out conclusion.

It’s hard to pinpoint exactly who was the first slasher in cinema. Leatherface had a strong start. Norman Bates even lied out plenty of groundwork. Or perhaps it was a Dario Argento killer who should not be named. We can pontificate about this topic all we want, but I truly feel, of the traditional slashers we know now, Michael Myers was the first. The silent killer who masks up and doesn’t need to move quickly. The tropes we see today in so many slasher films were all created by Myers. I’m sure there is plenty more debate to be had, but as I see it, Michael Myers helped create one of the most lucrative genres around. 

Now if you want to talk about a grindhouse picture that wasn’t afraid to have visual flair, take a look at Carpenter’s work. There are so many iconic shots throughout this film, where each decision was made as a specific choice. Everyone behind the camera understood the importance of angling the camera, where to focus and not focus, the over exposure of light for the first half of the film, then the contrast of dark shadows on the ladder. There are so many details to absorb from a filmmaking standpoint, and it’s just simply remarkable. Even outside of that, there are so many iconic shots that are quite frankly lighting in a bottle. This is the type of stuff I stay up for, because I know this is what makes movies cinematic. 

This has to be one of if not the most iconic scores in cinematic history. Perhaps only second to Ennio Morricone’s ‘The Good The Bad And The Ugly’ (1966), John Carpenter’s synth heavy score accompanies this film beautifully. John Williams’s ‘Jaws’ (1975) and John Carpenter’s ‘Halloween’ (1978) scores helped prove that simplicity in rhythmic storytelling is sometimes more impactful than a bombastic orchestral piece. This score is simple, but it’s effective, and it provides just the right amount of tension for each scene, for when the climax is ready to hit, the music delivers all the tools to prepare. 

When I say “almost nobody’s” for the cast, I mean in a more contemporaneous time for the films release. Of course Donald Pleasence was well known for his work on the James Bond Films, and other massive projects. Everyone else was mainly unknown. Now we look back and see a future Oscar winner in Jamie Lee Curtis, but somehow it all seemed so grounded back in this film. Her enthusiasm flourished, and she became one of the most iconic final girls to ever grace the screen. Her ability to emote every emotion in an hour and a half helps provide a charismatic narrator for us. The casting was spot on, through and through, and I wouldn’t ask for it any other way.  

John Carpenter is one of the more consistent and direct filmmakers to have come out of the Hollywood system, and he did it all for money. For someone who was so open about wanting to make blockbusters, his craft and ingenuity is still one of the best. Outside of ‘Halloween’ (1978), he would go on and make ‘The Fog’ (1980), ‘The Thing’ (1982), ‘Prince Of Darkness’ (1987), ‘They Live’ (1988), and ‘In The Mouth Of Madness’ (1994). All of which are incredibly diverse and creative horror films that help shape cinema. He would also make some of the most fun action films around like ‘Escape From New York’ (1981) and ‘Big Trouble In Little China’ (1986). Carpenter’s flexibly and diversity with his work just goes to show how masterful the man is with filmmaking. 

‘Halloween’ (1978) genuinely is one of the most profound horror films to ever have been released. This film starts a wave of cinematic interpretations that has never even stopped today. John Carpenter proved how exact he was when it came to every aspect of directing and composing and creating. This is the type of film I always look forward to rewatching. This is the stuff I look at when I watch schlock. This is what horror movies are made for. If you haven’t seen this film already, I’m not really sure what’s going on at home for you, but that’s needs to change as soon as possible.

Horror-October 2024: #44

Michael Dougherty’s ‘Trick ‘r Treat’ (2007) is a horror anthology that’s fallen into a cult status in the previous years. Perhaps it’s the visually scarring scenery that plasters itself over the crimson haze. Or maybe it’s the now iconic mascot of the film, prancing around with assured cuteness yet devious intent. Either way, this movie really is a fun time, epically on Halloween night. With an ensemble to support some wild fantasies, ‘Trick ‘r Treat’ (2007) will really have you enjoying your time. This isn’t the greatest film out on the town, but it’s still an easy and fun watch for Halloween. 

I typically stay away from anthology films, because I always find them a bit too half baked. They really never work for me if they don’t tie in together. I felt that way about ‘Trick ‘r’ Treat’ (2007) when I first saw it, but now I realize it’s actually a perfect set up for a night like Halloween. Since the cast can help support all of these stories, why not make it a fun roundabout picture. There are five central stories in this movie, and they all flow smoothly into one another, leaving tidbits and clues for the next one. This works for me, and honestly helps change my mind a bit more on anthologies, even if it still isn’t my favorite framework.

If you want me to watch a horror movie you’re recommending, I promise you I’ll sit down for it if it’s set on Halloween. What better day to set your script than on the spookiest day of the year. Movies like ‘Halloween’ (1978) really cemented how impactful a day like that can be. There is an atmosphere to the whole movie when you see the wind blowing, leaves billowing, children trick or treating. There is a sense of community to it, and a feeling of authenticity. Sure, not every movie nails this, but it’s pretty hard to mess up for a viewer like me, and ‘Trick ‘r Treat’ (2007) does a solid job working it all in. 

This is a pretty fun cast of B-list stars. There are a good handful of names that show up that you might recognize but not know their name off the top. Dylan Baker is one of the leads in a role that seemingly looks like a reprisal of his character in ‘Happiness’ (1998). Brian Cox and Anna Paquin also support their own storylines in the film. Sure, everyone is hamming it up to a certain extent, with Cox being the wild and grumpy old man, and Paquin being the shy yet devious teenager out at a party. That’s sort of the point of a movie like this though. We want to see these characters over emote. That’s the job for a silly little movie like this. 

I definitely had a little bit more of a better time with this movie than I did the first time around. There are a few storylines that always stuck out to me, and really stayed in my head since I’ve seen it. Some of the imagery is right in your face, and really dares to express color with shadow. The cast is a lot of fun, and it’s cool to see some people you definitely recognize. I don’t think of this as a heavy think piece, and it’s honestly just a fun movie for once a year. The creators know that fact, and provide nothing more and nothing less.

Horror-October 2024: #43

As the Hammer Horror Film Studio returns to its roots with retelling the grandiose story of Dr. Frankenstein and his undead creature, I realized this is where their bread is buttered. These other small films the studio pushed out really had little weigh on me, and I just wanted to get back to what made the studio so great in the first place. This isn’t the best Frankenstein film out there, and it isn’t even the best Hammer Horror Frankenstein feature out there. However, getting back to the good old style of movie monsters, is exactly where this studio should have stayed. 

There is a daunting and intimidating possession from Frankenstein films, we see it in the original 1931 release, and we see it today as well. There is a looming presence of insecurity that’s makes the audience uncomfortable, but at the same time, makes us want to keep watching. Underneath all of that, it’s clear there is a tender and understanding mindset that draws the audience even closer to the characters. Being able to balance that all out with a creature like this is pretty impressive. Some interpretations get it right, some, not so much. 

Unlike the Christopher Lee rendition of the Creature from ‘The Curse Of Frankenstein’ (1957), this monster has a much similar look to the original Boris Karloff design. More prosthetics help to achieve the block like head of the creature, while also dressing him closer to Karloff’s attire. Seeing different styles of the creature has never been an issue for me, and though I find Karloff’s appearance to be the strongest and most becoming of the character, it’s still fun to see what creative can come from other designs. 

Peter Cushing steps into the role of Dr. Frankenstein for the second but not last time. He would helm the mantle three more times before his death, always playing the character with such personal flair. It just shows what these movies went and did for the world of cinema, because no one remembers Colin Clive as Henry Frankenstein, Peter Cushing is synonymous with the role. Sure these Hammer Horror flicks aren’t anything to wave a stick at, but they still provided a lot of thrills and entertainment. These movies will always have impact and staying power for years to come, even if they are a dated form of Cinema. 

It’s good to get back to what made this studio so strong. These creature features help prop up acclaimed actors to do their fine work on an easy playing field. You don’t need to think so hard while watching these films, and honestly you can just enjoy the spectacle. ‘The Evil Of Frankenstein’ (1964) would not be the last outing for the famous creature under this studio, but this definitely showed the right by direction everything was going. For better or worse, this second feature bounced back for a long run of fun monster movies.

Horror-October 2024: #42

Did anyone ask for a pirate horror movie? No? I didn’t think so. But that’s what we got with ‘Captain Clegg’ (aka. Night Creatures) (1962). This is sort of a pirate film, I suppose you could say the theme are the sprinkles on top, but the ghouls on an island are the real horror. Once again though, Hammer Horror Studios bends the line again with making more of a thrilling mystery than a horror flick. On top of this, ‘Captain Clegg’ (1962) is just a goofy film as well that doesn’t weight too heavy on the mind. These are the little films that Hammer Horror released that often get swept under the rug, and honestly never really need too much mention, even if they have some fun moments in them. 

The central idea of this entire movie is based around a good number of pirates and a good number of sailors. You see movies like this show up every now and then through the decades, but I guess there has never really been a massive influx of pirate films until ‘Pirates Of The Caribbean’ (2003) was released. You’ll see Errol Flynn, or Kirk Douglas, or Robert Shaw show up in small pirate films throughout the years, but the genre never seemingly clicked. Peter Cushing took his swing at it in this picture, and it’s definitely not the best of the lot. 

This is much more of a mystery film than it is a horror picture for sure. This is a trend that the Hammer Horror Studio falls into. We follow these sailors onto an island to try and find an infamous Captain who was thought to be long gone. Spirits roam the island as well, and help the horror aspect of the story. However this is closer to a detective mystery more than anything. I enjoy seeing the bending of genres, and it can often be done very cordially. ‘Captain Clegg’ (1962) is truthfully just a whole other mess on its own, and I couldn’t phantom nitpicking the genre fraud on screen. So for that, this is just fine.

Pretty much from the very bringing of ‘Captain Clegg’ (1962), you realize what kind of movie you’re getting into. This is just a silly movie with a fun premise that doesn’t delivery the most ideological ideas, but what Hammer Horror film does? The campiness of the pirates, and the goofiness of the spirits really are too funny to see. This whole film is just hammed up to make a louder viewing experience. Which is really funny when you look at it and realize there is still just so much dead space in between the lines of the film. I’ve seen plenty more pictures that were sillier than this one, I just knew it was the biggest takeaway I had though. 

This is once again a small feature from the Hammer Horror studio that will not get spoken about pretty much ever. Little movies like this get thrown away and disregard pretty quickly after a watch. Even with this being a small and silly movie, it still has a few perks, but it’s also a bit of a dud. I wouldn’t expect anyone to go out rushing to find this on DVD or anything, because it really isn’t worth too much of the time. It’s okay, but okay doesn’t sell tickets.

Horror-October 2024: #41

I’m going to say this politely but firmly, and I mean every sentiment about it, this movie has no weight on my mind since I finished watching it. There is such little impact to me from this movie, I truly couldn’t care less when I was watching it. This is one of those Hammer Horror studio films that isn’t big and loud like a Frankenstein or Dracula film, but it’s also not creative or unique enough to stand out on its own. I’m finding when the studio deviates from universal monster material, the product is lackluster at best. I can promise you, ‘Nightmare’ (1964) is absolutely lackluster at its best. 

‘Nightmare’ (1964) is a movie just centered around paranoia and fear or the past coming to relinquish one’s personal stability. All of this is portrayed through dreams from our protagonist, Janet. Not knowing what is blended between the dreams and reality throughout this film helps get the audience in the right mindset as Janet as well. It’s a clever way to tell a story, even if the coherence is blocked off by faulty writing. This is not a jaunty telling of a story, and why should it be? It’s bleak and shadowed, just like a classic British telling.

1960’s horror has obviously been a focal point lately and getting to see what the U.K. could produce at the time delivers wonders to me. Unfortunately some of it is schlock that doesn’t have much impact in the whole scheme of cinema, much like ‘Nightmare’ (1964), but others really are some of the more important films. Alfred Hitchcock presumably took the mantle and knocked out of killer thrillers and horror flicks with movies like ‘Psycho’ (1960), and ‘The Birds’ (1963). George A. Romero’s ‘Night Of The Living Dead’ (1968), and Roman Polanski’s ‘Rosemary’s Baby’ (1968) also made massive waves. It was a lucrative time for the genre, but no one knew what was coming in the 1970’s. 

Freddie Francis, much like Terence Fisher, is a staple with the Hammer Horror productions. Perhaps not as insightful or creative as Fisher, Francis still had a steady grasp on what it meant to be making a Hammer Horror film. ‘Nightmare’ (1964) is not his best example to prove this point, but it still stands. Francis would make five features with Hammer, plus a who slew of others films with Amicus Productions (an almost rival faction to Hammer). Francis stayed consistent with his films, and even if they weren’t the best, you knew what you were getting when you would go into one.

‘Nightmare’ (1964) is a bland and shallow work of “art” that lacks anything insightful to say. This is a forgettable picture to say the least, and I found almost nothing memorable about the entire thing. I figured this was just a script trying to succeed in the worst way at parochial, but even then, it’s too daft to even know how to be. This is the type of stuff that really makes me feel like I waste my time with some movies. I gained nothing from this, except a view on the world of cinema, and how movies like this are okay to be lost.

Horror-October 2024: #40

Now I thought ‘The Brides Of Dracula’ (1960) was a dull and shallow film about vampires. I was sorely mistaken. ‘The Kiss Of The Vampire’ (1963) gives the former film a run for its money. This movie is just flat out forgettable, and I can’t understand what this movie was made for. Except for the famous cover I’m sure most of us have seen before, there is nothing memorable about this film whatsoever. This is a really hole in the wall vampire flick that doesn’t give any reason to stand out. I’m sure if you’re a big fan of this genre, you might get something out of it, but I truly didn’t see much worth while. 

“Forgettable” is the best word to describe a movie like ‘The Kiss Of The Vampire’ (1963) because even right after watching the film, I had trouble recollecting the finer points of the story. No, this is not the sign of early senility, but instead the sign of boring and meaningless “horror” writing. The worst part about this is that there are no visuals throughout that help prop up a weak script. So there is honestly very little going for the whole film. On top of this, there is no Peter Cushing or Christopher Lee, and the direction process is just lazy and meaningless. I wish this could have been better, but honestly, it just shouldn’t have been made. 

Vampire films have been around for many, many decades. ‘Nosferatu: A Symphony Of Horror’ (1922) is a great example of the early stages of the genre. Then of course we would receive the classic ‘Dracula’ (1931), which would change everything. ‘Vampyr’ (1932) is yesterday another one that helped fixate our amusement with the style of films. There would be almost every other kind of iteration of Vampire films to come after those. Romance, action, drama, comedy, mystery, historical, and everything else under the Sun. Even contemporary cinema still has such an infatuation with this topic. Some are for better, and some (like this film) are for worse. 

Hammer Horror Studios really needed to nail this franchise down, and unfortunately started to put out lackluster and weak entries. Hammer is one of the United Kingdom’s strongest studios for horror, but sometimes they really missed hard. The universal monsters really got reborn from this studio, and a new vision was placed upon us. Some stories really worked like ‘The Curse Of Frankenstein’ (1957), and ‘Horror Of Dracula’ (1958). Others were just meaningless and boring, much like ‘The Kiss Of The Vampire’ (1963). You can’t win them all though, but sometimes it’s not worth a try. 

I really don’t think I needed to waste my time with this picture, and you honestly shouldn’t as well. I’m sure if you own the Hammer Horror collection set on DVD, your interest might be peaked, but I promise you, this one is a really dud on the set. There is very little going for this film, and it truly is the most forgettable of the lot. I wish I had more to say about what was so poor about ‘The Kiss Of The Vampire’ (1963) but that is how lackluster this entire entry is. Such little importance into the world of cinema.

Horror-October 2024: #39

Freddie Francis’s ‘Paranoiac’ (1963) is a small archive from the Hammer Horror Studio, and is often little mentioned. This film has a pretty steady hand on the craft, and actually delves into an important idea of domestic dramas. However, at the same time, the film is wildly confusing, and captures a filthy and incoherent vision that doesn’t connect in many ways. There are plenty of aspects I appreciate from this small film, while at the same time, there is much I don’t understand. I’m sure there could be plenty of commentary made for a film like this, but unfortunately, a lot of that is probably lost to its stretched out script. 

Though I think this movie has a lot of confusion packed into it, and my trepidations about the film are firmly planted, I still think the craft of the movie is very well done. I usage of unreliable sources for story telling helps break down a traditional structure of filmmaking. The choice to go black and white is also an intriguing one, in what I can only assume is a choice to call back to the film-noir dramas. Oliver Reed puts in a good performance as well, melding well with his costars and the scenery. This movie is not completely lost to its faults, but it definitely struggles in other aspects. 

I adore the idea of a Hammer Horror studio film as a domestic drama about gaslighting and paranoia. This is obviously not up the wheelhouse for this studio, but it’s an interesting choice to attempt. Of course this is a mystery thriller first and foremost, but it still has some great elements of a drama as well. I see a lot of ‘Who’s Afraid Of Virginia Wolf’ (1966) in the structure of this story, even though that was released a few years after this flick. I can also see a good usage of the 1930’s and 1940’s films like ‘Gaslight’ (1944), and ‘Mildred Pierce’ (1945) taking a hold on this one. It’s great to see a movie that takes influences, and can help influence as well. I’m not saying ‘Who’s Afraid Of Virginia Wolf’ (1966) took from this at all, but I like the simplistic comparisons. 

By the ladder half of ‘Paranoiac’ (1963) I noticed a lot of the intriguing storytelling was falling apart, and the whole script seemingly lost interest in itself. Though this movie only ran for a crispy hour and twenty minutes, it still felt like a bit could get cut out near the end. I’m not sure if confusion was the point of this story, but it sure delivered that feeling. A few characters melded together, and some points in the script just seemed to run long and have no ideals. I’m sure if I gave this a more serious watch, I could piece it all together more intellectually, but as for now, it still stands as a bit of a lackluster script.  

For this being one of the first Hammer Horror films I watched that wasn’t directed by Terence Fisher, I was pretty pleased with a good chunk of it. This most isn’t perfect in any way, but neither are the Fisher films. I like some of the dramatic pieces in this feature, and I find it far more interesting than the mystery and thriller points. I always enjoy seeing Oliver Reed on screen as well, even if he isn’t at his best. This was definitely a change up from the other Universal Monster remakes, and this held its own as a unique film. This is also still a pretty dated film, but for an hour and twenty minutes, it doesn’t hurt to watch.

Horror-October 2024: #38

Ah yes, ‘The Phantom Of The Opera’ (1962). A classic horror film that is drowning in cinematic tropes, it couldn’t help but being one of the earliest films film the horror genre. Of course we received Lon Chaney’s ‘The Phantom Of The Opera’ (1925), which helped break a lot of molds in filmmaking. Claude Rains would take a crack at it in Universal Monster line up in 1943. Even Brian De Palma would make his own rendition of it in ‘Phantom Of The Paradise’ (1974). As for the Hammer Horror studios, they had Terence Fisher tackle the famous phantom in his own clever and very British way. This is a classic horror tale that always seems to show up, so there was no doubt Hammer would take their swing at some point.  

Some viewers might find this to be a bit obnoxious, and I typically do as well, however, for a British film like this, where I might not understand as much as a local viewer might, I still appreciate how the movie explains things to me. The audience should not have a hard time comprehending this entire film, and in fact, it should be pretty straight forward to follow. Exposition is clear and concise, but never over drawing. There is a consistency with the structure of the story, that helps the audience view the same thing that’s trying to be expressed. Some of these other Hammer films struggle and bend too far to one side or the next, but not ‘The Phantom Of The Opera’ (1962). 

The Phantom films have always been known for theatrical show pieces on the screen, and a vast absorbent of very technical and creative makeup. ‘The Phantom Of The Opera’ (1962) is no different from this. Herbert Lom’s Phantom is no different from the rest, and actually might put him ahead of the game with creativity. The mask that’s dawned throughout the picture is daunting and cold through and through. Once his facial features are revealed though, it’s apparent how much effort and care went into the design. The Hammer films often do a great job securing strong makeup artists for these horror flicks, and this one is the cherry on top of that. 

Terrance fisher has been a name in the Hammer Horror genre for a long time. He’s felt with some of the biggest and grandest horror stories ever put to screen. He’s directed five Frankenstein films, three Dracula pictures, a Mummy film, a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde movie, a Werewolf feature, a couple Sherlock Holmes mystery’s, and plenty more. Fisher is synonymous with the Hammer Horror production company, and it’s clear to see why. His consistent output of characters from the 1930’s is remarkable, and his hand always seems to be steady and aware of what he’s making. When talking about classic horror directors, I hardly ever hear Fisher’s name come up, but watching these movies makes me realize maybe he should get an honorable mention at the very least. 

Another strong showing for the Phantom on screen. I always find this story to be so fun to watch, because it can’t help but be cinematic. There is action and drama, romance, mystery and thrills. This is the type of stuff I always look for in a picture. Sure this might not be the best rendering of the story, but it’s still a fun and creative depiction of the story. I’m glad the Hammer Horror Studio got their hands on this project, because of anyone could do the theatrical, it’s them.

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 152 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nik Lackey’s top films of 2024

1. The Brutalist
2. The Order
3. Small Things Like These
4. We Live in Time
5. Challengers
6. Longlegs
7. Conclave
8. In a Violent Nature
9. Anora
10. Dune: Part Two

...plus 7 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

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

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

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

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

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

The horror films from October 2024.

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

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

The horror films from October 2023.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are another 70 films from the 70’s.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is my ranking of his ten films.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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