The Tree of Life review

Throughout the history of film, many directors have been utterly fascinated by time as a concept. The passage of it, how it affects people, if it's possible to alter it. The great filmmaker Terrence Malick is certainly interested in time, but to leave it at that would be doing him an enormous disservice. Malick is interested in time, but he looks at it differently. Time is a force of nature for Malick. No different than the vast and rolling storm clouds he photographed in Days of Heaven. No different than the expansive plains of the Southwest in Badlands. Time is an unstoppable entity that is intertwined with anything and everything. One does not outrun it any more than they would outrun a mountain. It is simply always present and moving. Malick's film, The Tree of Life, looks at time as a constant fluid, moving back and forth, flowing together like paint mixed with water. In the movie, the audience follows the creation of the universe, from beginning to end, juxtaposed with the evolution of a small family of five in the 1950's American Midwest. Malick descends on childhood, watching them grow and change. Marital disputes and stick ball in the streets set against the backdrop of the literal infinite. Another filmmaker with different intentions might see this small family life vs. big universe story as an opportunity to show how insignificant and small we as a human race are. To show that little problems do not matter at all and it is all going to end eventually. Malick just isn't that cynical. It is quite possible that small familial difficulties don't really matter in the grand scheme of things, but that doesn't make them any less emotional and heartbreaking as a supernova or formation of a galaxy. Malick shoots these grand solar system movements with the same awe-filled eye as he shoots a small child looking up at sunlight coming through the trees. The small child is Jack O'Brien (Hunter McCracken), an average and sometimes troubled boy growing up mid-twentieth century. His father (Brad Pitt) is a rough man who treats his children with discipline and occasional anger. The actions of Mr. O'Brien seem cruel and abusive by today's standards, but they were less so at the time. And Mr. O'Brien does love his children and wife. He wants nothing but the best for them. His methods are tough and painful, but in his mind this is what will make them strong for the gritty "real" world that lies ahead in their path of life. In the end he accepts the error of his ways. "I wanted to be loved because I was great; A big man. I'm nothing. Look at the glory around us; trees, birds. I lived in shame. I dishonored it all, and didn't notice the glory. I'm a foolish man." He knows he did bad things. But he changed. Nature, as a whole, did not change. It is still as glorious as it has ever been, unblinking and constant. As Jack grows up to be a man, he works as a disgruntled architect in New York. The wind swept fields and everlasting summer nights of his youth have been replaced by looming skyscrapers and fixtures of metal and glass. Jack is unhappy. "Everyone is greedy. It's getting worse." he says. It seems something big is on the horizon, something grander than before. In what seems to be dreams Jack treks through desert terrain and surreal landscapes, filled with women in white dresses and door frames, leading to where? Jack is looking for answers. Is there a God? Why was his brother killed so young? Is he important? Malick does not know the answers to these questions, although he is interested in the answers. The film is better for it. It is not a movie of staunch facts and mathematical answers, but of hopeful questions and wide eyed amazement. The Tree of Life is a film of ambition matched only by Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. Yet, it is a remarkably different film. Malick resembles Kubrick in his visual eye for epic events and philosophical intrigue in the unknown and the beginning of time. Where they differ, is in the way the two portray these grand sweeps of time. Malick is warmer. He has more faith in humanity, despite their multitudes of flaws. He is also looking at the whole of time in a different way. Where Kubrick saw it as a beginning-to-end type manner, eventually coalescing with a trippy divergence into another reality, Malick sees the history of time as a series of rivers, flowing into each other with a constant fluidity. It makes for a glorious and incredible viewing experience. The film itself really is not for everyone. In the most rigid sense of the word, it does not have a plot. It looks at life in an impressionistic manner, showing a series of moments and feelings. In the way Malick has portrayed it, I felt it to be remarkably powerful. However, if one is looking for the usual plot formula, they shouldn't be looking here. Yet, I would say it does have a plot with a beginning, middle, and end. It is the story of everything. Not just life itself, and even more than the universe. Time. It is the story of time.      

The Best (My Favorite) Films of 2014

It's far past time to make my annual best of 2014 in film list. Cue the usual paragraph-and-a-half long barrage of anger/praise for the current year in film and frusturation at the concept of making lists yada, yada, yada... In all seriousness, this was an immaculate year for movies in general, and I am honored to write about. It seemed every month or so brought forth some form of greatness on celluloid (or digital, I guess.) Some of the world's best working filmmakers (Anderson, Anderson, Linklater) made movies this year, and they were awesome. But forget all this, let's get down to what this article is actually about. Cinema.
Not every movie that came out this year was list worthy, but some were still really good. A few of those said films: The Immigrant, The Double, Calvary, Selma, Edge of Tomorrow, Life Itself, Locke... There were even more solid additions that would have been higher in some lesser years. Now, the meat and potatoes of the list.

15. NYMPHOMANIAC
It was especially hard to get a screenshot from this movie that was, uh, appropriate to put on here. But really, Lars Von Trier's newest is one to see. He weaves an (admittedly long) tapestry obsessed with the concept of sex as an idea and driving force. It makes for some uncomfortable, funny, weird, and wonderfully philosophical viewing. If you have the time, it's worth a shot for sure.

14. TWO DAYS, ONE NIGHT
A study in humanity. Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne's newest film is one of real emotion. Marion Cottilard plays a woman who is losing everything and trying, trying to get it back. It's about what people do when they despair. Cotillard's performance here ranks among her very best and she soldiers through the film with a true expertise. This is not the most revelatory thing you may see at the theater but it feels honest and has some wonderful moments.

13. GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY
 Guardians is not a "Great" film by any means. It suffers from the same plot structure and character problems that has plagued every single Marvel film. Yet, it's exuberant tone, hilarious one liners, and breathtaking production design make it a more than entertaining viewing. I've seen it three times now, and despite its multitudes of flaws, it is a thoroughly enjoyable experience.

 12. ENEMY
Denis Villeuve, the man behind last year's excellent Prisoners, proves with Enemy that he is a master of ominous alley ways and dark color schemes. Enemy is a gripping delving into one man's psyche. The most horrifying part is we don't know the way out. This boasts one of the great Jake Gyllenhaal performances (and not even his only one this year!) and is generally brilliant. I have a sneaking suspicion this will grow in stature upon future viewings.

11. NIGHTCRAWLER
In which Jake Gyllenhaal plays an Antichrist for the modern age and Dan Gilroy proves he's better than The Bourne Legacy. Overall a tense-as-hell and awesomely cynical thriller that works as one of the best satires of television since Network. Here, Jake Gyllenhaal gives THE best performance of the year (What the hell, Academy?).

10. THE LEGO MOVIE
"Ugh. The Lego Movie. A gross celebration of perverted capitalism not even trying to disguise its obvious identity as a corporate ploy to sell merchandise." That's the what I thought I'd be saying about this movie after I saw it. Instead, I was thinking "What a wonderful celebration of imagination and wonder! This movie is genuinely funny! How? I don't care. This is good." The animation is beautiful, nearly all of the jokes land, and all in all it is a good time. There's much more going on here than jokes and animation though. This is a legitimately good movie. See it.

9. GONE GIRL

Probably the most gripping film I've seen all year. Fincher's newest film is possibly his trashiest, going for big twists and lots of glorious pulp, but it's also one of his best. It simultaneously picking apart gender stereotypes in film while telling a hell of a good "page turner". Rosamund Pike is the MVP here, giving a wonderfully evil performance. It all looks great too. I'm looking forward to returning to this. The whole thing just works.

  8. LISTEN UP PHILIP

Quite possibly the most under seen movie of the year, mainly due to it only really being released through Video On Demand, which is unfortunate. Alex Ross Perry's newest about a successful writer (Jason Schwartzman) slowly receding into himself while alienating those around him is a hilarious and fantastic little movie. It's cynical, but not to the point where it becomes tiresome. The whole thing fittingly watches like a novel, complete with droll voice over narration and a story spanning years. Schwartzman is giving his best work here and delivers every line without fail. But Elisabeth Moss, playing Schwartzman's jaded girlfriend, is the real surprise here.

7. BIRDMAN

I won't lie, Birdman has plenty of flaws. It can be mighty heavy handed at times and sometimes goes into messier and less honorable directions. Yet, despite all that I couldn't help but love it. There were moments that made me cringe, but there were far more that made me beam. It's filmed so the whole thing looks like it's one shot. Thus, the movie begins to seem more like a play, fittingly. It's manic, crazy, a little misguided, but totally enthralling and awesome. The performances and cinematography are immaculate. The script has a lot of little problems, but they can be easily forgiven. It's really a very good film. Keaton is back, and he's not alone.

6. INTERSTELLAR

This also has some issues, some that grate on me more than others. But you know what? Screw it. I loved this movie. As technology advances, it seems like genuine awe at the cinema is less prevalent. A realistic explosion or spaceship is no longer such an impressive feat as it once was. Yet, somehow Interstellar made me gaze in wonder, and even a little bit of joy. It's not because of the incredible special effects (although they were a factor). No, it's Christopher Nolan's use of the universal theme of pain felt through passing time. We are all watching it pass. Time is a countryside speeding away as we ride on a train. Nolan understands this, and uses it quite well. And on top of that it's backed by a terrific Matthew McConaughey performance and a wonderful Hans Zimmer score. Interstellar is sometimes a little ridiculous, sentimental, and even derivative. But overall it is a beautiful and powerful experience and one of the best times I had at the movies this year. 

5. WHIPLASH

Whiplash is tense, economical, and terrifically edited. It sounds like a cliche, but I honestly was on the edge of my seat throughout the entire film. There has been much fuss over J.K. Simmons performance, and for good reason. This is one instance where I would not feel foolish in using the word bravura. The movie is about a young and talented drummer going to school under a wildly abusive (and equally talented) teacher. As it progresses, it begins to read not as an artist coming of age film, but of the creation of a monster. A cautionary tale about taking things too far. It's all very entertaining. Jazzy and exciting, yet incredibly dark underneath it all. In a year of such experimental and interesting films, Whiplash stands as more conventional. Yet, it's one damn fine piece of convention. I look forward to what writer/director Damien Chazelle has to offer next.

4. BOYHOOD

Boyhood is likely the most talked about film of the year, mainly because it was filmed over twelve years, tracking a boy from ages six to eighteen. It's easy to see someone disregard the movie as nothing more than a gimmick, a simple little movie that's getting blown out of proportion because of the method in which it was made. Yet, that wouldn't be true. Boyhood could have been just an exercise, but it it so much more than that. It not only honestly depicts childhood, but delves into real introspection and as it goes on becomes a commentary on itself. This is a film that revels in the little moments. Richard Linklater knows that what makes up most of our memory is not the big weddings, funerals, and birthdays, those events are kept in photo albums. Our true memory is made up of the talks with friends, afternoons in the woods, and muffled voices in the next room. Boyhood is a truly incredible movie, and not one to be forgotten. 

3. UNDER THE SKIN

An amazing movie about the futility of human existence what Earth looks like from the outside. This is almost tied for my number two spot (and was actually my #1 for a while), it's that good. Scarlett Johansson gives total role commitment here and it pays off. Her portrayal of an alien alone among strangers is by far the best female performance of the year. There's so much to unpack here, I almost feel as if I am doing the film an injustice by trying to sum it up in one measly paragraph. Even on a rewatch, Under the Skin keeps surprising and giving forth more, while still keeping things opaque. All of this set to the breathtakingly shot Scottish countryside. This is light on narrative, but heavy on theme and atmosphere. I look forward to returning to this one for years to come. Oh, and the soundtrack is wonderfully creepy, adding to it all.

2. THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL

How does Wes Anderson do it? This movie is much too good. It's a layered and whimsical film about the nature of storytelling. The film begins with a writer telling a story of a man who told him a story. Thus begins the fantastically wonderful cinematic journey that is The Grand Budapest Hotel. Wes Anderson's detractors have lambasted him for years over "doing the same thing". Here, he goes deeper into his trademark pop-up book style and uses it as a backdrop for an incredible story with genuine novelistic sprawl. I do not think this is quite Anderson's best (The Royal Tenenbaums takes that title) but it is certainly his most impressive. Here, he has created a world like no other. On the surface it seems like an ode to times that have past. It isn't. The world being reminisced about here never existed anywhere else but Anderson's imagination, and he is simply bringing it to light. Essential viewing.

1. INHERENT VICE

Simultaneously an examination of America at a certain time and place, the best deconstruction and parody of noir tropes since The Big Lebowski, and a love letter to Thomas Pynchon, Paul Thomas Anderson's newest film is nothing short of a masterpiece. Every line of dialogue carries heavy thematic weight and each character brings something new. It is a very funny film that at the same time is almost unrelentingly sad. It is the end of an era and everyone is unsure of themselves. The curtains have been pulled back and rays of unwanted sunlight are washing in. Even those in authority, the ones who are supposed to know what is going on, can't help. Anderson frames this all through the pot addled psyche of a good natured detective, Doc Sportello (played wonderfully by Joaquin Phoenix). Many have been complaining about the complex plot of the film. It is a bit convoluted, but rightfully so. It's commenting on the equally complicated detective noir films of the past (The Big Sleep, The Maltese Falcon, etc..) and echoing the dazed and confused minds of the main characters, who are as lost as anyone. I could go on for hours about this movie. I've seen it twice now and I know this is one that will only improve on successive viewings. 

Here's to a great 2015.        

Inherent Vice review

It's only after the smoke clears and the euphoria wears off that we can look around at it all and ask "What just happened?" Cinema, pure and not-so-simple. That, my friend, is what has just happened. With Inherent Vice, Paul Thomas Anderson has deconstructed the gumshoe detective film genre and created one of the best novel adaptations of the past ten years. When I first saw the trailer for the movie, it looked quite a lot like a return to the hyper-energetic fast moving Anderson of the 90's. The man behind Boogie Nights and Magnolia. That couldn't be further from the truth. Inherent Vice is Anderson at his most constrained and wistful. He completely abandons elaborate and exuberant camera moves for slow dollying in on characters and very relaxed tracking shots, perfectly fitting the film's tone. This is the kind of movie I'd imagine an elderly man sitting on his front stoop in a rocking chair telling as he watches his fragile life slip from his fingers. It plays as a fondly looked back upon memory, with a hint of regret. It is very fitting Neil Young's song "Journey Through the Past" accompanies the soundtrack. The film takes place on the verge of change. An era of hippies and long-haired relaxation specialists being pushed to the fringes of society. The violent advent of Charles Manson certainly hasn't helped anything. Larry "Doc" Sportello (played by Joaquin Phoenix) is a good-natured P.I. holding on to the past with the help of plenty of marijuana and late night pizza. He's just a guy who wants to stay cool and do the right thing. Like a bowling ball dropped through a window, Doc is plunged headfirst into a complicated case involving a supposed dead saxophone player, a mysterious organization that might be a boat called the Golden Fang, and many other loose strands that require a very clear head to keep in place. The plot isn't as hard to follow as some may have said, but it doesn't matter. The convoluted case isn't what's important in this movie. Like it's spiritual predecessor The Big Lebowski, Inherent Vice is a movie about characters, tone, and setting. The many complications of the plot are also due to Anderson lampooning the noir genre, which is notorious for its numerous complicated plot strands. Just look at some famous examples like The Maltese Falcon or North By Northwest. They are all over the place, and that is part of their genius! Anderson understands this perfectly, and uses all of it to his advantage. The novel Inherent Vice is a personal favorite of mine and its writer, the famed Thomas Pynchon, is also a writer I admire very much. PT Anderson is also a fan of Pynchon. His film here is not just hero worship. He is taking his knowledge and love of film and applying it to his love of the work of Thomas Pynchon to create a perfect Pynchonion vibe filtered through the pot haze of early 1970's California. It's nothing short of beautiful. One thing Anderson added in that was not in the novel is voice over narration from one of the secondary characters, Sortilege (Joanna Newsom). In adding this, Anderson was able to capture Pynchon's wonderful use of language and apply his own personal literary touch. All of it works to near perfection. This was shot on 35mm, and it looks stunning on the big screen. There has been a shift toward shooting on digital recently, and this film is proof that film is a medium that still has its place. The whole thing looks gorgeous, mainly because of the celluloid it was shot on. It certainly helped that Robert Elswit, a long-time cinematographer for Anderson, was working here. He is one of the best (the best?) cinematographer working in Hollywood today and deserves some recognition for his work here. Holding it all together are the wonderful ensemble of actors working here. Joaquin Phoenix, channeling his inner Dude, does some great work (as expected) here. He truly embodies his character and never hits a wrong note. Josh Brolin plays a macho cop and opposite side to Phoenix's detective. Brolin has always been good. But this here may be his best work. He is funny, yet subtle, and delivers some of the movie's best lines. Joanna Newsom is great, Katherine Waterson is great, Benicio del Toro is great, Reese Witherspoon is great. Really, everyone is great. Overall, it's a masterpiece. A pot-fueled, funny, wistful, journey through post-60's California. While it might not be There Will Be Blood, Inherent Vice is more or less the best new film I've seen in 2014.

The Immigrant review

We all came here on boats, whether they be real or metaphorical. All of us, at one time or another, have known desperation. Defeat. Hunger. Pain. They are universal human emotions everyone can relate to on some level. Some have just experienced them on higher levels. We have all had family members leave us, but how many of us were there as they were taken, violently, away? James Gray's newest film, The Immigrant, understands hopeless desperation like few other motion pictures. It tells the story of Ewa Cybulska (Marion Cottilard), an poor woman from Poland who immigrates to America with her sister. Upon arrival, Ewa's sister is stripped away from her for tuberculosis treatment. A shadowy manipulative man named Bruno picks Ewa out from the crowd. He promises help for her and her sister. The spider has caught the fly. He is a pimp, and Ewa is his next prospect. Thus begins the epic dirge that is The Immigrant. A melancholy meditation on the American dream and everything that comes with it. Gray has learned from the great filmmakers of his past. Hints of early Coppola and Elia Kazan, even Scorsese are visible here. It is easy to tell how committed he is to make a solemn and sobering film that one of the names mentioned would have made in their prime. It seems like he is trying to make The Great American Film. Something to be looked back upon in wonder. It's his stoic commitment to that that is his downfall. The film sometimes comes across as stuffy and dreadfully solemn. Luckily, it recovers quickly. There are enough moments of gorgeous imagery and terrific performances to get past the shakier parts. But when it all works, it really works. Gray uses close-ups the way David Lean used wide landscape shots of the desert in Lawrence of Arabia. Cotillard's face fills the screen and her utter weariness becomes more than apparent. Things that some less talented filmmakers would have communicated in lengthy monologues or numerous and complicated scenes Gray instead communicates in a single shot of a character's face. Joaquin Phoenix's character is possibly the most complex in the entire film ranging from wicked to remorseful and even pitiful. All of this is made known in a few simple close-ups. This all made possible by the massively talented actors working in the film. Gray loves the foggy wide shots of Ellis Island, but where he really flourishes are in the smaller and more emotional scenes. The always great Jeremy Renner gives a wonderfully understated performance and adds multitudes to these scenes. The Immigrant is a film of bold and sobering ideas. Showing the painful trek someone goes through to find a better life. Prostitution and lies are simply a price to pay for freedom. Freedom, barely visible through insomnia-puffed eyes, that seems so close yet remains always out of reach. That fiery knot in the pit of the stomach that urges to push onward. It does not always pay off. The boats sometimes have holes. Behind the facade, lies the true meaning of the American Dream. It is not pretty. America is truly a place of opportunity. The ways in which we achieve that opportunity may not be as simple and easy as one would initially think. The Immigrant, like The Godfather Part II and many of its predecessors, understands this, for better or for worse. Not it is only up to us to understand it. The flag is in tatters yet, it still rises. It still rises. 

Nightcrawler review

Blinding neon light and thick smog choke Los Angeles. People drive along the endless labyrinth of roads and interstates to get where they are going. The destination is not important. Not now. They are oblivious to the fate that has already befell them. A bump in the road, an extra drink at dinner, a reckless teenager coming home from a house party. The sparks are visible, the screaming cuts through the thick night air, the steel on the iron horse grows hot. The car flips. All they see is red covering asphalt. How did this happen? A light shines from somewhere above, they look up. Am I dying? A face. Gaunt, focused, horrifying. Whatever it is it cannot be human. It's red eyes glare down at them like two coins made of molten lead. It is the face of the devil, and it is the hour of judgement. "If you're seeing me, you're having the worst day of your life." This devil is Louis  Bloom, the main character of Dan Gilroy's debut film, Nightcrawler. A type of  cameraman who films disasters as they happen and sells the footage to television stations. He is determined and fierce. Focus like a laser beam. Bloom has the feral look and inherent loneliness of Travis Bickle in Martin Scorsese's Taxi Driver, but he has the sickening drive and sociopathic tendencies of Daniel Plainview in Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood. Bloom is a hard working maniac fueled by some severely perverted ideas and a need to annihilate the competition. He's Michael Corleone with a camcorder. A malicious grim reaper stalking the streets of LA. Where there is trouble, Lou Bloom is there. With Nightcrawler, Dan Gilroy has crafted a slick, cynical, and over-the-top satire that parallels films like Network. It is massively entertaining, emanating a kinetic energy that keeps a viewer totally sucked in. It's frightening and powerful. Most of the film's muscle comes from Jake Gyllenhaal's performance as the crazed protagonist. Gyllenhaal has been steadily rising as an actor in recent years, being the standout in films like End of Watch, Prisoners, Enemy, and many others. Nightcrawler may be his best yet. Hell, I would even go as far as to say he gives the very best performance of the year. Bug eyed, emaciated, and greasy, Gyllenhaal creates a palpable persona totally his own. He owns the movie like no other actor could. Nightcrawler is a very good movie in many ways, but Gyllenhaal looms over everything like some kind of freakish God, truly inhabiting the role. He is so transcendent here, it's much easier to forgot the movies flaws, which it has a few of. This is Gilroy's first movie, and you can see him occasionally struggling. As I mentioned above, Nightcrawler is a film of many influences. At times, you can see Gilroy leaning too much on them for support. There were a few scenes that seemed directly taken out of Taxi Driver and There Will Be Blood. It's hard to ignore, and does hinder the film at times. Gilroy is working with a few themes here. Media and how we as a society treat it, the bastardization of the American Dream, and greed. He does struggle to really go in depth with some of them, and the movie definitely could have benefited from some more fleshing out. Yet, I still cannot deny how crazy, entertaining, and energetic the film is. Robert Elswit does a fantastic job with the cinematography here. The movie looks great, and there are some landscape shots of LA that are downright haunting. Oscar worthy stuff. It's a wonderfully creepy tapestry of neo-noir and character study. Gilroy has made a good film here. Gyllenhaal has made a great one. Nightcrawler portrays a dark, morally ambiguous, pre-apocalyptic world of greed and evil. It is a fear-inducing world much too close to our own. And one I wouldn't mind visiting again. 

Birdman review

Watching Birdman is equivalent to watching a plane crash. Things and people of great stature colliding in a fiery inferno of ego and madness. Like the plane itself, these people are not aware of their folly. They go on and on with their self-destructive manner, not realizing the damage being done. Yet, it does not come across as some violently sickening act of destruction. It is much more of an apocalyptic waltz. To quote Pynchon "it is not a disentanglement of, but a progressive knotting into." We are watching the fall of the Roman Empire, but from our perspective it looks like the emergence of the Persians. A phoenix rising from the ashes-fitting. The subtitle for Birdman is "The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance." A joke on both the characters of the film and the audience. In some perverted way, their is virtue to be found in the depths of ignorance. It's just not the kind anyone is looking for. At the end of the movie, the main character Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton), seems to have gotten everything he has wanted throughout the film. In reality, he's actually gotten the opposite. His ignorance and bullheaded stupidity masquerading as celebrity have made him the antithesis of his goal throughout the film. In some ways, it is a very depressing film even if it does not present itself as so. It is an indictment of show business while simultaneously being a celebration of it. Doing so in a way that is not hypocritical, but admirable. These characters are self-obsessed and theatrical lost puppies who come onto the scene screaming and raving in carefully practiced speeches because they have all lost the ability to just act like regular people. Maybe they aren't regular people, but a race of space aliens who landed on Earth and used E! news, Vanity Fair, and the biography of Corey Feldman to learn how to act like people. Even the movie's most "honest" character, Riggan's screw-up drug addict daughter (Emma Stone), has her lapses into self absorption and vanity. This a film steeped in utter madness. A loud and infectiously exciting barrage of drums accompanies the movie. In Riggan Thomson's most insane stretches of being, the constant beat of drums thrums along with it. The score reflects all of the character's neurotic and constantly frightened personas. One of the most present and important characters in Birdman is the camera filming it all. The director, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, has made a very bold and audacious decision to film all of the movie in a series of long takes, edited together in a way that makes it look like the entire film is in one endless shot. The main plot of the film revolves around Riggan, a washed-up actor who once played a superhero in a series of successful superhero films (very reflective Keaton in real life), who is now vying for artistic merit with a Raymond Carver short story he has adapted and will act and direct in. The method of using the constant long takes and tracking shots that Inarritu has adopted here is supposed to make it look like it is a play itself. The actors don't film one close-up and then have a smoke break, they are constantly on. This reflects the vain theatricality of the characters in the film. They live their life like they are in a play: loud, wordy, flashy, and full of dense dialogue. A directing decision that could have devolved into a tiresome gimmick is used for real artistic value here. The wonderfully awe inspiring decisions on Inarritu's part and the ace work of the actors can easily make one forget about the film's noticeable flaws. The script has some rough edges. There are a few jokes that don't quite land and there are some lines that feel incredibly mean-spirited and misguided. There are times when it seems like the screenwriter feels worried the audience won't get the message he is trying to convey and that he must continually expound upon what he's trying to say tirelessly. Those particular moments made me cringe. Yet, when stacked up next to the rest of the movie, they seemed minuscule and not even worth mentioning. My only true problem with the film was its ending, which I won't spoil for anyone. Let me just say it could have (and should have ended a few scenes earlier). Besides all that, Birdman soars higher than Superman on helium. It is a massively entertaining meditation on show business, madness, and the deformed sick elephant we all call "fame." Anyone who scoffs at the current state of Hollywood, pointing out the mind-numbing barrage of formulaic superhero pictures that gets pumped out every year, certainly isn't wrong in doing so. But you only have to look so far as to Birdman to know that there is hope for cinema yet. Do not despair common folk, Keaton has landed and he is here to help.    

Lucy review

There seems to be a myth floating around Hollywood that humans only use 10% of their brain and the other 90% is basically not used at all. This is not even remotely true. We consciously use 10% of our brain for thinking and things like that. The other 90% is still in use. It's used for our subconscious mind and other things. It is not possible to 'unlock' this other part of our brain because it is already unlocked and in use. Even if we could somehow use this other 90% consciously, it certainly wouldn't give us godlike superpowers or even increase our memory and intelligence (like in the film Limitless). Luc Besson's newest film, Lucy, plays off of this age old myth about our brainpower and then takes it to extreme heights. It's really a ridiculous concept for a movie, but if you can get past that you may actually have some fun with the movie and really get something out of it. Scarlett Johansson plays the titular character here. She starts out as a seemingly vapid college girl studying abroad in Taiwan. Through a mix-up with her shady boyfriend, Lucy becomes a drug mule for a brutal Taiwanese boss and then in turn accidentally ingests the experimental drug she was supposed to be carrying. The drug allows her to slowly gain full access to her brain, which in turn gives her powers fit for Superman (Superwoman, rather) or a god. Lucy is in incredibly odd film. It's one half dumb Luc Besson action flick where the main characters traipse around in some foreign country getting in car chases and dodging bullets. It's also one half smart pseudo-philosophical science fiction film that tries to explain creation and the future of human evolution. It dabbles in interesting ideas but will occasionally stop for a gun fight with Taiwanese bad guys. Like I said, odd. But not all bad. Lucy was obviously heavily influenced by Stanley Kubrick's awesome 1968 classic, 2001: A Space Odyssey. Lucy begins with the Dawn of Man like Kubrick's film did, showing the first ape woman (also named Lucy). As the movie progresses, Scarlett Johansson's character becomes almost equivalent to the star baby at the end of 2001. A human who was been altered by an outside force (the monolith in 2001, the drugs in Lucy) and is now a god-like being who has been seemingly sent to save humanity and correct our oh-so-many problems. One thing I have to give massive credit to Besson for is not making this a movie that uses its head female star for nothing but eye candy and beating up bad guys. Too many action films (Kick-Ass 2 to name one) think making their head star a woman allows them to underwrite their characters and indulge in camouflage misogyny. Here, Besson focuses more on Lucy and her increasing intelligence and only uses the gangster subplot sparingly. I do applaud him for that. Another problem this movie could've run into is it being really bloated and drawn out. Instead, it's kept to a lean 90 minutes. This movie had the potential to be truly awful, I'm glad it was able to surpass all that. Yet, as I mentioned before, Lucy isn't without its issues. First off, it's completely illogical. But I already addressed that. There's also quite a few oversights plot wise that made me slap my forehead thinking "How could they not see that?".  It touched on a few different things that could've been really cool but doesn't really expand on them. As her knowledge increases, her humanity decreases. There's a part that hints that Lucy may want to keep her human emotional side. Unfortunately, Besson doesn't go into depth really at all. Despite it's many flaws, I found Lucy to be quite good. It's a really ambitious movie and somewhat succeeds on many fronts. It's no 2001: A Space Odyssey but I suppose it makes for a good pop action version of the film. Calling the movie stupid is easy and honestly a little unfair. For all its shortcomings, it really does make for a solid smart summer blockbuster. Hell, I'd say it's better than a lot of the blockbusters out in theaters this summer. Luc Besson has always annoyed me. I was never a huge fan of his films, but Lucy is a little different than most of his films and it shows he may have some real talent. I give Lucy 4.2 out of 5 stars. Don't forget to follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies. Happy Viewing everyone!   

Persona review

Persona is an illusion. A nightmare, an acid trip, a Kafkaesque beach vacation. Persona is a movie. 

I don't think a movie has ever really emotionally effected me quite like this one. After the credits rolled and the film was done, I continued to think about Ingmar Bergman's Persona. I sifted the scenes through my mind, thought about the movie in depth. I found myself shaking. My stomach churned. I was honestly shaken by this movie. It reached into the confines of my psyche and asked me questions about what made me, me. I'm not entirely sure what to make of a film like this. Moments after the movie had finished, I stared at the screen and thought to myself "What the hell did I just witness?". I'm still sort of asking myself that, but in a less condescending manner. Persona is about a nurse (Bibi Andersson) who is tasked with looking after an actress (Liv Ullmann) who, by her own free will, has decided to stop talking. It's about much more than that though. In some ways it's about the human condition and what makes us snap, in other ways it's about films and movies. The film is incredibly aware that it's a movie. At certain points the screen starts rip up as if the film in the projector had caught fire. At another point in the film it cuts to a camera crew and even the director himself, filming the very movie we are watching. I suppose it's the first 'meta' film in that way. I haven't seen anything by Swedish director Ingmar Bergman until now, but if Persona is any judgement of his other work than I'm sure the guy's a genius. Any director that can truly cut to the core of a person through a film is bound to be more than talented. Watching Persona reminded me of another movie I watched this year, Under the Skin. Throughout watching Under the Skin my mind went through a whirlwind of emotions. At first I was confused, and then I kind of liked it, and then I hated it, then I was confused again, and finally I was left in utter shock when it ended, still not entirely sure what my final opinion was on the film. After much thought, I came to absolutely love Under the Skin and have seen it twice now. That's basically how I feel about Persona. A film so strange, off-putting, and hypnotic that I had no idea what to make of it at first but now want nothing more than to see it again. I suppose you could call it a difficult film, and I imagine many people wouldn't like it very much. An understandable opinion, but I do urge you to give it a try with an open mind. It is a truly awesome movie. Some classics, while still good, seem to lose their power with time. Persona is not one of these movies. It is as powerful and scary and interesting as I imagine it was back when it was released in 1966. Practically everything about it is impeccable. The two lead actresses, Ullmann and Andersson, are fantastic. Every scene they're in radiates with dominance and talent. They're in pretty much every scene in the film and really have to devote themselves. They do not disappoint. Bergman, as I mentioned before, does a masterful job really reaching out and disturbing the calm in the audience. He creates such awesome and wonderful tension here that I don't think I've seen in any other films. He can make you sit on edge with nothing more than a closeup. And he holds his shots extremely long, which is very admirable. I often hear people dismiss black and white films, and even more so, foreign films as being pretentious or boring. I do not think Persona is either of these things. It's a classic. What more can I say. A film that's confounding and weird yet so captivating and intriguing. The film is about two different people, a nurse and an actress, who begin to meld personas. What an incredibly strange idea for a movie! But it works very well. And in doing so, creates an experience comparable with nothing else. Persona is a twisted and cool little film I feel will stay with me a long time. I will return to it, and hopefully I'll get even more out of it then. As of now, all I will say is that it is a great movie. I wasn't sure of this immediately after watching it, but am sure of it now. Persona is simply, a masterpiece. 

Remember you can follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies. Happy Viewing.      

Blow Out review

If you turn on the History Channel on an average day, chances are you'll come across some phony conspiracy theory show detailing how JFK was killed by the mafia or how George Washington was in a secret cult or some unbelievable nonsense like that. Now imagine you knew JFK actually was killed by the mafia. And imagine you had the evidence to prove it. Imagine yourself being called a crackpot conspiracy theorist by everyone around you , even though you're right. Scary, right? These are the circumstances John Travolta's character finds himself in in Brian De Palma's excellent 1981 thriller, Blow Out. John Travolta plays a sound man for exploitation slasher flicks. One night, while out recording sound for a movie, he accidentally records a car careening into a creek. Travolta dives into the creek yet, he's only able to save the girl, the man is already dead. The man in the car was a prominent presidential candidate. One that had the potential to be the next president of the United States. Was this merely an accident, or was there a second party involved? Paranoia, fear, and conspiracy shroud the rest of the film. And it's absolutely awesome. I feel Brian De Palma doesn't get the respect he deserves. The man has made some awesome movies (Scarface and Carrie to name some), but even so he's often demoted to nothing but a Hitchcock ripoff artist or genre director. "His films are all style over substance!" is one cry I've heard surrounding the work of De Palma many times. These detractors obviously haven't seen Blow Out. Here, Mr. De Palma marries his cinematic flourishes and Hitchcockian style with a taut plot line and in depth character study. The character study would of course be worthless if not for the excellent performance by a young John Travolta. This may be one of Travolta's best performances yet. Right up there with his work in Pulp Fiction. He's cool, intense, and assured. It would be very easy for this film to devolve into a simple and dumb thriller. De Palma could have easily given into cliches and used car chases and things like that as a plot device. But he's better than that, and does no such thing. With talent all his own, Brian De Palma keep us literally at the edge of our seat. He doesn't need plot contrivances to do this. While watching this, I felt inside the film. I was so caught up in the movie, it was as if it had opened up and swallowed me whole. One major problem with mainstream action and thriller films is that they too often rely on is the nice and tidy ending. An ending where everything turns out peachy and fine. Everyone's alive, the killer has been caught, and justice is served. Now the square-jawed main character can scoop up the leading lady and ride off with her into the sunset. Blow Out falls into no such trappings. The ending (I won't spoil it for you) is dark, frightening, and purely awesome. De Palma is first and foremost a director, but this film proves he can write a film just fine. Blow Out has some of the most ingenious plotting I've seen in a movie ever. Some great films are products of their time. Blow Out is a combination of political scandals like Watergate and the JFK assassination. What makes it great is how it transcends its time period and influences. The film is wholly original. It's quite possible this could be Brian De Palma's best movie, and maybe his only perfect one. I'm wary to make such claims just yet, having only seen this once, but it may be the case. I wasn't too sure what to make of the film after I watched it. After digesting it some, I have decided it's a masterpiece. Possibly better than Scarface, but I haven't decided that yet. Blow Out seems to have been overshadowed by some of De Palma's much flashier work over the years. I suppose Blow Out is a much more subdued movie in a sense. It shouldn't be. Every frame of this film is impeccable. De Palma can frame his shots like few other directors I know. Quentin Tarantino lists this as one of his favorite films. I can certainly see why. It's a full bodied and expertly crafted picture. Blow Out is like a delicious three course meal. It's very enjoyable, but it has real solid value as well. It's possible Blow Out's bleak ending has something to do with it's lack of popularity. A real shame, for this is a cinematic gem and one of the best films of the 1980's. I beseech you to see this, surely you won't regret it. It's a masterwork of tension, acting, and plotting. This is a crime film for the ages. Happy Viewing.
Don't forget to follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies.                

Life Itself review

Often when a particularly good movie ends, I'll sit in the theater and watch the credits for a while. Not because I'm incredibly interested in the end credits or anything, but because I have just witnessed something wonderful and need some time to soak it in. I'll sit there in the movie theater thinking: Wow. Sometimes a film is so damn good I'll need a few minutes to realize that yes indeed, I did just witness that. Other times a film is so achingly beautiful I'll have to wait a while for my emotions to run their course. Sometimes a film reaches for great heights and achieves these heights that all I can do is sit and stare at the screen in awe. Steve James' newest documentary on the great movie critic Roger Ebert did all of the things I just mentioned. After the film finished, I was left looking at the screen in tears knowing full well that not only had I just watched a wonderful film, but I had watched the wonderful life of a wonderful man. Pretty much every modern film critic owes something to Roger Ebert. He was the jolly, movie loving grandfather to us all. Bestowing his film knowledge and general happiness to the world. This documentary perfectly captures that sentiment, but it does something else too. It radiates the absolute joy that was Ebert and his life, but it doesn't sugarcoat the gritty stuff either. Often a documentary on a famous person who has passed on will devolve into nothing but idolatry and hero worship. One of the worst movies of last year, Salinger, was a documentary on the life of J.D. Salinger. That awful film did nothing but bow down to the life and works of Mr. Salinger for the first half of the movie before poking at the possibilities of conspiracies in the man's life. Awful cinema. Life Itself does no such thing. It looks admirably at Roger, but it also shows that the guy could be (for lack of a better word) an asshole sometimes. It shows the sometimes comical fights he had with his friend, business associate, and rival Gene Siskel. It shows the detestable taste in women Ebert had before he met his wife Chaz. It shows the time in his life where he had a serious drinking problem. Those parts can make you cringe, but the movie wouldn't be honest if they didn't show these parts. Roger Ebert was no saint, and I'm sure he would've wanted us all to know that. In addition, director Steve James doesn't shy away from showing Roger as he was when he died: very, very sick with his entire lower jaw missing. He even goes as far as to show Ebert being fed through suction with a straw. It's sometimes grotesque and makes you want to look away, but it's brutally honest and this information needs to be in there. What really struck me about Life Itself is how heartfelt it was. So much so, that the ending drove me to tears. You'd have to be made of stone not to. I did not cry because the film was overtly sad. It is sad, but not overwhelmingly so. I cried because I was so taken by this one man's love, life, legacy, and just astounding awesomeness in general. The emotion and devotion of his wife, Chaz. The love of Roger expressed by hard faced German filmmaker Werner Herzog. The scenes with Ebert during some of his last moments. These alone are enough to bring anyone to tears. Pieced together in this wonderful film, they make for an emotional powerhouse. I have to give the director of this film, Steve James, a lot of credit. Making a documentary like this seems incredibly difficult. So much ground to cover (An entire lifetime, literally!) in about two hours. Yet, James does it with a smooth and assured hand. He makes it entertaining and funny and sad and happy and fantastic. I am gushing a bit now, but I don't care. This film is terrific. It's fitting really, that a lover of movies should go out with such a good one. Go see this film. Even if you aren't or weren't that into Ebert's work. Just as a cinemaphile one should see this. The few cameos by Martin Scorsese are reason enough. For a film focused around a dead man, Life Itself feels so incredibly alive. It's hopeful. Normally I would give a film a star rating at the end of my reviews. But it feels redundant to stick some star on a film like this. It's great, I don't need a star to convey this. Here's my consensus: Life Itself is so many different kinds of wonderful. A great tribute to Roger Ebert, and cinema in general. Happy Viewing to all. 

Remember you can follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies to keep up with all my film related opinions and such.               

Miller's Crossing review

Mobster pictures are somewhat of a staple of American pop culture and have been for a while now. Everything from the original Scarface to The Godfather to The Sopranos. Directors like Martin Scorsese and Brian De Palma have forged half of their careers off of gangster flicks. Something about the fast and violent lifestyle of the mafia has captured our imagination. Some of the greatest films ever made are gangster movies. And there are so many of them! You'd think after all this time one would grow tired of the genre. If you would think that, you'd be wrong. Truth be told, I really love mob films. Some of my all-time favorite movies (Goodfellas, The Godfather, The Departed, Casino, Scarface) are about the gang life. Done right, a mafia picture can be not only entertaining but have something profound to say about greed and morality and such. If done right, a mafia picture can look something like Miller's Crossing. Joel and Ethan Coen's 1990 film Miller's Crossing is about Tom Regan (Gabriel Byrne), an adviser to an Irish crime boss (Albert Finney). Tom is whip smart and incredibly cynical, almost an embodiment of The Coen Brothers themselves. The film follows Tom as he navigates the tricky crime landscape of the Irish and Italian mafia by playing both sides against each other. The film's narrative is very plotty and under less talented hands it could turn into a convoluted mess. With The Coen Brothers, they manage to craft one of the most entertaining and gloriously well-made gangster movies I've seen in a long time. Practically everything about this film is impeccable. My only real complaint is that the second half of the film didn't resonate with me as much as the first half. It drops off a bit, but other than that it's absolute gold. Probably my favorite thing about Miller's Crossing is the dialogue. Why this film didn't get a best screenplay nomination at the Oscars I do not know. It certainly deserves one. Every line is as sharp as a surgeon's scalpel. Every conversation goes at a machine gun rate. It's high quality stuff. A screenplay would be almost useless without decent actors to deliver the great lines. Gabriel Byrne is pretty solid here as the main character. He carries out his character's cynicism and wit pretty well, but I feel it could have been done a bit better. Albert Finney is superb as the head mob boss, Leo. Finney really underplays his character. It's a subtle performance, but it absolutely works in every way. The guy who really shines here is John Turturro. I've always known Turturro to be a good actor form seeing him in films like Do The Right Thing and The Big Lebowski (which is my personal favorite Coen Bros. flick). He's phenomenal here. The guy has a relatively small role, but boy does he play it well. Turturro's character is a real slick guy. He's a schemer and kind of an (if you'll excuse my language) asshole. But you can't help but like him. You want him dead yet, at the same time you kind of want to watch him a little bit more. Some actors could make the role insufferably annoying or even dull, depending. Turturro makes him funny and interesting. That takes talent. But this is The Coen's film, and they don't let you forget it. Miller's Crossing is stuffed with classic Coen trademarks. Dark humor, irony, noir lighting, femme fatale characters, swift direction. It has all the marks of a Coen Brothers movie, but it's 100% fresh and original. They don't just do what they've done before. They take an age old genre and morph it into something completely new. Something wonderful. A classic. I think it's safe to say I'm in love with Miller's Crossing. No, it's not The Coen Brothers' best film. No, it's not the best mobster film ever made. Yes, it is a really great film. I'm a pretty big fan of the Coen's, and they've yet to prove they're anything but genius. Miller's Crossing is a genius movie. Well directed, smartly written, and terrifically acted I can definitely recommend you watch it. Hell, watch it twice. I know I will. Happy Viewing folks.
Remember, you can always follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com.WhitsMovies.      

Eyes Wide Shut review

I'm just going to get this out of the way right now, this is not the kind of movie you want to watch with your mother. Stanley Kubrick is a universally renowned cinematic genius. Practically everyone acknowledges that the guy is seriously good at making movies. Whether it's Barry Lyndon or Full Metal Jacket, his movies are always expertly crafted and very interesting. I count him as one of the best directors ever. He's made some of my all-time favorite films like 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Shining. The one film of his that really seems to polarize people is his last, Eyes Wide Shut. Whenever I'd talk to people who had seen this movie, they'd scoff and exclaim how it's a "bad" film and that Kubrick was off his rocker when he made it. I just recently watched Eyes Wide Shut and I can honestly say it is in no way his worst film. Nor is it a "bad" film. I can see why people wouldn't like it though. It's about a New York doctor named Bill Harford (Tom Cruise). He lives a comfortable and happy existence with his wife Alice (Nicole Kidman) and young daughter (Madison Eginton). One night, Alice reveals to Bill that she once almost had an affair. She tells him that she was willing to give away everything, her family and job included, just to sleep with this man. Understandably shaken by all this, Bill goes off into the streets of NYC on a surreal journey of sex, exploring the deepest depths of the human soul. Sorry about the long synopsis, but I feel it's necessary to really understand what I'm talking about with this movie. So, as I was saying, I can understand why people didn't like Eyes Wide Shut. It's filled with some very uncomfortable scenes involving very uncomfortable, uh, physical acts of love. This can be a bit unnerving. Believe me, I was quite unnerved. At times it almost seemed like Stanley Kubrick was trying to make the audience as uncomfortable and scared as possible. There's one scene involving a very strange masquerade party that will probably be forever engraved in my mind. Although that's not entirely a bad thing. Kubrick is trying to make us really look at this movie and ask, "What exactly is right?". Is Cruise's protagonist a good person? Does he have morals? I'm not entirely sure. This film is really delving into the human mind and ultimately asking "What makes us tick?". People who have an immediate negative knee-jerk reaction to this movie obviously need to think about it more before making a final opinion. Right after I watched this movie, I didn't have an opinion. I still needed to digest it all. After some time, I've decided Eyes Wide Shut is a few hairs short of a great movie. It's incredibly well directed and well made. Kubrick's direction is as sharp as ever. He seems to be especially attracted to tracking shots of characters here, and it works very well. The guy always is doing interesting things with the camera. Few directors are as technically creative as Stanley Kubrick. He never really focuses on his actors in most of his films. He directs his actors spectacularly here. He lingers on the hurt confusion that envelops Tom Cruise's face. The look of jealousy and lust on Nicole Kidman. Eyes Wide Shut is a delicate machine. Kept well oiled and with all parts correctly working, it does it'd job wonderfully. If one little piece fell out of place, the movie would fall to shambles. Luckily, that is not the case. Many people give Tom Cruise a lot of crap for his personal life. Because of this, his acting is often overlooked. He's given some terrific performances in films like Born on the Fourth of July and Tropic Thunder. His performance here is no exception. His character, Dr. Bill Harford, is confused and scared. Things are going incredibly badly for him, and he's not even sure what's real anymore. Cruise's performance is subtle, and that's why it works so well. Nicole Kidman does a good job as well, playing equal parts jealous wife and loving and caring partner. This movie reminded me a lot of Martin Scorsese's 1985 film After Hours. It's a night-long odyssey into the dirty trenches of a hellish New York City. The difference being the protagonist in After Hours, played by Griffin Dunne, was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Cruise's character is deliberately plunging himself into this nightmare. That makes it almost all the more interesting, and all the more surreal. Eyes Wide Shut is the kind of film that will certainly get better with repeat viewings. I haven't even completely figured it out yet, but I know there's more to it that I didn't even pick up on yet. This isn't Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece, but I can tell it's exactly the movie he wanted to make. This is the vision as Kubrick imagined it. And that itself is enough to admire. Happy Viewing. If you haven't done so already, please follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies. Thanks!

Crimes and Misdemeanors

If The Coen Brothers and Woody Allen joined consciences and then made a movie, that movie would be Crimes and Misdemeanors. And I mean that in the best way possible. Woody Allen is the king of comedy in my mind. There scenes in his 1977 film, Annie Hall, that make me laugh harder than practically anything else. I love his brand of cynical New York humor. It really clicks with me. What I particularly like, is when he acts in his own movies. No one delivers his dialogue better than himself. His role in Hannah and Her Sisters is one of the funniest and more brilliant comic performances I may have ever seen. I really do love his comedies. It's his dramatic stuff that I'm not such a fan of. I was incredibly disappointed with his newest movie, Blue Jasmine. It felt very stuffy and seemed to take itself a little too seriously. Although many people love it, I was more than let down with his 2005 film, Match Point. Although I'd be willing to rewatch it and see what I think now. I was a little worried about Crimes and Misdemeanors. It was supposed to be slightly more dramatic than his earlier stuff. Woody's drama work has never wowed me, so I was very cautious when going into this movie. I shouldn't have been. Crimes and Misdemeanors blends taught drama and side splitting comedy like few films I've ever seen. It works so well on so many different levels. Allen knows exactly what he wants to say, and boy, does he say it well. It's about a successful ophthalmologist, Dr.Judah Rosenthal (Martin Landau), who is having an affair with an unstable women named Dolores (Anjelica Huston). Things with Dolores are going south for him, and she is starting to threaten his own life and marriage, so Judah must do something drastic. And do it fast. Meanwhile, a struggling documentary filmmaker, Clifford Stern (Woody Allen), has fallen in love with another women (Mia Farrow). In a nutshell, Crimes and Misdemeanors is about infidelity (a reoccurring theme in Allen's movies), morality, and the human condition. But Allen deals with these films in a joking and wonderful manner, never taking himself too seriously. That's what makes this film work so well. It reminded me of a Coen Brothers film in the sense that it develops a near perfect balance between a comedy flick and a dark crime thriller. Similar to something like Fargo, Barton Fink, or Blood Simple. There are moments, for example, when Clifford Stern makes a documentary on Alan Alda's character. A phony television producer, Lester. The film put's Lester in a negative light. This angers him so much he fires Clifford. You see him later walking in a park with Mia Farrow saying "What was he so angry for? You'd no one had ever compared him to Mussolini before." It's a very funny scene. But it's paired with murder, adultery, suicide, and serious philosophical questions. In the hands of a more inept director and writer, this would turn into an uneven mess. With Woody Allen in charge, it becomes a something truly great. Martin Landau's plight seems dark and even claustrophobic. The plight of Woody Allen's character is like something out of a Woody Allen movie. Who knew they'd go together so well? Crimes and Misdemeanors asks "Who is right in this situation?" "Who is the hero?" "Is anyone to be trusted?" The answer to those questions? Well, I'll let you watch the movie.  Overall, Crimes and Misdemeanors is a fantastic outing by the neurotic master of comedic infidelity, Woody Allen. Great acting, a sharp screenplay, and terrific direction make this a modern classic. I'm sure it's one for everyone will enjoy. Me? I'm just looking forward to when I can watch this again. Remember! You can follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies. Happy Viewing.        

Under The Skin review

If Eraserhead-era David Lynch time traveled to today and directed a movie about aliens, I imagine it would look somewhat like Under The Skin. Except it probably wouldn't be as good as the actual movie is.

In old cheesy sci-fi flicks, and even in some more recent movies, aliens are always humanoid. They may have purple skin or weird space suits, but they always resemble humans to a fault. Whether in appearance, language, or technology, it seems science fiction writers can't get away from humanity when creating an alien race. Under The Skin doesn't have this problem. The extraterrestrial in Under The Skin takes the form of a Scarlett Johansson-looking Scot, but underneath it's something completely different. Something alien to our world. With thoughts, needs, and desires completely different than that of any human. I think it's the fact that this movie addresses how strange and alien actually aliens would be that makes it so interesting. It also addresses how strange and alien our world and culture would look to an outsider. Director Jonathan Glazer and his leading lady, Scarlett Johansson, portray these factors with the utmost skill and strangeness. Under The Skin is technically about an alien on Earth taking men and harvesting them for some unknown purpose. But that's not really important. The film is really about fear, confusion, and humanity itself. Big themes, I know. But this movie isn't afraid of big themes. What it really embraces are the big questions. The main protagonist here, Scarlett Johansson's alien character, spends a decent chunk of the film driving around Scotland to pick up men and then bring them back to her apartment where they're never seen again. When she first meets a guy, she always asks if he's alone. Whether he has a family, if he's traveling with anyone, does he have any friends. She wants to take people that won't cause a ruckus if they drop off the face of the Earth one day. She asks if they're alone. In life maybe they are, but not in the universe. When the movie starts out, Johansson has all the power. These men she finds are practically drooling at her to the point where they die, blinded by her hypnotic beauty. As the film progresses, she starts to lose this power. You can see her character scared and confused by people and Earth in general. At one point she trips in the street and passers-by rush to help her, the look of confusion is incredibly telling of her character. Scarlett Johansson barely speaks at all in the movie, but she deserves an Oscar simply for the way she communicates through her face. Whether she's utterly emotionless, or horribly frightened and confused, Johansson gives a marvelous performance. This may sound ridiculous, but I think it's the most honest portrayal of an alien that's ever been captured on film. Aliens probably wouldn't be all-knowing and confident. They're like snakes: dangerous, but more scared of us than we are of them. Things we take for granted like eating and even just regular human interaction become odd and even scary to an alien. Johansson embodies this horrified confusion so, so well The person involved with this movie I have to applaud most is writer and director Jonathan Glazer. His direction here is breathtaking. Every shot is clear and beautiful, haunting and meaningful. The imagery here is flawless. Just the shots of the Scottish countryside are awe-inspiring. The way he holds the seemingly meaningless shots like a hand tapping to music or an ant crawling, make those shots seem as important as the entire movie. And in some ways, they are. Glazer uses single shots to paint an entire picture and deliver so much emotion and information. He doesn't need dialogue. The last scene has been burned into my mind since I watched this last night, and that's saying something about the power of cinema. Many people have deemed this film as Kubrickian. I'm a huge Stanley Kubrick fan myself, but I don't really see a connection. I think people were trying to connect this and 2001: A Space Odyssey, which is understandable but wrong. They're two great films, but two completely different films. The only thing Kubrick-esque about Under The Skin is it's pacing. In most of his movies like Barry Lyndon and 2001: A Space Odyssey, Kubrick has this very slow, yet very riveting and deliberate pacing. Glazer uses a similar technique here. When watching this, I was in between deeply enthralled and utterly bored. And I mean that in the best possible way. Nothing is really happening, yet it feels like something profound and horrific will happen soon. I literally was on the edge of my seat most of the movie. If anything, Under The Skin is completely original. I have never seen a movie, technically and narrative-wise, like Under The Skin. It's completely it's own. One more thing. This film is an all around sensory experience, and I highly recommend you see it in the theater while you can. It's not just visuals. The soundtrack is incredibly eerie and it's use of sound in general is spectacular. Overall it's a very well-made movie. It marries it's sounds and images in such an amazing way, that it all permeates your soul. That sounds very pretentious and a little ridiculous but it's 100% true. In a world of reboots and The Amazing Spider Man 2, maybe that's just what we need. This film is in no way for everyone. Some may find it too weird. Some may find it boring. I found it riveting, original, and even a little prophetic. I believe that's enough to deem this a great movie. Or at least one we should be thinking and talking about. I give Under The Skin 4.8 out of 5 stars. Now stop reading my review and go see the movie! Remember to follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies.          

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 review

I still find it hilarious that Marc Webb directed this movie. Webb. Like spider web. Or spider webb.

Sam Raimi's original Spider-Man movies were pretty great. The first and second are superhero movie "classics". The third film was a messy and unintentionally funny disaster. Luckily, the producers had sense enough to reboot and drag the series out of the deep and awful hole it had been put in by Spider-Man 3. The Amazing Spider-Man was made. While not fantastic, it was still a very good and entertaining Spidey flick that I thoroughly enjoyed and kind of loved. Then comes the inevitable sequel. Sequels are (almost) never better, or as good, as they're predecessor. The only examples I can think of are in The Dark Knight trilogy, the Lord of the Rings series, and Sergio Leone's Dollars films. The Amazing Spider-Man 2, like most sequels, doesn't measure up to it's original movie. In fact, it really isn't a good movie at all. It's loaded with issues. Yet, I still really, really enjoyed it. It's an incredibly fun movie, but it's not a good movie. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is about Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) doing Peter Parker-esque stuff and saving NYC and his girlfriend from super powered baddies and he's also having trouble coping with his dead dad and stuff, etc. Yeah, the plot sounds very cliche of a superhero movie and way too similar to every other damn Spider-Man flick we've had pretty much ever. It felt a lot like a Spider-Man film, One reason I liked the last movie so much was because, despite the fact it was telling the same origin story, it felt like a new Spider-Man movie. Marc Webb was doing his own thing. This sequel feels too much like what Webb, and Sam Raimi, have already done. It seemed like the same overstuffed plot from Spider-Man 3 mixed with the feel and style of The Amazing Spider-Man. Even so, I felt myself smiling and enjoying the whole movie through and through. Andrew Garfield has something to do with that. His titular performance is great. The guy delivers his lines and jokes with a confident suaveness that Peter Parker should have. It's practically impossible not to like the guy. Imagine the funny brashness of Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark with less cynicism except as a teenager. That's his performance, and he makes it totally his own. Marc Webb is great at directing him, and actually great at directing in general. Webb did the terrific 500 Days of Summer and the last Spider-Man movie. He did very solid jobs with both. I can say the same about this movie. The romantic scenes, the web-slinging city scenes; overall he does an awesome job. He directs the entire movie with such a slick and assured vibe that you can't help but have fun. But at an over two hour running time, the cracks and many imperfections start to show through. Webb and Garfield teamed up make for a terrifically entertaining film. The acting and direction isn't the problem, it's everything else. Jamie Foxx and Dane DeHaan play the main villains, and they're both pretty terrible. Next to Garfield's wonder self-assured performance they look like amateurs. Foxx overplays the nerdy aspect of his character too much and when he finally becomes a bad guy, he doesn't know what to do. DeHaan had a decent role in the movie Chronicle. Unfortunately, he's just repeated that same performance in every movie he's been in after. The kid's being typecast as the angry young man. He did it in Chronicle, The Place Beyond the Pines,and now this. I'm getting tired of watching him sneer and yell while he looks really tired. Although DeHaan didn't do a great job, it wasn't all his fault. The original Spider-Man films were great because they focused on one villain while highlighting Peter Parker's human side. The extra super villain played by Dane DeHaan is unnecessary and irritating. He just feels shoehorned in for the sake of being shoehorned in. Jamie Foxx, while not great, was enough. We had too many subplots already for another villain. It seems like the movie's over and then DeHaan's Green Goblin character shows up and does crap that the movie didn't need! The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is a great piece of commercial filmmaking in that it gets it's job done in a slick and entertaining way that most people will enjoy. It's bad filmmaking in the general sense that it's fairly unoriginal, a bit bloated, and it's characters are hard to connect with. I will admit, I kind of had a blast with the movie. It's fun, it's enjoyable, but it's not good. Is it bad necessarily? No. But it's a little disappointing. The film is a good Saturday afternoon time killer, but it's not something I'm going to really remember. So go see it, but don't expect much. I give The Amazing Spider-Man 2 3.2 out of 5 stars. Remember you can follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies. Happy Viewing!         

My Top 50 Favorite Films

I love movies. And there are a lot of movies that I really love. So, I've decided to put together a piece on some movies that I truly really love with all my heart and soul.  This is only my Top 50. There are plenty of films I consider my favorites that aren't on here like There Will Be Blood and The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. You can see my full provisional Top 100 list here: http://letterboxd.com/whitsmovies/list/my-top-100-favorite-films/. Keep in mind these are my favorite films, not the best films. There's a difference. So, without much ado (okay that was a lot of ado), here are my top fifty favorite films of all time. Enjoy.

50. Looper
This was the first movie I reviewed. I remember watching it and being blown away at how awesome it was. Rian Johnson created an imaginative, original, and entertaining sci-fi flick with this that's different than anything else in cinemas. I must have seen it five times by now. It's a great film.

49. The Graduate
I actually only watched this the other day. I was so taken by it, I immediately began to think of it as one of my favorites. It's that good. Mike Nichols terrific direction, the acting, the smart screenplay, Simon & Garfunkel. Just writing this paragraph makes me want to watch it again.

48. Alien
Besides Star Wars, Alien is possibly the most influential science fiction movie to date. It's an astoundingly simple concept: there's a monster in an enclosed space. But it's executed with such sheer visceral awesomeness. It's the kind of movie you don't forget seeing. And that chest bursting scene with John Hurt? Wow, is all I can say.

47. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
This is the undisputed best of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and the best thing Peter Jackson has ever done. It's grand, it's groundbreaking, it's really entertaining. Incredible. The film runs three hours long, yet I was engrossed the entire time. This is one of the few Best Picture winners that really deserved it. An all around great movie.

46. Mean Streets
Martin Scorsese's 1973 feature is everything he couldn't do in his debut film. It's practically a sequel to Who's That Knocking at My Door, and it's twice as good (not that Who's That Knocking was bad at all). The performances from Keitel and De Niro are top notch and the soundtrack is classic Scorsese. A must-see for anyone ever.

45. Duck, You Sucker
Can you say overlooked? Sergio Leone's 1971 western is a fantastic film that not enough people have watched. It's emotional, political, violent, and entertaining. One of Leone's best and most underrated films.

44. Raiders of the Lost Ark
How can one not like this movie? The best of the Indiana Jones films is an all out great movie that is still fresh even today. The best adventure film of all time? Possibly. It certainly should of won Best Picture in 1982. John Williams score is as iconic as ever and it accompanies the entire movie so damn well. A true classic.

43. Manhattan 
Many call this Woody Allen's best movie. I cannot agree, but it's still terrific. I love all of Allen's old stuff because of his hilarious humor, but also because of the way he himself delivers it. Diane Keaton and Mariel Hemingway are great too. It's beautifully shot too. Definitely Allen's best directed film. The music he uses pairs with the film awesomely. It's a great homage to New York and a great movie.

42. The Wolf of Wall Street
It's not Martin Scorsese's best film, and it's not for everyone, but I really dug The Wolf. It's an insanely insane and enthralling tale of greed and decadence on Wall Street. I love Scorsese's frenetic and constantly moving directorial style a lot and it's very prevalent here. All around it's a very well made movie. Leonardo DiCaprio and Jonah Hill also give two fantastic performances here, maybe their best ever.

41-40. Kill Bill Volumes 1 & 2
Quentin Tarantino's two part revenge epic is exactly that: epic. It's filled with classic Tarantinian dialogue and violence but, Kill Bill is more than an exercise in style. It's pure, incredible, and thought-out filmmaking. Tarantino gives homage to samurai flicks and westerns here, but the movie is all his own. And it is really great.

39. Zodiac
Zodiac is one of the best crime films ever made. David Fincher took a story that's already been told a thousand times and then made one of the most chilling and riveting movies to be released in the last decade. Robert Downey Jr. and Jake Gyllenhaal give two unforgettable performances here also. Not my all-time favorite Fincher film, but I think it comes quite close.

38. Dog Day Afternoon
For a film over two hours long that takes place in about two settings, Dog Day Afternoon is really gripping. While not the best movie starring Al Pacino, Dog Day Afternoon displays what I think is Pacino's greatest performance. And that is saying A LOT. Sharp dialogue and Sidney Lumet's assured direction make this an undisputed classic film.

37. Hot Fuzz
Edgar Wright is an ingenious filmmaker. People may not have realized it yet, but he is. Every movie in the Cornetto Trilogy is in my Top 100 and I consider Hot Fuzz to be the best of the three. It's not only hilarious, but but just amazingly directed by Wright. Simon Pegg is a brilliant comic actor, and he's no different here. An endlessly rewatchable film.

36. Being John Malkovich
Charlie Kaufman is my favorite screenwriter because of how weird, funny, and insane all of his movies are. Spike Jonze is one of my favorite filmmakers because his movies are always different and refreshing. Team the two up and you get films like Adaptation and this. Strange? Yes. Genius? Absolutely. Some say Adaptation is better. As a film? Probably. But I enjoy the sheer insanity of Being John Malkovich a lot more.

35. JFK
Oliver Stone has made a lot of crappy duds like Savages and Alexander. Granted, he's also made a lot of classics like Born on the Fourth of July and Platoon. JFK is his masterpiece. Whether you believe the story or not, the movie is still a terrifically entertaining and well-made political thriller. It also showcases a surprisingly good Kevin Costner performance. Even at three hours it's enthralling. A terrific film.

34. The Grand Budapest Hotel 
So what if this movie only came out a couple of months ago? It's fantastic! I really love Wes Anderson. I think he's a more than brilliant writer/director and I can't get enough of his wonderful style. Maybe that's why I was so taken with The Grand Budapest Hotel. Maybe it's also because it's a fantastic movie with great performances by Ralph Fiennes, Willem Dafoe, and many others. It's my favorite Wes Anderson film. And that's coming from a huge Wes Anderson fan.

33. The Dark Knight Rises
Most people prefer the second Batman flick, The Dark Knight, to this one. Me? I saw this three times in theaters. Sure, the second film has an unforgettable Heath Ledger performance, but The Dark Knight Rises is my personal favorite of the trilogy. It's great popcorn entertainment, but it's also damn good pure cinema. Nolan is a master of his craft and a super movie maker.

32.Moon
Sam Rockwell may be my favorite actor. He's terrific in anything. Moon is no exception. In fact, it's his best performance ever. Just watch the film and you'll see. Otherwise, Moon is a fantastic and realistic sci-fi film that really makes you think. Duncan Jones has a promising future in movies.

31. Taxi Driver
As I've said plenty of times, Martin Scorsese is my favorite director. His films are astonishingly well made and almost always fantastic. I count many as my favorites. Taxi Driver is a chilling portrayal of a man unhinged in the hellish streets of NYC. A great film in every way that stays with you long after you watch it. And De Niro is great in it too.

30. Seven Psychopaths
I often call Martin McDonagh the next Tarantino. His movies (especially this one) are terrifically written, very violent, and funny. He's a genius. Although In Bruges was great, I like Seven Psychopaths better. It's like Adaptation on steroids. A look at a troubled man with writer's block, mixed in with great dialogue and insane action. A future classic.

29. Rear Window
I think Psycho is Hitchcock's best film, but Rear Window is my favorite. It's a thrilling thriller that never ceases to entertain. Jimmy Stewart gives a great performance as the only major character in the movie. Alfred Hitchcock is often lauded as one of cinema's greatest directors. It's no surprise. He's a genius. Don't believe me? Go watch Rear Window.

28. American Beauty
American Beauty is beautiful. A dad falling in love with his daughter's friend may sound like an odd idea for a movie, but it works so well here. Kevin Spacey gives his best performance yet here as Lester Burnham, the aforementioned father. It's wonderfully directed and wittily written. One movie that really earned it's Best Picture win.

27. Apocalypse Now
Francis Ford Coppola's 1979 Vietnam war epic is one of the greatest films ever made. Personally, I think it's better made than his Godfather trilogy, but I like The Godfather films a little better. Apocalypse Now is an incredibly well made classic and a hypnotic look at madness, war, and horror.

26. Star Wars 
What can I say that hasn't already been said about this science fiction landmark? I'm talking about the first, and best film, of the series. It's entertaining, fun, and revolutionary. I don't think there was, or ever will be a film as earth shattering for the entertainment industry as Star Wars is. Seriously, who hasn't seen it? I remember watching it on VHS as a little kid and being completely wowed by just the visuals alone. And hey, it has a pretty good story too.

25. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
This was the first western I was ever shown and one of the earliest movies I remember calling my favorite. Butch and Sundance are very close to me. I consider this one of the most beautifully filmed movies of all time. With all time great performances (Especially by Paul Newman) and a terrifically written script, this is fantastic cinema.

24. Raging Bull
Is there a film that captures the inner workings of a troubled man better than Raging Bull? I think not. Scorsese has a knack for doing films like that. King of Comedy, Taxi Driver, and Shutter Island all deal with the subject. But none do it as well as Raging Bull. Plus, Robert De Niro gives possibly his best performance ever as Jake La Motta.

23. Blade Runner
I don't think there's a movie out there that's as immersing and beautiful than Blade Runner. From the opening shots I'm dragged into the dystopian world where it always rains and is inhabited by philosophical androids. Time to die.

22. The Godfather
"I believe in America" are the words that start off the near perfect film that is The Godfather. Francis Ford Coppola's more recent films may have fallen in quality, but the absolute classics he made in the past are enough to grant him complete forgiveness. The Godfather is really great. It's ridiculously entertaining for a three hour film, packed full of amazing performances, with fantastic cinematography.

21. The Godfather Part II
I might be somewhat alone here, but I think The Godfather Part II is the superior movie in the trilogy. It's so good it's kind of crazy. Coppola expands on the character of Micheal Corleone while simultaneously filling in Vito's back story. The addition of De Niro is terrific. I also liked how they added in the tension with Fredo and his story. It's a shame Pacino didn't win an Oscar for his role here. A cinema landmark.

20. Inglorious Basterds
Quentin Tarantino is one of my all time favorite directors. Right up there with Scorsese and Sergio Leone. I have seen, and love, all of his movies. Inglorious Basterds is one of his best. It's witty, entertaining, fresh, and with all the classic Tarantino signatures. It's somewhat a tale of revenge, as many of his films are, but also a solid war picture. Something we haven't seen since maybe Platoon. An all timer worth many watches.

19. Back to the Future
If I tried to tell you the number of times I've seen this movie I couldn't because it's ridiculous. It probably isn't as "good" a film as Apocalypse Now or Raging Bull but I love it all the same. It's a movie I enjoy so much it transcends all rational judgement and criticism. It isn't actually perfect, but I see it as such. Hey, I may go watch it again.

18. The Searchers 
People often say all westerns are cliche. People are wrong. The Searchers is one of the greatest and most beautiful movies ever filmed. It combines fun western action, with top notch performances, wonderful direction by John Ford, and a meaningful underlying message. It's no wonder it is considered one of the greatest films ever made.

17. The Departed
Haven't gotten tired of Scorsese yet? Good. There's more to come. Most people don't count The Departed as one of Martin Scorsese's best films. I'm not most people. The Departed is another look into the life of the mob (this time the Irish one) while also looking into the corrupt police force and whole of Boston. It's a terrific movie that never gets old. DiCaprio is great. Damon is great. Marky Mark Wahlberg is great. IT is great.

16. Donnie Darko
A dark and beautiful film that is still damn confusing no matter how many times you see it. But that's what makes it so awesome. Richard Kelly's debut picture is a strange little movie about teen angst and time travel starring the very underrated Jake Gyllenhaal. It's fantastic. Really.

15. Magnolia
Paul Thomas Anderson's 1999 ensemble film is also one of his best films. It's an astonishingly original and beautiful story, supported by amazing performances (I'm looking at you Tom Cruise), and great direction. It's the movie that put Paul Thomas Anderson on my ever-growing list of favorite directors. It may be three hours, but I was enthralled in every second of Magnolia. R.I.P Philip Seymour Hoffman. This movie is great!

14. Fargo
Fargo is one of my favorites for two reasons. Marge Gunderson (played wonderfully by Frances McDormand) and I don't need another a reason to love this movie! I kid, there are at least one hundred other reasons why Fargo is great. The screenplay, the other actors, the great story, etc. I could go on and on. The Coen Brothers are masters of the black comedy genre and they ace it again here. Oh ya, it's terrific.

13. Fight Club
Fight Club wasn't exactly lauded by critics when it first came out, which I find very puzzling. Now it's a universally loved classic. As it should be. Fight Club is a crazy good mind-bender filled with interesting questions and even more interesting answers. It's just an interesting movie. I think it Fincher's best work. He did some great stuff with Fight Club. Popularizing bullet time and making this crazy film a little more insane. The always good Brad Pitt is awesome in it and Edward Norton is terrific too. An A+ film.

12. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Did I say Blade Runner was the most beautiful movie ever made before? Because I may have to shift that title over to Eternal Sunshine. Charlie Kaufman's best work about love and relationships is as trippy as it is wholly wonderful. It's the movie that proved Jim Carrey as a great actor. It's a movie I can watch again and again and again.

11. Once Upon a Time in the West
The gunfights. The railroad. The actors. Ennio Morricone's musical score. Everything about Once Upon a Time in the West is fantastically awesome. Sergio Leone was a master of the western genre. His movies went beyond the norm with their distinct Leone-ian Italian style. He created the spaghetti western and in doing so revolutionized the entire western genre. Once Upon a Time in the West is one of his best. A classic every person should see twice.

10. Her
What? Her came out a few months ago! How could it already be in my Top 10? Because it is original, funny, beautiful, and oh-so good. Spike Jonze is an incredible filmmaker whose latest work is undoubtedly one of the best films I've seen in years. It asks questions about the future and AI while commenting on present society. Joaquin Phoenix is great and Scarlett Johansson is insanely amazing as Samantha. It's also hysterical and a truly genius movie. One I've already seen twice and plan on watching many more times.

9. Reservoir Dogs
This is another one of those movies I've seen an insane amount of times. Maybe eleven, maybe twenty. Reservoir Dogs is Quentin Tarantino's gloriously bloody debut film that I absolutely love. The dialogue is as sharp as a samurai sword and the pace is as swift as a 1950's Cadillac. Just the opening diner scene alone is enough to put a big goofy grin on my face. I love it so damn much. Hey, I may go watch it again.

8. The Shawshank Redemption
Isn't this *everyone's* favorite movie? It has good reason to be. The Shawshank Redemption is film about hope, but it's also about so much more. The acting is through the roof, Morgan Freeman's peformance alone seals the deal. This is Frank Darabont's best movie. It is damn near perfect. How can one not like The Shawshank Redemption?

7. The Shining
Stanley Kubrick is undisputedly one of cinema's great masters. The Shining is undisputedly one of Kubrick's finest films. On one level it's a simple horror flick about a man gone mad. On another level it's a semi-philosophical supernatural drama that transcends even Kubrick himself. It's terrifically entertaining and incredibly well filmed. Kubrick is a master, and this is one masterful film.

6. The Big Lebowski
There is no movie as endlessly quotable and entertaining as The Big Lebowski. With this film, The Coen Brothers have created a character as astounding and incredible as he is lazy. The story is hilarious and the script is really well written, but it's all about Jeff "The Dude" Lebowski. One of cinema's most endearing characters.

5. 2001: A Space Odyssey
Kubrick again! Damn, that guy makes good movies. I had the privilege of watching this masterpiece on the big screen and it was one of the most mind-blowing experiences of my young life. I'm not entirely sure what this movie is exactly "about", but I know it is incredible. An amazing feat of technical prowess and thoughtful filmmaking. A true classic.

4. The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
You may have noticed I like westerns by now. Particularly, Sergio Leone westerns. The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly tops them all. It's a mind boggling-ly well made film that hasn't aged a day, over forty years after it was released. Sergio Leone's magnum opus may not have the most original of stories, but the way he presents it all...oh man is it spectacular. This is grand and incredible movie making.

3. Pulp Fiction
Quentin Tarantino peaked with Pulp Fiction in 1994. He still makes great pictures but this is his best. Just the dialogue alone is enough to put this film on here. I don't even know what to say. It's wonderfully directed. With superb acting. And it's just a damn fine movie. Tarantino's movies are so startlingly fresh and original, this is his all-time best work.

2. Annie Hall   
My god is Annie Hall endlessly wonderful. I've seen this film so many time and it brings me so much joy. It's incredibly sharp and one of the funniest, if not the funniest, films of all time. Although I'm not a huge fan of Woody Allen's more recent stuff, he is still a genius. He's not only really funny, but great at making movies. This, my friends, is his best.

1. Goodfellas
If there ever was a perfect film, Goodfellas is it. Have I mentioned Martin Scorsese is my favorite director? There's a reason, and that reason is Goodfellas. Watching this is like looking at the Mona Lisa, except it's way more fun. Film making at it's finest. I could literally watch Goodfellas all day. Each watch brings something new. It's quotable, wonderful, and glorious. Every frame of it is great. Goodfellas is more than just good, it's my favorite movie. And not to brag, but I've seen a decent amount of movies. Goodfellas is top-of-the-line cinema.

So there it is! My fifty favorite films of all time. Keep in mind this list may change as I am always watching new movies. You can check the link I posted above for updates. But for now, this is it. Hope you liked it. Now I think I'm gonna go watch Goodfellas again. Happy Viewing!
If you haven't already, you can follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies!