Alejandro G. Iñarritu: Film Ranking

 Aahhh, Iñarritu. One of the most notable non-US filmmakers of the twenty-first century, Iñarritu used a similar template for his films during the 2000s, each to varying degrees of success. However, his two most recent outings have been a couple of the most notable films of the 2010s, and represent a greater leap in his overall body of work. While I look forward to his next project (can't believe it's been almost a half-decade since The Revenant), I've decided to take a look at his filmography to date and examine why some of his films work better than others.

*Muttering* Did I really have to eat that bison liver?

6. Biutiful (2.5)

Not exactly a film that is my cup of tea, though I don't dislike it. I just feel that it indulges in too much misery and stays on that note throughout the film. My other main problem is that I could never get involved into the main story, for reasons that escape me. I honestly don't think Bardem is bad in this film, as I would consider him to be decent at least in the first half, but as the film goes on, his performance never finds the variation needed to truly stick out.

5. 21 Grams (2.5)

A film I think is a liiiiiiiitle better than the aforementioned, mainly because it has more interesting performances here (Naomi Watts, Sean Penn, Melissa Leo), yet the structure of the film somehow makes it harder to truly connect with. Also, the film does feel oddly distant at times, yet at other times, the film does hit the marks it's attempting. Overall, a film that doesn't completely work for me, yet it is not completely without merit.

4. Babel (3)

Iñarritu really likes this structure, doesn't he? Anyways, Babel follows a shooting accident gone wrong in Morocco and how it affects several people in different countries (Morocco itself, the United States, and Japan). I find the film to be decent as a whole, and though it could've reached bigger heights with stronger writing for several of the characters, it's one I honestly don't mind much. Brad Pitt & Cate Blanchett are good anchors for their section of the film, and Adriana Barraza delivers the best performance of the film as a housekeeper trying do right by both of the families she's a part of. I've never connected much with the Japan section of the film, as it does feel somewhat wedged in, but overall, I suppose it's ok.

Don't worry, I'll get to this later, but...damn that's gorgeous.

3. Amores Perros (4/4.5)

Iñarritu's debut film, and the one of his hyperlink narratives that I feel works better than his later ones. The film follows three different stories and how a car accident affects their lives. The first story I think is solid as a whole, as Gael Garcia Bernal gives a good performance as a young guy who will do whatever it takes to run off with his brother's wife. 

The second story is about a model involved in the car accident whose live is impacted severely and has to adjust to life afterwards. While I do think it is solid acted, it didn't *quite* hit me as the other two stories did, though I would still call technically call it good.

My favorite of the three stories, however, is the third one, as it is about El Chivo (Emilio Echevarria) who is in the middle of it all in regards to the car accident and how it affects him, as he is someone who is of course on the fringes of society. The main reason I like the story is that it Iñarritu allows the film to have a bit of dark comedy here, which prevents the film from being one-note throughout its' entire runtime. Echevarria gives the best performance in the entire film here, as a homeless man who curiously loves to live on the outskirts of civilization, yet is still seeking redemption for his past mistakes.

2. The Revenant (4/4.5)

Aahhhhhh...The Revenant. I'll start off with the positives for the film. The film it must be said is very well-crafted, with Iñarritu collaborator Emmanuel Lubezki delivering some of his best work behind the camera. The film is loaded with great shots of nature, and I have particular affection for the way the battle/adventure scenes are staged, as they avoid the "shaky cam" technique that is so popular these days. Special mention here would go to the opening battle scenes, as Iñarritu & Lubezki know how to put you right in the middle of the action and grant it a visceral feel, without losing you in the middle of the chaos. The production design, while minimal in terms of actual sets, is also remarkable. 

The performances themselves are very-good-to-great, with Will Poulter as one of the films' moral centers in Jim Bridger, Domnhall Gleeson as expedition leader Andrew Henry, and Forrest Goodluck as Hugh Glass's son. The rest of the ensemble is also good in more limited roles, but of course the two stars of the show are the ones whose names are on the poster.

Leonardo Dicaprio I find gives a very-good-to-great performance as Hugh Glass. He is at first great at showing a sense of fatherhood with his son, and he shows that he's trying his best in raising someone who can eventually survive in the wilderness. Things of course do not go all that well for him later on, as Dicaprio is terrific in showing a great deal of physical pain in the films' now infamous bear attack scene, and another scene involving the selfish John Fitzgerald and his son. After those two scenes, Dicaprio does a good job in showing what motivates him to pursue his revenge for the evil act that Fitzgerald committed, as well as just trying to survive in the wilderness in general. If you haven't seen the film, I won't spoil it here, but I believe Dicaprio is great in the very last scene in the film and leave it at that. 

However, the my favorite performance in the film would actually go to the man behind John Fitzgerald, Mr. Tom Hardy. I love every minute of his performance, and I think he's terrific. At the beginning of the film, Hardy establishes what type of character John Fitzgerald is, as he's someone who will protect his "pelts" no matter what, as he REALLY loves making money. He's great at detailing that everything that gets in the way of that is an inconvenience to him, while also bringing a great deal of comedy to the proceedings, which again, allows a bit of dynamic energy to the film. Hardy is also in the center of two of my favorite scenes in the film, with his "God is a squirrel" monologue, which Hardy somehow someway makes it work, and his final showdown, which may actually have my favorite line reading of the film. I still find it amusing that he received an Oscar nomination for this role, and I hope we'll get to see him get a second one some day. 

With that out of the way, I would like to focus on some of the flaws of the film. My main problem with the film is that it really is longer than it should've been. I believe that cutting, even say, twenty minutes from the second act of the film would've helped in adding more urgency to Glass's quest, while still making us feel his struggle to survive in the wilderness. The actual second act of the film isn't necessarily "bad" in my view, but again, some trimming would've definitely helped.

Besides that main problem, I have a couple of others. The "dead wife" imagery of the film didn't completely work for me, and I think either a more subtle handling of it, or even completely excising those would've aided the film more, though I still don't think they're bad. Overall, I find The Revenant to be a compelling film about man vs. nature in the vein of Werner Herzog, and the good elements of the film do make up for the lesser ones to an extent.

1. Birdman (5)

With all the praise for the above two films mentioned, my favorite of Iñarritu's films to date is the one that got him his first Best Director statue and Best Picture as well, Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance).

Birdman is a film that I honestly find to be truly great. One of the most remembered aspect of the film, the long-take, is a gamble I find that tremendously pays off, as it adds a special kind of energy to Riggan Thomsons' (Michael Keaton) journey to being taken seriously as he attempts to stage a play of Raymond Carver's What We Talk About When We Talk About Love." 

All of the technical elements of the film I think are great. The cinematography by Lubezki is great in showing the vibrancy of New York City theatre, while the outdoor shots have a vivid life to them, both during the nighttime and daytime. The production design is also quite solid, as the stage and the sets in the play themselves are also memorable. The editing for Birdman is one of the most important elements of the film, as if it wasn't on point here, the one-take technique may not have worked at all, but it does.

Iñarritu's direction is amazing here, as he balances several different tones throughout into one cohesive film, such as the bickering between Riggan & pompous theater actor Mike Shiner (Edward Norton), the serious scenes between Riggan & his drug-addled daughter Sam (Emma Stone) or even the mythical "Flight of Fancy", which still manages to be funny at the end.

The screenplay is also great and one of the films' great assets, as it crafts a fully-formed lead character in Riggan Thomson, as we see what motivates him to make a comeback, while also see his flaws and how it led them to end up where he is at the beginning of the film. Many of the other characters are distinct & memorable, as the aforementioned Sam & Mike, the harsh theatre critic Tabitha (Lindsay Duncan), and Riggans' best friend/lawyer Jake (Zack Galifianakis). I could even see them leading their own films to be honest. Past the characters, I find the film to be very funny, as there are several one-liners that I've always laughed at.

But of course, what I find to be the films' best aspect is the man at the center of it all, Michael Keaton, as he gives a great performance as the washed-out Riggan Thomson. A lot of the tones in the film are in his hands, and I think he's terrific at balancing each and every one of them. Whether it'd be the distant father & husband who's trying to reconnect, the actor who's valiantly attempting a comeback, or the guy who's battling his inner conscious in the form of the titular character, Keaton gives an amazing performance.

I could go on & on about Birdman, but I'll stop there, and it's a film I'll gladly defend against the backlash it has received since it won Best Picture. 

What is your favorite Iñarritu film? Your least favorite? Answer off in the comments below.

City of God: Film Review

Uh oh...

The Brazilian film, Cidade de Deus, or "City of God" follows a young group of children who come of age in late 1960s/early 1980s Brazil. An international darling when it was first released in 2002, it has become one of the best-known films from Brazil since its release, and also went on to receive four (4) Oscar nominations at the 76th Academy Awards (Best Cinematography, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Film Editing). It's a film that I really find to be terrific, and I would like to take this opportunity to delve a bit as to why I find it so.

Tourism

    -To start, I find the aesthetic of the film be fairly impressive. I love how the cinematography makes the slums nice to look at in a general sense, yet also reminds you that these slums are...well, slums. As in, there is a sense of life that can is quite palatable, but also doesn't hide the dog-eat-dog mentality that the residents of the slums inhabit. The "beauty-and-the-horror" balance cinematography is one that is tough to pull off, as many filmmakers use it just as an excuse to make a film look ugly, but City of God manages to find it. Bonus points as well for all of those beach shots. 

    -The production design also works well in tandem with the cinematography, as the former is a great example of location scouting, and I think several set pieces in the film add a lot to the narrative (the ending chase, the birthday party, the beaches, the newspaper offices.)

    -On a written & directed front, both of these aspects are also great in crafting the world that the film wants to take you to. Fernando Meirelles's direction is one of the key main factors in creating an epic, as his choices really add a sense of life to the slums (the birthday party, yet is also capable at finding the terror (the child murders) and/or the nuance when he needs to (a key reaction from the films' main villain, who I'll be getting to.) The screenplay also adds a lot of detail to each section of the film, and it really makes you feel like you *know* the places on a personal level, without bogging the thrust of the film down.

-One more note: the kinetic editing of this film is some of the best you'll ever see of its' kind. It properly creates the madness & chaos that you'll see in the slums, yet also doesn't throw you off or confuse you. 

The Ensemble

Many of the actors in the film were...well...non-actors before they joined the cast, however, you would honestly believe this to be the case, as everyone in the cast just seems to inhabit the setting the film naturally. Although more an ensemble in nature, the film does have a sort-of lead in Rocket (Alexandre Rodrigues), as a young man who is just trying to make an honest living in the chaotic world of the slums, as a photographer. Besides him, the cast is filled with other vivid characters that are integral to the complexity of crime in the slums, such as:

    -Benny, a friendly drug dealer who, like Rocket, wants to be free from crime, and who generally gets along with everyone.

    -Carrot, also a drug dealer who gets along with Benny, and does just enough to survive in the slums, but doesn't "fully" operate on the 100% level of viciousness that many others in the slums do.

    -Knockout Ned, a ladies' man who gets roped into a life of crime unwillingly and demonstrates that not everyone can escape the punishing slums, both physically and metaphorically.

And of course...

Uhh...don't let this picture fool you...

-Lil Ze, played by Leandro Firmino da Hora, is the main villain of the film, as a psychopathic drug lord in the slums, who simply loves what he does and takes great pleasure. If you ask me, that latter aspect makes him all the more scarier. Anyways, Firmino gives an impressive performance that manages to capture many traits that take him past being a standard drug lord. 

    - A sense of unearned bravado, as he acts as though he owns the slums and anyone who crosses WILL die.

    - An urge to do crime and ONLY crime, since once you break it down, it's the only thing he really knows how to do.

    -Vulnerability, as one of my favorite scenes in the film is when he doesn't know what to do when  shooting someone or crime in general isn't an option. 

Key Scene

Here, we take a closer look at the friendship between Benny and Li'l Ze, as we see two common archetypes of criminals at play here: one who ONLY wants to keep doing crime, and one who wants to get out and live a better life. I particularly love the look on Li'l Zes' face when the girl refuses to dance with him, and especially his reaction afterwards, as he wants to leave the party and just start doing crime stuff again.

Conclusion:

Overall, I find City of God to be an excellent film, one where the stylistic choices really amplify the story, and one where the story itself is just pretty entertaining while also being t\\ interesting as we follow the lives of these young lads, as they become men in the City of God.

5/5

Have you seen the film? If so, what do you think of it?

If you haven't, what are you waiting for?

Sam Mendes: A Ranking of His Films

Sam Mendes's filmography to date has been rather disparate over the years, in terms of scope & subject matter, although in a weird way, it actually makes me more interested whenever he has a film project in the works. He's a filmmaker that has always curiously had my attention, since he can be as capable of hitting a home run just as much as he can strike out...or even a solid base hit up the middle. With that in mind, I would like to take this post to go into further detail as to how each of his films have fared with me so far.

"I've directed a paper bag flying in the air, I got this."

8. American Beauty (2)

A film that I don't technically subscribe to the "haters" club, so to speak, yet I'm also not a fan of. Subsequent rewatches since I first saw the film have done it no favors, as I find the film to be messy and thinly-written, with a level of artifice that prevents the film from reaching any level of sincerity. Many of the characters outside of Lester are only given the sole trait of either "vapid" or "edgy". There is also a lot of smugness from Alan Balls' screenplay, as if the characters themselves are beneath him, which makes the film harder to take as it goes along.

With all that said, I still do like the cinematography & score, but even with those two elements I appreciate, it's a big "eh."

7. Revolutionary Road

More or less the similar thoughts as American Beauty, but with a couple of diversions here. One of them being Leonardo Dicaprio, who I wouldn't qualify as giving a bad performance, yet seems miscast as an everyman character from the 1950s. As for the film itself, I just feel it is too somber for its' own good and never really becomes interesting. The loud "Oscar" scenes are also too melodramatic for my tastes, and it makes the somber mood of the film even more jarring. It would really be on the same level as the above American Beauty for me, although I do kind of like Michael Shannons' breakthrough performance.

6. Away We Go (2.5)

A for-the-most-part mediocre indie film that you'd be surprised to believe Mendes directed, since it hardly distinguishes itself from other 2000s indie films. The film follows a couple, Burt & Verona (John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph) traveling around America as they seek to find an ideal place to raise their future child. The film works better when it really just stays with the main couple, as there is a sense of honesty to the proceedings as a couple who are at a crossroads in their life, and Krasinski & Rudolph are decent in these more-focused scenes. What really brings the whole film down however, is the caricatures that litter the supporting cast (Allison Janney, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Jeff Daniels, Jim Gaffigan). The writing doesn't help either, but the film does lack in these scenes of the film, although a couple don't fare *as* bad (Chris Messina & Melanie Lynskey).

5. Jarhead (3.5) 

A film I find to be fairly decent, as it has several memorable moments. I find its' atypical approach to be somewhat interesting, as it follows soldiers dealing with boredom & inactivity in the Gulf War of 1991. The cinematography here I think is effective in giving you a sense of "dull" without actually compromising the film itself much. Past that, there are several decent performances, such as Jake Gyllenhaal as Private Anthony Swofford, as a young man with no set path in life who stumbles into the Marines, and Peter Sarsgaard as the anxious spotter Alan Troy. While I would not quite consider the film to be great, as it can meander at points and there isn't too much of an emotional thrust, again I do find Jarhead overall to be a solid entry into the war genre.

4. Spectre (3.5)

It doesn't reach the heights of Mendes's first foray into Bond, though I still think it's a good enough outing in the franchise. One thing that I find curious about the film is that it tries to merge more "campy" Bond traits from older films in the franchise into the more grounded/darker tone that had been established in Casino Royale (2006). Whether or not those traits completely merge with the overall tone is up for debate, but for me, it's one that I don't really mind, as I'm still rather entertained by the film as a whole.

Past that, the film has action scenes that I would consider very good (the train fight, Mexico City, car chase through London), the film has a good villain in born-to-play-a-Bond-villain Christoph Waltz (though I can't help but feel that they could've gone even further with him), and also a memorable henchmen in Dave Bautista. 

(P.S. I...actually don't mind the song much.)

3. Skyfall (4.5)

A fairly impressive Bond film for me, and one that I like a lot. The film has outstanding action scenes (the opening train chase, the gorgeously shot Shanghai window sequence and of course, the burning farmhouse at the ending of the film). Who knew Mendes would have a true knack for that? Also, the cinematography is terrific here, as it lends a grand sense of spectacle for the film.

Past the technical elements of the film, I find the film to be intriguing at a story level, as I find the villain aspect of the film to be interesting, as Javier Bardem is a lot of fun as the villainous Raoul Silva, who has an old score to settle with M (Judi Dench). 

Speaking of, I'd be remiss if I were not to mention Craigs' performance in both of his Bond films that were directed by Mendes. Craig delivers in creating a dynamic presence for both Skyfall & Spectre, as he emotionally anchors the film while of course delivering on a cooler-than-ice Bond.

   

2. Road to Perdition (5)

A gangster film that has grown quite a bit on me over the years, and I've come to really appreciate its' approach in trying to bring something new to a genre that has featured several iconic films.

On a technical front, I think it is marvelous at first & foremost in its cinematography. The film has a gorgeous aesthetic to it that really makes you feel like you're in the 1930s Midwest. The raining shootout is one of the best filmed shots of the 2000s, not to mention it being my favorite scene in the film. The production design is also fairly remarkable, and has several memorable set pieces, such as the Sullivans's house and the house by the beach at the end of the film.

The main aspects of the film that have grown on me would be the script and the direction. For the script, I find Michael Sullivans' (Tom Hanks) arc in dealing with his relationship to the mob to be compelling, as he has to confront his past with his pseudo-family while also escaping with his son (Tyler Hoechlin.) The main emotional thrust of the film is of course with the man who took him in (Paul Newman, in a great swansong performance from him). Daniel Craig is also memorable as the weaselly Connor, while Jude Law is also entertaining as Harlen, the man on the hunt for Michael Sr. and Jr.

On a direction level, one thing that really sticks out for me is that Mendes knows when to play his hand and when not to. For example, he knows that an encounter with Jude Laws' Harlen would elicit a more black-and-white response. This is shown in the hotel shootout scene, where the action here is more grittier than it is operatic. For me, I consider this effective as Mendes knows not to play his hand here. 

 On the other end, Mendes deftly knows when to play his hand in the aforementioned rain shootout, as here, the action is more operatic and it adds to the relationship between John & Michael. By that, I mean, the action itself is more about what is visually more so than it is spoken, and the only line featured here, "I'm glad it's you..." perfectly caps off the complex relationship between John & Michael.

Overall, a film that I might've handwaved on my first viewing, and one that I'll admit that not everyone might take to its approach, but for me, I felt it offered a different angle on one of the most iconic genres in film.

1. 1917

Mendes's best film to date for me, and one that I think shows what one can offer with cinema that other mediums cannot. As I've done a couple of times before with these director rankings, I'll break down the #1 film a little bit.

• As written, the film is a great example of how one can do "straightforward" effectively. The mission of the two gentlemen (George MacKay & Dean Charles-Chapman) can be viewed as again, straightforward: relay a message to a battle post several miles away in order to prevent a charge with low odds of succeeding, if that. The mission itself is established properly, but what takes the film even further is the character development between Schofield & Blake, not to mention the several millitary personnel found at different checkpoints throughout the film. 

• As performed, the film has a strong emotional anchor at its core, that being George Mackay's Schofield. His performance is very essential to the film, as it takes it past being just a technical exercise, and one that adds the necessary gravitas & emotional heft to the story. MacKay gives a a terrific turn as he makes his journey tangible, while also granting a sense of who Schofield is as a man. I'd be remiss if I were not to mention his comrade Blake (Chapman) as his arc & performance also help in adding to the emotional thrust of the film, while of course developing a chemistry that again, aids in making the two gentlemen people we can understand & know. Other actors in the film such as Benedict Cumberbatch, Mark Strong, Colin Firth, & Richard Madden also do a very good job in filling out the ensemble of millitary personnel.

• As for the technical aspect of the film, I won't beat around the bush: the film stands as one of the best-made films of the 2010s.
• The cinematography ranks among one of Deakins's best, which is really saying something, and proves that he can practically do just about anything, with this being his turn at-the-bat in regards to the continuous-shot attempt. Every shot in this film is, to put it simply, a painting.
• The production design is also outstanding, as it gives you a sense of the place of where our two protagonists are. Whether it be the burning church, the exploding tunnel, or the climactic rundown at the trenches, all of these places add a lot of detail to the film.
• The visual effects and overall sound design are also impeccable, as the effects are the type that isn't exactly "showy", yet are great at being "invisible." The sound effects & mixing also add in, again, putting you right where our two gents are, as every crash, explosion, yell and bullet make the whole experience of the more vivid.

Overall, a truly great masterwork of a film, and if Mendes only decides to make epics from here on out, I would be more than glad with that.

Cinema.

What is your favorite Sam Mendes film to date? Your least favorite? Answer off in the comments below!

Tenet Spoiler-Free Review

 

"...........Dude what's going on?......."

Christopher Nolan returns with a sci-fi thriller about time inversion and spies...and other stuff.

The Good

-For the most part, the cast of the film delivers solid performances that certainly work for the film. The roles as written lack depth, but Washington, Pattinson & Debicki do their best to try add a sense of humanity to the machinery of the plot of the film.Washington gives a solid turn as The Protagonist (his actual name), Pattinson tries to riff a bit of character into his part, and Debicki again provides a sense of humanity, which I feel is even more impressive considering her character isn't much more than a damsel-in-distress. The rest of the cast is also good in their limited exposition roles (Caine, Poesy, Taylor-Johnson).

-Some of the technical elements of the film I would classify at the very least as "good enough." The score on its own is decent, as a couple of the pieces are notable. The cinematography is also good in giving you a sense of a globetrotting spy mission, even when the narrative doesn't really achieve it. There are several shots that would be deserving of a good James Bond film or a good sci-fi thriller, and I would definitely give Hoyte van Hoytema kudos there.

-Some of the action scenes as directed are well-staged on their own. They certainly deliver on the thrills and do show signs of the film sparkling to life. I would give special mention to a main action setpiece at the midpoint of the film, as it's one moment of the film that certainly drew me more to the narrative, at a point where my interest was beginning to wane.

The Bad

-As I did with positives, I'll get one main negative out of the way: Mr. Kenneth Branagh. He's given many performances I like-to-love, however, I'm afraid I can't express support for him here. Branagh gives an over-the-top performances that isn't anything more than "ROOSIAN" Bond villain, though the character as written practically is that. However, Branagh doesn't help matters here, as his performance is all surface and doesn't attempt to add any gravitas to himself. I'm honestly not sure whether more fault lies with Nolan or Branagh or maybe even both, but in the end, he is the weak link of the cast.

-The sound mixing here is Nolans' worst so far, and it's far more detrimental to the film here than say, Dunkirk, since many scenes in the film are loaded with exposition. These scenes needed far better work in that department, as pretty much all of the plot requires you to pay close attention to everything the characters are saying. 

-But of course, the real main problem with the film is the narrative itself. For starters, it is convoluted beyond belief, as every time the plot starts to take a clearer direction, here comes another exposition scene that needlessly another layer to the machinery of the films' plot. Nolan presents you with the general idea of the film, yet doesn't draw you into it in a compelling way.

-What exacerbates the above point is that the plot of the film rings hollow, as there really aren't any themes or great characters that allow the film to stay in one's mind after the film ends. A film can of course get away with this if it's style is great, however, the convoluted plot makes the approach of the film rather inert.

-Speaking of great characters, Nolan has written (sometimes co-written) his fair share of them over the years, such as The Joker, Angier & Borden, and Leonard Shelby. Even in his films such as Inception & Interstellar have lead roles that provide a solid anchor for the films, and you do understand what their motivations are (Cobb trying to return to his children, Fischers' relationship with his Dad, Cooper & his daughter etc.) In Tenet...we have....the Protagonist.

-This honestly feels like a parody of a Nolan film...but made by the man himself.

The Ugly 

-I won't spoil it here, but one key scene towards the end of the film comes off as..."different"...than I assume was the intention.

Conclusion

-In the end, all of the negatives of the film completely override the points of merit that the film DOES have to offer. It is a merging of all of Nolans' flaws combined into one outing, and as a result, it is the worst film that one of cinema's best working directors has made to date.

2.5/5

P.S. Can Jim Carrey as Howard Hughes be next?

Have you seen Tenet? If so, what did you think of it? Answer off in the comments below.

The One and Only Kubrick: Film Ranking

Perhaps one of the most iconic filmmakers of all-time (maybe even THE most), Kubrick delivered many films that have stood the test of time and are still being heavily scrutinized today, while also some of them being rather entertaining. Although his approach as a director changed through the decades, Kubricks' later films were an event at the time of their original release. For me, he is a filmmaker, who, while I don't love all his films, I will admit that they have certainly left an impression, for better or for worse.

11. Eyes Wide Shut (2.5)

Kubricks' final outing, and sadly, one that doesn't work all that much for me. I find the film to be a slog to get through, as the pacing really hurts what it could've been an intriguing look into......sex, I guess. Kubrick does succeed in creating a compelling enough atmosphere, and the production design is something that I do want to give credit to. Cruise is solid enough in the role as Dr. Hartford, as he goes on a journey of self-discovery..,,,.or something. Kidman I find to be even better, as she creates the most fascinating character in the film for me, and adds a great deal of energy, to the point where I wish she was in it more than she actually is. Not a film that I would honestly consider it bad, as it does have merit, but Kubrick doesn't really dig deep all that much into......sex......I guess. 

10. Barry Lyndon (3)

*Sighs*...a film I truly wanted to like more than I did. Again, Kubrick succeeds in taking the viewer back to 1750s Ireland, as the films' production design, costumes and cinematography are all rather impressive. All of the sets in the film do grant a sense of "high-class" life, each of the costumes manage to be distinct in their own way as to how they correlate to each of the characters, and the cinematography...well, practically every shot in the film is a painting. Kubrick also does a great job in directing the battle scenes in the film, as he had successfully managed to do so in some of his films before this one, yet is adept enough at attuning it more to 1750s Ireland.

That said, my main problems with this films are two-fold: the titular role and...Kubrick actually. Ryan O'Neal doesn't really manage to convince as a charismatic con artist, as it's hard to believe he would maneuver through this world all the way to the top. The film lacks quite a bit of energy since it really needed a charismatic lead to make Lyndons' journey compelling (although I will give credit to the supporting cast for doing their best make their characters standout). In regards to Kubrick, I actually feel Kubricks' cold, detached direction makes the film more of a slog than it really needed to be, which can be a death sentence for a period costume drama (in my book anyways). Much of the film lacks a sense of life, and Kubricks work besides the actual technical elements gets in the way.

9. The Shining (3.5)

Once again, I will first focus on the positive. Once again, Kubrick proves why the technical elements of his films tend to get a lot of praise. Kubricks' direction on a technical level really succeeds in creating a downright scary atmosphere in the secluded Colorado hotel, and it does work in having a claustrophobic feel. There's a reason that the production design (plus the cinematography) have been mentioned/parodied in a lot of films, as one can instantly recall the hotel bar and the hallways, for example. I should also mention that the performances themselves can technically be considered good, as Shelley Duvall is great as the terrified mother trying to escape her demented husband.

That said, the last couple of words of that last sentence highlights a major problem within the crux of the film, as well as Kubricks' direction. One of these is the casting of Jack Nicholson himself. While Nicholson was one of the best working actors back when the film was made, many of those iconic performances were as "crazy" men (One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest), or men with a pure ID energy (The Last Detail, Chinatown, Five Easy Pieces). This resulted in there not really being a surprise when Jack Torrance goes (more) nuts at the end of the film. His performance is not technically bad, as it does create a visceral feeling, but it could've been so much more.

The other aspect of the major problem with the film isn't completely Nicholsons' fault however, as Kubrick makes the curious decision to have Torrance (as played and written) be a crazy guy at the beginning of the film to start with. It would've been much more interesting to cast a more "Average Joe" actor from the time, then break him down throughout the film as it would've resulted in a more dynamic transformation, instead of Jack Torrance already being crazy to begin with.

8. 2001: A Space Odyssey (4)

Oh 2001...so many masterful elements, yet it's somewhat hindered by elements that drag it down somewhat.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, yet again, there's a reason that 2001 is one of the most iconic films of the 1960s (plus all-time). Many of the scenes have been parodied for a reason, as one can instantly recognize many of its' settings (the planet, the spaceships, the journey through space), the use of music ("Also Sprach Zarathustra"), and of course, the quotes, especially "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that." Plus...you know...some of the best visual effects you'll see in ANY film.

Aside from that, I find the examination between humans and technology to be very fascinating, and this is best illustrated in the character (?) of the infamous HAL 9000. Both sides of how technology can be used for good can be seen here, as HAL 9000 is great help when it comes to the astronauts journey through space, yet is also shown as a warning tale when HAL 9000 becomes a little too advanced. This is the part of the film that I find the most fascinating, and I'm honestly amazed that the film was made in the late 1960s, as it honestly looks like it could've been made today.

The main reservation I have with the film is that it honestly didn't need to be as long as it is, since many of the sequences in the film seem to be there just for the sake of technically "showing off" without really advancing the plot or being an engine for the themes of the film. As a whole, I think it's a great directing achievement, and it's one of those films that it is interesting to discuss on the good ol' "objective/subjective" level.

7. Lolita (4.5)

A compelling film about the relationship between...ahem...a British professor, Humbert Humbert (James Mason) and an American teenage girl, the titular character (Sue Lyon).

Lolita as a film is more about the performances in the film rather than Kubricks' direct hand, though he does a deft job in handling the subject material as to not let it fall into bad taste. Anyways, James Mason delivers one of his best performances as he balances the tricky material on his own, which is quite a tightrope to walk. He creates enough sympathy for the character as to not become utterly hateful, while of course, falling apart at the seems as the film goes on due to his (very) unhealthy obsession. Peter Sellers is also a riot as the devious Quilty, as he makes quite the impression despite not being in the film all that much. Shelley Winters and Sue Lyon are also good as the female characters of the film, as they provide a great counterpoint to what Mason is doing in his performance.

Didn't think you were going to escape without another another stare from him, did you?

6. Full Metal Jacket (4.5)

I'll be brief on this one, as I'm essentially with the chorus on this one, so to speak, but in short:

-The first half of the film is terrific, as it has great moments of comedy (practically EVERYTHING Sergeant Hartman, impeccably performed by Mr. Lee Ermey), while also being great as a thematic study of the military sentiment at the time in regards to the Vietnam War (perfectly illustrated by Vincent D'Onofrios' performance as the slowly deteriorating Private Lawrence.)

-The second half of the film I feel it is a little bit less memorable than the first, though it would've been hard to live up to the unforgettable first. The battle scenes here are well-done, and the film does go out on a high note.

5. Spartacus (4.5/5)

One of the best examples that the sword-and-sandals genre has to offer, though it's more of a "for hire" job on Kubricks' end. However, that shouldn't diminish what the film has to offer, as Kubrick is smart enough to not get in the way of the performances of the films' star-studded cast (Kirk Douglas, ol' Larry, Jean Simmons, Peter Ustinov, Charles Laughton, and Tony Curtis, among others).

With that in mind, the film itself is a very entertaining film about the good vs. bad angle that is commonly depicted in the genre. To start, Kirk Douglas is the proper anchor that the film needs, as he is great at being the hero the audience wants to succeed. Jean Simmons is very good as Spartacus's love, Varinia, while of course, ol' Larry gives a great performance as the villainous Crassus, as he makes for a terrific villain while also making him into a three-dimensional character.

Although the film of course has more in common with a Ben-Hur than later "KUBRICK" films, I do want to give honorable mention to the way Stanley Kubrick handles the battle scenes in the film. He succeeds in really placing you in the middle of the action, and these scenes are well-done, plus some of the more memorable in the film. Them and the film may not be the most KUBRICK in terms of his style, but given that the success of the film helped in securing Kubrick more leeway in show business, I'm content about the quality of the film, both on its own' and in the grand scheme of Kubricks' career.

4. The Killing (5)

A very entertaining heist film, and one that I definitely enjoyed even more than I was expecting to. The film has a solid cast all-around, with particular mention to Sterling Hayden as the crook who of course wants to make off with one last score before retiring, and Elisha Cook Jr. as the meek bank teller George, who tells his fiancee Sherrie (Marie Windsor) about the planned heist. Of course, the heist doesn't go entirely as planned...

(Timothy Carey, Ted de Corsia, and Joe Sawyer are also good as the other members of the heist crew.)

Anyways, the films moves at quite the brisk pace, as it gives the film the right type of energy that heist films need. Kubrick is also adept at realizing the slightly darker moments of the film, as they really fit with the tone of the film. Overall, a film that shows Kubrick could definitely entertain when he really wanted to, as it's a stark contrast to his later clinical films.

P.S. What's with all the narration?

3. A Clockwork Orange

A most delightful ride through the mind of the young, strapping, bright lad known as Alex DeLarge...

Ok, ok. One of Kubricks' most iconic films which is anchored by perhaps one of his most iconic characters, A Clockwork Orange follows the mischievous Alex DeLarge in a futuristic Britain, as he wreaks havoc amongst the lives of many people and society, all while bellowing "Dancin' in The Rain". McDowell is perhaps the best aspect of the film, as the whole film would've fallen apart if he didn't make DeLarge compelling enough to watch during his several "adventures". There's a reason this film created its fair share of controversy back in the day.

Kubrick himself also delivers on the technical side, as like 2001, many of the sets are rather memorable, such as the club where Alex hangs out with his cronies, many of the houses where he wreaks havoc, the prison, and the theater. Kubricks' direction and the performance also adds a lot of darkly comic energy, such as "Singin' in The Rain", "I was cured all right!", the theater, and the barking prison authority figures. Both the direction and the performances (especially McDowell) work in tandem to make the film a unique one, as the subject material could've fallen flat or off the rails with different people behind the helm.

2. Paths of Glory

A very powerful film, and one that makes one wonder what the rest of Kubricks' career would've turned out like if he hadn't given up on humans later in his career.

The film follows Colonel Dax (Kirk Douglas in one of his best performances) as he leads a group of soldiers on a mission that has little to no chance of succeeding in the French trenches of World War I.
Some of Kubricks' moments as a director can be found in this film, such as the aforementioned failed battle scene. Kubricks' direction manages to simply place you right in the middle of the battle (yeah, I know I said that with Spartacus), and it truly creates a visceral feeling.

An argument can be made that Paths of Glory is Kubricks' most thematically rich, and it's an argument that I wouldn't object to. Kubricks co-written screenplay adds a lot of sympathy for many of its characters, as well as intelligently examining the type of system that enabled nonsensical decisions to take place in World War I. In a sense, it actually reminds me of another war film: Apocalypse Now. Both films aren't directly anti-war, but both relate mans' inhumanity and flaws as to how war makes them act (in this case, the system that allows war to happen in the first place).

Overall, a great film, and one that I feel should be more remembered than it is.

1. Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

Possibly one of the funniest films of all-time, Dr. Strangelove of course follows the mischief of what goes wrong when the people in charge of weapons of destruction go nuts...and it is all played for glorious laughs.

Every single character in this film is memorable, and the performances behind them are instrumental in making the films' satire truly bite. For example, Jack D. Ripper (Sterling Hayden) is hilarious in a delusional way as he truly believes the Soviets are poisoning the bodily fluids of Americans, but what takes his character a bit further is that he's warm & jovial when interacting with Mandrake (more on him in a bit).

Another example is General Buck Turgidson (George C. Scott, in a performance that generated arguments with Mr. Kubrick). Scott is also hilarious in his own way as the maniacal general who shows no reservations when discussing nuclear warfare, yet is ever a bit more meek when he talks to a secretary that he's having an affair with. He brings a lot of comic life to the War Room scenes, as he stands out in comparison to the other more suited generals in the room. Slim Pickens is a hoot as Major Kong, who just haves the time of his life whilst he delivers the bomb, and Keenan Wynn is amusing in his more deadpan reactions to the craziness of everyone else (his reactions to a character's crucial phone call are gold.)

Ah, but any appraisal of the film would be incomplete without highlighting the crucial actor at the middle of it all, Mr. Peter Sellers. He completely aces each and every moment as all his characters: the proper RAF Group Captain Lionel Mandrake, the juuuuuuust-competent-enough President Merkin Ruffley, and of course, the titular character.) Sellers delivers as each of these, as he plays each character just differently enough to make them distinct, yet enough to make the satire of the film shine, while of course, just being very funny.

As great as the films' ensemble is, what really brings the film together is Mr. Stanley Kubrick. His direction works on many layers: letting the performances of the film shine, knowing how to cut & stage a scene a certain way, all while being great at the technical elements as per usual. The War Room is of course widely remembered, yet many other sets in the film have their own life to it, such as the plane dropping off the bomb and the air force base.

Everything in the film has become iconic, and there's a reason it's usually considered one of the best comedy films of all-time, and one of the best period.

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room."

What would be your favorite Stanley Kubrick film? Your least favorite? Answer off in the comments below.

Wes Anderson: The King of Symmetry

Definitely one of the most idiosyncratic filmmakers in terms of style, Anderson is one of those directors that you can pinpoint exactly what their style is just by looking at a frame of any of his films. From his colorful styles to his examinations of the human condition through drama and comedy, Anderson has demonstrated why he is a popular director amongst actors and fans of cinema.

Although I have not always gone fully along on his rides, I will always look forward to seeing what he comes up with next. With the release of The French Dispatch being delayed, I've decided to take a look back at his filmography so far.

SYMMETRY!

9. Rushmore (2.5)

A semi-sophomore-slump for Wes Anderson, although I've never thought the film as bad. My main problem with the film is that Anderson can't seem to decide if he wants to fully embrace his style or try to do something outside of that. I find it a little too aimless, and the attempt at combining comedy and drama not being very effective. On the plus side, it did successfully introduce Bill Murray to the more introspective second half of his career, although in the grand scheme of things, his performance here would prove to be only a warm-up.

8. Isle of Dogs (3.5)

A decent animated effort from Wes Anderson that follows Chief (Bryan Cranston) as he attempts to help a young boy search for his own dog after the species is banished to an island following the outbreak of a canine flu. 

The world that Anderson creates here is inventive in depicting a dystopian Japan, and the film has a great voice cast (the aforementioned Cranston, Edward Norton, Liev Schreiber, Jeff Goldblum, Bill Murray, other Anderson regulars) and there is fun to be had in the story. Yet, for some reason, there has been something in this film that has prevented me from clicking with it past a certain point, and I can't exactly pinpoint what it is. I wouldn't consider the film as having any major flaws, but as it is, I do find it somewhat enjoyable.

7. The Darjeeling Limited (3.5)

This one is in a weird spot for me, as while I do like the chemistry amongst the three brothers (Adrien Brody, Jason Schwartzman, Owen Wilson), I can't help but feel that the story itself doesn't add up to much in the end. Wes Anderson makes great use of the location shoot in Northern India, and the train sets do have a good sense of creativity to them, as well as Anderson implementing a soundtrack to good use. Again, I technically do like the film as is, but I can't help but feel that the film didn't go as  far as it could've with the camaraderie of the trio of brothers. 

6. Moonrise Kingdom (3.5/4)

Ah, this one. I toggle with the rating on this film for a couple of reasons. On one hand, I do like the romance at the center of the story, as Sam & Suzy (Jared Gilman and Kara Hayward) decide to run away from their community as they have fallen in love. The romance did succeed in keeping me invested enough with the film. As usual with Wes Anderson, the leads are anchored by a strong supporting cast (regulars Norton, Murray, McDormand, Swinton, and "newcomer" Bruce Willis.)

On the other hand, I find the films' aesthetic to be too "Wes-Andersony" for its' own good, as many of his visual flourishes seem a little bit too indulgent for the film, such as the production design and the cinematography. I am definitely a fan of Wes Anderson in general, but I think he went a touch too far than he really needed to. Nevertheless, I do like the central thrust of the story, and I honestly wouldn't call the flourishes technically bad, as I can see why someone would definitely take to them more than I do.

5. Bottle Rocket (4)

A solid debut effort from Anderson, and an enjoyable heist film at that. One thing that is definitely worth noting is that is has aged very well, which is even more impressive once you consider that it's a low-budget film that was made in the mid-90s. 

The film doesn't have a distinctive feel "Wes Anderson" as much as his films would later have, however, it is still notable, and would be a good sign of things to come. Both of the Wilson brothers give enjoyable performances in breakout turns for each, while James Caan is memorable as crime boss, Mr. Henry. 

4. The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou

Probably the Wes Anderson film that has grown the most on me, as I wasn't quite sure what to make of it the first time I watched it, but I've come to appreciate it over time to be sure.

The film follows Zissou (played by...of course...Bill Murray), as he attempts to get revenge on a shark that previously devoured one of his former cast members, while also dealing with people from his past such as his ex-wife Eleanor (Anjelica Huston). Past that, the film is also anchored by a strong ensemble filled with Anderson regulars (Owen Wilson, Jeff Goldblum, Willem Dafoe in a very funny supporting role) while also introducing Cate Blanchett (even better here than The Aviator) to the Anderson world. The aesthetic for the film I do feel does a great job of servicing the story, as it helps in creating one memorable world out of Zissous' quest for revenge on the shark. 

While I do admit that the film is probably the most divisive out of Wes Andersons' films, I've come to appreciate the film a lot over time, as for me, I like to view it as a good character study of Zissou reflecting on his career up to that point, which is greatly helped by Bill Murray at his a-game. 

3. Fantastic Mr. Fox 

Just a very fun stop-motion animated film, and one that has also stayed well me since I first viewed it. Once again, the cast here is quite strong in granting a lot of life to the fox family and their enemies. To start, George Clooney as the titular character and Schwartzman as the son are both good in their roles with Meryl Streep also very good as the matriarch (side note: she really should do more animated work, as funnily enough, her work in that area is rather underrated).

Past the family, Willem Dafoe does a great job in capturing the exact tone required for the film, as he brings the right amount of "evil" as "Rat", while bringing a proper sense of fun. Other Anderson regulars (Bill Murray, brother Owen) are all memorable as well.

Of course, it wouldn't be a Wes Anderson film with some memorable production design, even if I might be contradicting myself with what I said about Moonrise Kingdom. Anyways, the animated sets in the film are outstanding, as the farms and the Foxs' family home each have a vivid life of their own.

2. The Royal Tenenbaums (4.5)

Like with Steve Zissou, it's a Wes Anderson film that has grown on me quite a bit, however, I was more positive a whole with this one to begin with.

The film follows Royal Tenenbaum (played perfectly by Gene Hackman in his last great performance, though that has more to do with the quality of his later films) as he announces that he is dying, which of course, brings his family to reconvene. As you can probably tell by now, the rest of the cast is filled out by Anderson regulars such as Anjelica Huston, Bill Murray, the Wilson brothers (with Luke Wilson in a very underrated performance), while also being nicely complemented by other Anderson neophytes such as Ben Stiller and Gwyneth Paltrow. 

One aspect that I'm a great fan of about this film is that Wes Anderson does a great job of balancing comedy and drama, as many moments range from chuckle-worthy to laugh-out-loud funny, while also never seeming at odds with the emotional thrust of the film (the grown-up childrens' relationship with their father). A very good example of a film combining heart with comedy.

"I've had a rough year Dad..."

"I know you've had Chas."

1. The Grand Budapest Hotel

Wes Andersons' finest hour for me, and this time, I'll switch it up a little bit

• Once again, the cast is for the most part outstanding
• Ralph Fiennes in one of his most delightful performances, if not the most,  as he is terrific in making Wes Andersons' dialogue sing as well as it should. His comic timing is off the charts, both in the dialogue while also being physically gifted in scenes where he is confronted by the authorities. He makes M. Gustave quite a memorable character.
• Many other Anderson regulars (Bill Murray, Adrien Brody, Willem Dafoe, Jason Schwartzman) all manage to make distinct characterizations out of their assorted roles such as lawyers, art dealers, lawyers, butlers, hotel staff, etc.
• The aesthetic here seems like it is the film that Wes Anderson has been heading towards his whole career: it is simply stunning here.
• The cinematography for me evokes a slight memory-type of feel, while at the same working in tandem with the tone that Anderson aims for: a comedy-drama caper film.
• Every single set in the film is very memorable: the titular hotel, the trains, the millitary headquarters, you name it. 

Of course, what really brings the whole film together is the story itself. Gustave is wrongly framed for the murder of a former lover at the titular hotel, and he is intent on fully proving his innocence. To do so, he has to go on a hunt for a second will that will clear his name. In the meantime, he befriends a lobby boy, Zero (Tony Revolori), who, by the way, is the narrator in the films' framing device. 

To me, the film is quite a simply a great ride that also manages to be quite poignant, as it also explores themes of nostalgia, friendship, war and fascism (almost forgot to mention that the film takes place in the fictional post-WWII Republic of Zubrowka) without burdening the story. These themes help in adding a richness to the story, which is an added bonus when Anderson first and foremost entertains with this great film.

What is your favorite Wes Anderson film? Your least favorite? Answer off in the comments below.

Edgar Wright Ranking: One of the Best in Comedy

As mentioned in the title, Edgar Wright is one of the best comedy directors in film today, and although his ventures slightly outside of that aren't the most successful, I will always look forward to a new film from him. Now that his latest film is now in post-production (one which I'm greatly anticipating, as it's horror-centred), I've decided to take a look back at his filmography up to date.

"Marvel will one day rue the day..."

Simon: "Uhh...I thought you said you were already over that."

"One day..."

5. The World's End (4)

Ahh the finale to the unofficial-official "Cornetto trilogy." I will concede that Simon Pegg gives his best performance to date as a guy who just can't let go of the past, and some of his best acted scenes are found in the third act of the film. He definitely kept me more invested in the film than I otherwise would've, and I'd probably be less positive on the film if it weren't for him.

That said, I've always found this film to be more "just good" rather than great from the previous films in the trilogy. It's not nearly as funny, and sometimes it doesn't decide if it wants to be a parody of sci-fi invasion films, or just a funny version of those. There's enough in the film for me to still technically like it, but in the end, this is a one-and-done for me compared to the previous two films.

4. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

I would like to start off by saying that I do technically like this film. Many of the films' technical aspects are memorable to be sure (the costumes, the soundtrack) and the film has a solid supporting cast filled with actors who would later go on to have bigger careers (Chris Evans, Brie Larson, Aubrey Plaza, Mary Elizabeth Winstead). There's a lot of fun to be had in the action scenes, and Wright does succeed in replicating the feel and energy of the graphic novel.

However, one key aspect where the film falters falls on the shoulders of Michael Cera. Although he's not exactly terrible, he doesn't give the likeable performance that the film needed in order for the audience to root for him to defeat the evil exes, as he comes off as annoying and boring. In fact, I sometimes wanted them to win. The film is fun for sure, but its' lead performer prevents it from reaching greater heights.

3. Baby Driver

Drive by way of Edgar Wright. The film does deliver on creating good action scenes, such as the opening getaway, the Austin Power heist, and the escape from Atlanta sequence. Unlike Scott Pilgrim, this does have a likeable lead delivered by Ansel Elgort (although he's a hardly better actor than Cera). Again, most of the cast is very good in filling out the ensemble of criminals (Jon Hamm, Jamie Foxx, Jon Bernthal) as well as Lily James as the charming love interest of the title role. Edgar Wright also grants a unique style to the story, as the editing and the film itself is very coordinated to a varied selection of songs. This helps in adding a special touch to the film that makes it stand out than it otherwise would've with a workmanlike director.

With all that in mind, one thing that prevents the film from reaching greater heights is the script. It's one that I wouldn't technically consider bad, yet I'd consider it more as "going through the motions". Many of the characters are written as simply as possible, such as the head criminal portrayed by a current persona non grata, and the aforementioned love interest. The criminals themselves are archetypal as it gets, which can work from time to time, yet here, they are rather standard. All the actions their characters (and others) are there just to get the plot moving, and they aren't well-developed. The film still works to a degree thanks to Wrights' direction, yet it can't advance past a certain point due to his writing.

2. Shaun of the Dead (4.5)

Edgar Wrights' first theatrically released film, and it is quite a good one. The film itself is very effective in using tropes usually found in zombie films, and Wright makes sure to find his own voice in his take on the genre. I find many of the jokes to be funny, and Wright also delivers on creating a surprisingly emotional story where it is properly anchored by Simon Pegg. 

Pegg delivers a great performance as the titular Shaun, and the films' emotional heft depends a lot on him, as his character could've come off as unlikeable as written if it had been played by a lesser actor. Past that, Frost (who I haven't mentioned until now, surprisingly) is very funny as Peggs' dimwitted friend Ed.

Wright creates many memorable sequences in the film, such as the scene where Shaun first walks out in London completely oblivious to the fact at the zombie apocalypse that has occurred. The following action scenes are all memorable in granting a proper balance of kinetic horror, while also allowing several gags to exist in the same film, both thanks to Wright. I've even come to appreciate the climactic scene in the bar, as I did think it came off a bit too serious on my first viewing, but nevertheless, it is a strong debut.

1. Hot Fuzz (5) 

One of the greatest parodies of all-time in any film genre, while also being a great entry into that genre itself. Hot Fuzz of course follows Nick Angel, a high-achieving officer in London who gets sent to a small village in rural England due to jealousy amongst his cohorts. 

I'll begin by stating that Simon Pegg is once again terrific (and even kind of surprising) as an action hero, since one glance at the guy wouldn't suggest that he'd be one, but I digress. He is great in delivering a certain intensity for a determined, disciplined officer, yet is careful enough to not make him into a stick-in-the-mud as to not make his character seem off-putting. He is the audience surrogate the film needs to follow as we see that Sandford (the small village) isn't all that seems.

Past Pegg, the film has one of the greatest comedy ensembles recorded on celluloid. You have:

• Nick Frost as the loveable goofball sidekick
• Jim Broadbent as the proper, yet more-than-he-seems Inspector
• Future Oscar winner Olivia Colman as the only female police officer in the village
• Edward Woodward as the head of the Neighborhood Watch Alliance, as a shoutout of sorts to his role in The Wicker Man (which is kind of similar to this film once you break it down)
• Bill Nighy, Steve Coogan, and Martin Freeman as London officers who send Angel on his way
• And last but not least...Timothy Dalton in a glorious turn as one of the most obvious villains who have ever existed on film, and with a smile so hateable, you easily want to see him get his comeuppance...but boy is he fun to watch.

Anyways, the film is very funny in several ways. One is how utilizes the films its referencing, such as Point Break (shooting the gun in the air). In another film, it may have come off as a gratuitous reference, yet here, it actually earns it, as it is part of the climax of the film, as well as an important plot point. Another way that the film is very funny is the action scenes themselves; they embrace the ridiculousness that can be found in action films from time to time, yet they are very well-made on their own. Not to mention that the film actually does have a compelling plot that takes it past a standard police procedural.

Lastly, the film is immensely quotable:

"The greater good..."

"He murdered Shakespeare."

"You ever shot your gun in the air and yelled AAAHHHHHH?"

What is your favorite Edgar Wright film? Your least favorite? Answer off in the comments below.

David Lynchs' Work

One of the most idiosyncratic directors of all-time, David Lynch has created a style and tone that is most definitely his, and what is more impressive is that he absolutely excels in it when he's at his best. Although I don't love all of his films, I will admit that he has a definite vision that seems that it could only come from him. I will also say that he is an optimist at heart the more I think about it, and really isn't the nihilist that his work may lead you to believe.

What, you want a caption too? It's David Lynch and coffee. That should be enough.

Honorable Mention: Louie

Yes, I know that his work on the "Late Show" trilogy of episodes on Louie is him in front of the camera, but I just want to take this opportunity to say that Lynch is awesome as Jack Dahl, the man who is tasked with preparing Louis C.K. to potentially take over Letterman. He absolutely delivers on each single line of dialogue ("Tune in every night folks: it's The Crying Cleaning Lady Show!", "Listen here champ, that's short for champion", "Sent here? What are you, a letter?"). He also is great at being slightly menacing without ever really losing his temper. A marvelous piece of madness for every second that he is onscreen, and a performance that suggests that Lynch could've been a great character actor if he had decided to take that route.

Fun fact: His performance here was my first exposure to Lynch in any way, so I was a bit shocked when I found out about the types of films he made xD

12. Dune (2.5)

I wouldn't call this a complete strikeout by Lynch, but there's a reason the man himself doesn't look back on it fondly. It's a bland sci-fi venture by Lynch, which is the last thing one could expect from him. Having said that, the scenes with McMillan and Sting are amusing for sure, and it's nice to see Patrick Stewart in a pre-breakout role.

11. Inland Empire

Ahh this one. I'm sorry to say, but I just couldn't tap into the film's wavelength, so to speak. The film follows a Hollywood actress (Laura Dern, in one of her best performances I'll admit) as she and another actor (Justin Theroux) resume production on an unfinished film where the previous stars were murdered.

I actually do like the first hour of the film, as Lynchs atmosphere here evokes Mulholland Drive, yet never directly copies it. Jeremy Irons and ol' Harry Dean Stanton are solid, even if they don't get much to do. Past the first hour however, the films just proceeds to into several scenes that don't really cohere, and worse, don't have much meaning behind it since there isn't much of a story to support them. The second hour is a mess, and the final hour is marginally better, but still doesn't amount to much.

Apparently, Lynch wrote the film without a finished screenplay...and it shows.

10. Wild At Heart (3)

I wish I could like this film more, although I've never thought of it as a bad one. Wild at Heart follows Sailor (Nicolas Cage) and his girlfriend Lula (Laura Dern) as they go on the run after Marietta (Dern's mother here and in real life) sends a hit man to kill Sailor as she's desperate to keep them apart.

I'll start off by saying that the cast is great for the most part, as Cage is a perfect fit for Lynch's off-beat style, Harry Dean Stanton is memorable as private detective Johnnie Farragut, Willem Dafoe is a hoot as the psychotic Bobby Peru, and the rest of the cast (Isabella Rossellini, J.E. Freeman) is also solid. That said, I find the film to be rather messy for the most part, as the scenes don't really cohere as a whole, and they almost feel more like vignettes, although they're not without quality. Also, the cinematography of the film makes it seem a bit dated.

I'd honestly be a bit more negative, however, I do think the film saves itself by a bit by the climactic bank heist in the third act, and the final song-and-dance number by Nicolas Cage, as it is a rather good and funny ending. So in the end, it's a film I'm more lukewarm than straight-up positive on.

9. Eraserhead (3.5)

Lynch's debut, which is not too much more than a series of images with a plot, however, I did generally like this one. Lynchs' regular collaborator Jack Nance is good in the lead role as his character takes care of an infant that is definitely not from our dimension, and even though he's used more as a tool by Lynch as an anchor for the film, he is still fine in that regard.

The film also has compelling imagery that suggests the themes and topics that Lynch will expand upon later in his career, as the film has quite the aesthetic that he would also become famous for. It isn't one of the strongest debut films of all-time, but overall, it's a fine film.

8. Twin Peaks

Lynch's foray into television. The series details the aftermath of the titular town in Washington State after popular high school student Laura Palmer is murdered. Kyle Maclachlan in his finest turn is terrific as FBI Agent Dale Cooper, as he is the audience surrogate where he tries to solve the case, while never being overshadowed by the series either.

Besides Maclachlan, the series has many other characters that give a vivid life to the town, such as the idiosyncratic FBI agent Gordon Cole (Lynch himself), the young crowd (Madchen Amick, Dana Ashbrook, Lara Flynn Boyle) the adults (Michael Ontkean, Peggy Lipton, the underrated Ray Wise) and of course, Frank Silva, who I won't reveal who he plays here.

In regards to the series itself, I feel that Season 1 is the more consistent of the first two, as it has several memorable episodes/scenes that form the first integral part of the Laura Palmer mystery. Season 2 also has a couple of episodes that reach some of the highest heights in the show, yet the second half of the season is rather repetitive and feels more akin to a Villain of the Week series.
Nevertheless, I consider the first two seasons of Twin Peaks to be somewhat ahead of their time, as they provide a glimpe of what television can accomplish later on in show business.

7. Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me 

The prequel to the first two seasons of Twin Peaks, Fire Walk with Me shows what happened on the actual night of Laura Palmer's death. The film works as an effective horror film, as we get a closer look at the life of Laura Palmer and her friends and family, along with a memorable trailer park operator in Carl Rodd (ol' Harry Dean Stanton). We also see an expansion of the FBIs' operations before the tragic event that kicked off the original series, as Chris Isaak, Miguel Ferrer, Kyle Maclachlan, and David Bowie in a kind-of-awesome cameo. The last thirty minutes of the film belong up there with some of Lynchs' best work, and the film serves as a good companion piece to the original series.

6. Lost Highway (4)

I wouldn't put this as quite on the level of one of his later mind-bending thrillers, however I do quite like this film. The film is a pretty good thriller where we see two intersecting tales (the first led by Bill Pullman, the second by Balthazar Getty), where we see Lynch themes of deception, infidelity, jealous and violence explored in alternate angles.

The aforementioned gentlemen both give good performances that lead their respective sections of the film, and the film also has a good supporting ensembles (Patricia Arquette in a dual role, Robert Blake in a surreal "man", Robert Loggia as a villain, Gary Busey in an against-type turn, and Richard Pryor.) The ensemble is good in detailing the lives that each of the two protagonists interact with.

The film also has great production value, as the outdoor scenes have a palatable sense of isolation, while the scenes set in Los Angeles also have a similar atmosphere in evoking that classic Lynch mystery, which is also helped by the cinematography. If I had one complaint about the film, it's that the film in the end doesn't quite feel as cohesive as Lynch intended, although not for a lack of trying. In the end, it is still a good thriller from Lynch.

5. The Straight Story (4.5)

An atypical film from David Lynch, and one that suggests that he really does see the good side in people, as some elements of his other works probably wouldn't. It's a great change of pace for Lynch, and I'd love to see him do another film or any work in general in this genre. Anyways, The Straight Story is based on the true story of Alvin Straight (Richard Farnsworth), as he rides a lawnmower from Iowa to Wisconsin to visit his estranged brother, since he's eyesight prevents him from obtaining a driver's license.

As mentioned, Lynch proves that he can handle more "family" material in this film, and he gets great performances from Farnsworth, yet another memorable performance from Harry Dean Stanton as Lyle, and Sissy Spacek as Alvin's daughter Rose (who also gets to expand her range here). The film has a palatable, yet inviting, sense of atmosphere as Lynch illustrates Alvins' journey to his brothers. For good measure, Lynch also throws in a couple of his trademark flourishes to the film, such as when Alvin's lawnmower breaks down at one point. That scene fits in perfectly with the film, as it does seem Lynchian, yet never feels out of place.

Overall, a great example of a sweet film done correctly, and a rewatch could bump this film up to a 5 for me.

4. The Elephant Man (5)

Lynch's turn at telling the story of a famous figure, and he makes one of the best statements in the genre. The film never feels hopeless, and with this subject, it could've been. Anyways, the film details the too-short life of Joseph Merrick (John Hurt in one of his best performances), as he demonstrates that he really is a kind and dignified person behind his deformity. Hurt is amazing in never letting the makeup distract from his performance, and he is great at illustrating the person Joseph Merrick was behind the public "face" everyone saw him as.

Hurt is terrific, I want to stress that enough, but I also would like to say that Anthony Hopkins is also great in one of his underrated performances as Dr. Frederick Treves, as the man with a kind heart who only wants to help and show that John Merrick is not a "monster". Hopkins does a great job as Treves, as the role in a lesser actor's hands might've come off as forgettable/bland, as it is the type of role that is handwaved fairly often. Plus, it is kind of amusing to see Hopkins play a gentle man, compared to his later villain turns.

Aside from that, the film is also well-made, as the black-and-white cinematography is stunning to look at, and the production design also helps detail the types of places where Merrick resided in 1880s Great Britain. Both of these elements go hand-in-hand with Lynchs' direction, as the film never succumbs to straight-up hopelessness, although we do see the brutality of how several people treated Merrick. Lynchs' deft hand here instead finds hope throughout the film, and finds a way to make the more uplifting moments feel truly earned. A great film, and I would like to see Lynch make another biopic...or any film really.

3. Twin Peaks: The Return

Third time's THE charm for some coffee and pie.

2. Blue Velvet

One of Lynchs' most iconic films and one of the greatest blends of style and substance that you'll find in the thriller genre. Of course, Blue Velvet follows the young Jeffrey (Kyle Maclachlan) as he finds a human ear in a field in his hometown. Jeffrey takes the ear to Detective Williams (George Dickerson) at the police department and what follows after that is one of the best directed films you'll see.

As usually is the case with Lynch, the film has a great ensemble. The aforementioned Maclachlan is very good here as the earnest Jeffrey who then segues into a young man who is overshadowed by the vile underworld of Lumberton. He is accompanied along by the Detective's daughter Sandy (Laura Dern) and she is also good throughout the film, although particular mention should go to her "robin dreams" scene.  Dean Stockwell in his sole scene shows the type of person that Ben is, along with some of the best lip-syncing you'll ever see in a film. Brad Dourif and Jack Nance are also memorable as goons ("Here today...gone tomorrow...","I'm Paul...").

But of course, no appraisal of this film would be complete without mentioning the villain of the film: the psychopathic Frank Booth, played to the utmost perfection by Dennis Hopper. He doesn't quite steal the film per se, but he makes it even better by making sure that Frank is not dull at all, not even for a second. What makes it more impressive is that he really doesn't have all that much screentime, yet makes the most of it. For example, his first scene with Dorothy is one of the best (worst?) villain entrances of all-time, as he shows Frank to be someone who's always on an edge, as he barks orders at Dorothy. Later in the scene, however, he shows Frank to be completely depraved, and hints at some previous trauma in his life that we'd probably be better off not knowing. All of his other scenes are great at showing the character he is, but I also want to honorably mention "HEINEKEN?!" That moment is incredibly funny, yet scary, but I also love how he earnestly asks Jeffrey what beer he likes, as is suggests that Frank would probably be a cool person to hang out with if he wasn't...well, the way he is.

Past the performances, the film is impeccably directed (and written) by Lynch, as he creates an incredibly compelling thriller story-wise, yet adds in the perfect amount of substance to make the film stand out than it otherwise would've with more standard touches. One example can be found in the first "In Dreams" scene. Here, we see Jeffrey meet more people from the criminal underworld (Ben, the other women in the room, more material for the goons to work with), and also a moment that adds more to Dorothy (seeing her son briefly in a room off-screen). The style here comes with the production design, as Ben's apartment looks like any other, yet it has a slightly "off" feel to it. Also, the quick shot of Frank disappearing after yelling and laughing is so unique, yet feels right at home in the world Lynch has created.

A true masterpiece of a film, and I would also like to throw a quick shoutout to the sound mixing/editing of the film, as it is a great example of sound design helping to make a world seem and...well...sound more vivid.

1. Mulholland Drive


Perhaps interchangeable with Blue Velvet, and I may switch the top two one day, but for now, Lynchs' finest hour for me is also his most daring. Part of the greatness of the film is uncovering the films secrets and hints, as many people are still doing so even almost twenty years after its release, so I'll be a bit vague.

The story follows the aspiring actress Betty, (Naomi Watts) as she tries to untangle the backstory of the mysterious "Rita" (Laura Harring) as they cross paths in Los Angeles, after "Rita" being involved in a car accident and her not being able to remember who she is. As the film progresses, we see several other characters that one can typically see in films set in Hollywood, such as the egocentric Adam Kesher (Justin Theroux), who becomes a key part later on in both of the leading ladies' narrative arcs. Ann Miller is also quite funny as Coco, a landlady who welcomes Betty to her new apartment. Special mention should also go to the bumbling hit man played by Mark Pellegrino, as he demonstrates the bare minimum of professionalism that's convincing enough for someone to hire him, yet proves to be not really be as precise whenever he does a job. These and several other characters help to ground the story and add a layer of complexity that provides the needed substance for the narrative to resonate.

There is one scene that I want to highlight in particular, even if many have already done so: the man behind Winkies. It is one of the best jump scares that you'll experience in a film, and proves that the specific use of jump scares can be extremely effective if used properly. It is even greater once you further untangle the puzzle that is the film, as the moment has greater significance once you do so.

Anyways, credit should also go to Lynch for creating a Los Angeles that feels very unique, yet could plausibly exist. There are moments that show the city as a place where dreams can happen, particularly in the early part of the film (the first scenes with Betty), yet there are scenes that show the darkness and greed that many people in the industry can partake in (the latter part of the film).

It is a film that one can classify as daring as can be, and for me, it has the perfect amount of substance for the story to resonate, as it is a film that I will always think about. So much to uncover, so many layers to the film, yet it never once feels pretentious or hokey. Lynch swings for the fences, and hits a home run.


What is your favorite David Lynch film? Your least favorite?