Progressive Pessimist's Favorite Films

[Meclazine for Israel]

Blade Runner is so good I can just listen to the soundtrack and still get a buzz.

I was 11 when it came out and it had an amazing effect when I watched it a couple of years later.

But even as an adult, a rewatch highlights just how profound it was in terms of sci-fi movie development.

[Progressive Pessimist]

As promised:

'Blade Runner 2049' (2017), Directed by Denis Villeneuve:

It's hard to know where to begin with this movie because there is a lot to factor into it from the hesitant expectations fans of the franchise like myself had for it to what a seemingly unnecessary cash-grab it looked like. Basically, my point is that this movie had a lot of baggage before I saw it, and it needed to impress me. Naturally, it did in spades.

I would go as far as to say that it is one of the best sequels ever, and even surpasses the original while also making it better. That is an astonishing feat and I am pretty much in awe that Villeneueve accomplished this.

It does everything the original did in ways that respect it and the audience. There are few to no "member berries" or movie interrupting Easter eggs, but it still manages to deliver subtle satisfaction to longtime fans of the franchise and, as I mentioned last time, retroactively addresses some small holes in the first film's narrative. It even gives a nod to the infamous discussion of whether Deckard is a replicant or not and handles it in a way that should satisfy everyone. It does nearly everything as well, or even better than the first from the visuals to the new conflict and advancing the world-building of this universe, the music, the new characters (my favorite being Luv, one of the antagonists who is actually something of a tragic character), new concepts (who wouldn't want their own virtual Ana De Armas companion?), and even possibly having a better mystery which is filled with intrigue and twists and turns, hell Harrison Ford actually seems to give a damn in this role and the character of Deckard gets a nice resolution to all he has been through across two movies.

Fans overall actually seem pretty divided on whether it is better than the original or not, I'm in that camp, but it still seems almost universally well-regarded as one of the best sequels ever, and keeps the average of the series' quality high unlike something like 'Star Wars' where the quality fluctuates so much. It's just a shame that it wasn't a financial hit-which it never should have been expected to be. 'Blade Runner' as a franchise was always less mainstream than other sci-fi properties, and the original wasn't even a big hit until decades later as a cult film. But that's almost a good thing because we have two incredible entries into a film franchise that may not be tainted ever again with the risk of more unnecessary sequels being made solely for profit as we see so often these days.

Yeah, it's almost three hours long and gets some criticism for meandering a bit and being a bit too "in love with its own visuals" but that never bothered me since I am in love with them too. It's such a beautiful film in so many ways. And if you're like me you'll feel the same way. I think the best way to watch the film is to watch it shortly after watching the first one, then the three shorts on Youtube which clarify a few details in the plot of '2049' but aren't mandatory to watch-I like and recommend them though (especially the anime-styled one about the "Blackout"), then finally watching '2049.' It will make you think and you may find yourself puzzling over it for days or even weeks after you first see it, like I did. But then again, I'm weird, so maybe this will fall on deaf ears.

[Progressive Pessimist]

On the back of one cult film that didn't really find an audience until later, here's another one:

'The Shining' (1980), Directed by Stanley Kubrick:

This is the first of possibly Kubrick's entire filmography that may appear on this list sooner or later. 'The Shining' in particular is significant in my movie-viewing history since it was the first horror movie I ever saw that really made me realize that this genre could have artistic merit. I first saw it around age 16, a time when horror films like 'Saw' were being released yearly or being constantly remade or rebooted and when I was no longer as easily frightened by the likes of Jason Voorhees and such. So I kind of had my nose turned up at horror films more often than not. Then I saw 'The Shining' in a film study class and while I was already familiar with other Kubrick films, this one always eluded me. But upon seeing it I was impressed how a movie could be scary without being schlocky and have relatable characters and situations, as well as having artistry and subtext to it, great acting, etc. and it's no surprise that Kubrick was able to do this, especially since most Stephen King horror adaptations tend to be mostly misses.

From here I found myself able to recognize when a horror movie wasn't just commercially thrown together junk and since then many horror movies with capable directors have delivered some movies that I would call my favorites ever. 'The Shining' was my gateway to having that appreciation. Granted, there are still some cheap jump scares and ridiculous moments (like the bear suit blowjob-I kind of love that though) as well as a slow pacing that probably put-off general audiences back in 1980 and led to the movie being only kind of an underground hit, even until today where it's legacy sequel from 2019, 'Doctor Sleep' wasn't much of a success either (another contender for best sequels ever, though it might not make this list). It shares that with 'Blade Runner' but at least there is admiration for these kind of films in some ways, even if they never earned that financial affection.

[Landslide Lyndon]

As promised:

'Blade Runner 2049' (2017), Directed by Denis Villeneuve:

It's hard to know where to begin with this movie because there is a lot to factor into it from the hesitant expectations fans of the franchise like myself had for it to what a seemingly unnecessary cash-grab it looked like. Basically, my point is that this movie had a lot of baggage before I saw it, and it needed to impress me. Naturally, it did in spades.

I would go as far as to say that it is one of the best sequels ever, and even surpasses the original while also making it better. That is an astonishing feat and I am pretty much in awe that Villeneueve accomplished this.

It does everything the original did in ways that respect it and the audience. There are few to no "member berries" or movie interrupting Easter eggs, but it still manages to deliver subtle satisfaction to longtime fans of the franchise and, as I mentioned last time, retroactively addresses some small holes in the first film's narrative. It even gives a nod to the infamous discussion of whether Deckard is a replicant or not and handles it in a way that should satisfy everyone. It does nearly everything as well, or even better than the first from the visuals to the new conflict and advancing the world-building of this universe, the music, the new characters (my favorite being Luv, one of the antagonists who is actually something of a tragic character), new concepts (who wouldn't want their own virtual Ana De Armas companion?), and even possibly having a better mystery which is filled with intrigue and twists and turns, hell Harrison Ford actually seems to give a damn in this role and the character of Deckard gets a nice resolution to all he has been through across two movies.

Fans overall actually seem pretty divided on whether it is better than the original or not, I'm in that camp, but it still seems almost universally well-regarded as one of the best sequels ever, and keeps the average of the series' quality high unlike something like 'Star Wars' where the quality fluctuates so much. It's just a shame that it wasn't a financial hit-which it never should have been expected to be. 'Blade Runner' as a franchise was always less mainstream than other sci-fi properties, and the original wasn't even a big hit until decades later as a cult film. But that's almost a good thing because we have two incredible entries into a film franchise that may not be tainted ever again with the risk of more unnecessary sequels being made solely for profit as we see so often these days.

Yeah, it's almost three hours long and gets some criticism for meandering a bit and being a bit too "in love with its own visuals" but that never bothered me since I am in love with them too. It's such a beautiful film in so many ways. And if you're like me you'll feel the same way. I think the best way to watch the film is to watch it shortly after watching the first one, then the three shorts on Youtube which clarify a few details in the plot of '2049' but aren't mandatory to watch-I like and recommend them though (especially the anime-styled one about the "Blackout"), then finally watching '2049.' It will make you think and you may find yourself puzzling over it for days or even weeks after you first see it, like I did. But then again, I'm weird, so maybe this will fall on deaf ears.

I love the first Blade Runner. I consider it one of the top three hard sci-fi films ever along with 2001: A Space Odyssey and Contact.
But 2049 bored me to tears. Unlike the first one where the pace was deliberate in this one it's soporific. I dozed off during the scenes at San Diego and Las Vegas. The only things worthwhile are Deakins' cinematography, Harrison Ford, and Ana De Armas.

[Progressive Pessimist]

As promised:

'Blade Runner 2049' (2017), Directed by Denis Villeneuve:

It's hard to know where to begin with this movie because there is a lot to factor into it from the hesitant expectations fans of the franchise like myself had for it to what a seemingly unnecessary cash-grab it looked like. Basically, my point is that this movie had a lot of baggage before I saw it, and it needed to impress me. Naturally, it did in spades.

I would go as far as to say that it is one of the best sequels ever, and even surpasses the original while also making it better. That is an astonishing feat and I am pretty much in awe that Villeneueve accomplished this.

It does everything the original did in ways that respect it and the audience. There are few to no "member berries" or movie interrupting Easter eggs, but it still manages to deliver subtle satisfaction to longtime fans of the franchise and, as I mentioned last time, retroactively addresses some small holes in the first film's narrative. It even gives a nod to the infamous discussion of whether Deckard is a replicant or not and handles it in a way that should satisfy everyone. It does nearly everything as well, or even better than the first from the visuals to the new conflict and advancing the world-building of this universe, the music, the new characters (my favorite being Luv, one of the antagonists who is actually something of a tragic character), new concepts (who wouldn't want their own virtual Ana De Armas companion?), and even possibly having a better mystery which is filled with intrigue and twists and turns, hell Harrison Ford actually seems to give a damn in this role and the character of Deckard gets a nice resolution to all he has been through across two movies.

Fans overall actually seem pretty divided on whether it is better than the original or not, I'm in that camp, but it still seems almost universally well-regarded as one of the best sequels ever, and keeps the average of the series' quality high unlike something like 'Star Wars' where the quality fluctuates so much. It's just a shame that it wasn't a financial hit-which it never should have been expected to be. 'Blade Runner' as a franchise was always less mainstream than other sci-fi properties, and the original wasn't even a big hit until decades later as a cult film. But that's almost a good thing because we have two incredible entries into a film franchise that may not be tainted ever again with the risk of more unnecessary sequels being made solely for profit as we see so often these days.

Yeah, it's almost three hours long and gets some criticism for meandering a bit and being a bit too "in love with its own visuals" but that never bothered me since I am in love with them too. It's such a beautiful film in so many ways. And if you're like me you'll feel the same way. I think the best way to watch the film is to watch it shortly after watching the first one, then the three shorts on Youtube which clarify a few details in the plot of '2049' but aren't mandatory to watch-I like and recommend them though (especially the anime-styled one about the "Blackout"), then finally watching '2049.' It will make you think and you may find yourself puzzling over it for days or even weeks after you first see it, like I did. But then again, I'm weird, so maybe this will fall on deaf ears.

I love the first Blade Runner. I consider it one of the top three hard sci-fi films ever along with 2001: A Space Odyssey and Contact.
But 2049 bored me to tears. Unlike the first one where the pace was deliberate in this one it's soporific. I dozed off during the scenes at San Diego and Las Vegas. The only things worthwhile are Deakins' cinematography, Harrison Ford, and Ana De Armas.

Different strokes and all that, I guess. I personally didn't mind its pace being much slower than the original's.

[Progressive Pessimist]

'A Serious Man' (2009), Directed by Joel and Ethan Coen:

The Coen brothers' filmography is one that I have very complicated feelings on ranging from loving some of their moves to being completely ambivalent on them to even hating them. This one, obviously, is one I love and find to be one of their most underrated films. It's essentially a retelling of the Book of Job set in the 1960's where a Jewish-American physics professor faces an existential crisis as seemingly everything in his life falls apart and tests his faith.

As some of my other entries have suggested before, I tend to love movies where things constantly go wrong for a protagonist. I'm not sure why but it might be because I like seeing how characters react to conflict in their own ways, especially if they're flawed or make bad decisions. We get that here, but our protagnist, Michael Gopnik isn't really a selfish, amoral person unlike someone like Howard Ratner from 'Uncut Gems' which the movie shares much in common with (and not just because of the Jewish characters). Here, everything really does seem out of Michael's control who is simply an ordinary family man trying to do his best for his loved ones and live an honest life. It's as if he is being punished and tormented by a force beyond his understanding. But unlike the Book of Job, Michael questions his faith and you...or at least I, as an audience member relate to that. If God does exist why does he has to torture his subjects like this? It's really kind of f***ed up and it's something that I think a lot of Jews, like myself, go through when it comes to our understanding of the religion's theology and our ethnicity's history. Aren't we the chosen people? Why have we gone through so much hardship? If God is doing that to test us, why should we worship him as a benevolent being?

Beyond those big questions, I especially love the contrast between Michael being a physics professor, having a knowledge of the most specific and complicated aspects of science, yet being unable to understand why everything he once had is being lost and whether it's fair or not, or all just a coincidence. Even if you take the supernatural implications of this being the Book of Job out of it, it's still just really upsetting to see someone seemingly undeserving of this fate go through it, and Michael Stuhlbarg who plays Michael Gopnik, truly sells this. I always thought he was an underrated character actor, and I've liked him in everything he's been featured in since first seeing him in this movie.

And if the movie sounds depressing-that's another great aspect of it-it's actually kind of a comedy in the vein of some other Coen brothers' films. It balances the drama and the comedy very well, if you ask me. And of course, it features some of the usual weird Coen character quirks like Michael's daughter who is obsessed with washing her hair for whatever reason. I can't say that I completely understood some parts of the story like that and why they're important or relevant, but I definitely understood this movie better than certain other films by the Coens.

As I also think I mentioned before, movies that touch on complicated aspects of Jewish identity always resonate with me as well. Expect more like this even though this is only the second edition of that theme in this favorite movies thread.

[Progressive Pessimist]

'Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory' (1971), Directed by Mel Stuart:

This is simply a childhood favorite of mine that still holds up today...in fact it might hold up even better. I remember being confused as a child by the montage of random people exaggeratedly reacting to the Wonka contest from across the world, but as a cynical adult those are now some of my favorite parts of the movie. A woman whose husband is being held hostage for her case of Wonka bars that she has to think about? That is so dark and hilarious and such an interesting inclusion into a family movie. It is still a family movie but there are plenty more dark moments that are very memorable and still fun in many ways. I guess you could say it's chock full of them! *Dodges tomato*. But in spite of all those peculiar grim moments it's still an incredibly charming and lovable musical romp that will make you want to eat everything in the Wonka factory. I cannot watch this movie without getting a hankering for chocolate and gummy bears.

I could nitpick though in watching it as an adult. For one thing "Cheer Up, Charlie" is still the most boring part of the movie and worst song. I still don't really understand why Violet was deserving of a punishment by Wonka just because she liked chewing gum to an excessive point. And how much of a jackass everyone is to Charlie. The candy store guy gives free candy to all the neighborhood children but not Charlie, and Grandpa Joe seemingly fakes lameness and spends the family's hard-earned money by his daughter and Charlie on tobacco!? But the fact that all that can bother me but still not ruin the movie even slightly should say a lot about how much I love it. And I cannot even begin to laud Gene Wilder enough as Willy Wonka himself.

This is also an important movie in  my growth as a cinephile because it's Tim Burton remake from 2005 was the first time I realized that some movies are sacred and should not be touched unless they are truly re-adapated or given sequels that have the best work and talent in them possible. I hated the Burton film even at age 12, and I noticed even then how much it missed the mark with everything that made the original so unique and beloved. And that's a problem that persists with many remakes and cash-grab sequels/prequels even to this day, with some very rare exceptions. And the upcoming one with Timothee Chalamet looks to not be an exception to me. That's kind of what inspired me to write this entry today.

[Progressive Pessimist]

This edition is going to be a very special, one-time occasion:

'Fateful Findings' (2012), Directed by Neil Breen:

My love of finding enjoyably bad movies should be well-known by now, and given that Neil Breen has his newest movie out recently, I just had to include at least one "good-bad" movie. But this one in particular is the greatest bad movie I have ever seen. And I've seen so many. This film is indeed bad in almost every technical way but it is also absolutely fascinating and unique. I've seen excellent movies that haven't left me with my mouth agape at its conclusion like this one did, for better or worse.

Neil Breen is a true auteur. And I am not being sarcastic. He has his own signature inclusions and themes in his movies that even when they possess similarities are always original. It also does not get old like 'The Room' did to me eventually. Every frame of this film has something baffling or engaging in it. Even if you aren't laughing you are using every brain cell in your mind to try and process what is happening or why. Why does he repeat all his dialogue? Why do characters drop or throw objects all the time? Who needs that many laptops!? He has six movies to his name right now, and sadly I have only seen two-this one and 'Twisted Pair.' It is my life's mission to watch his other four and then I can die happy.

The two of his films I have watched are both on Youtube and I recommend them both, but especially 'Fateful Findings' (which I think is superior to 'Twiested Pair' as fun as that film that can also be). Even if you don't have the tolerance to watch bad movies for fun like I do, it will be a cinematic experience that is incomparable to anything you have ever seen. I would love to see what Breen would do with a real budget and real production, but until then I simply have to admire his ambition and consistency with what is making due with. He's called the "Breenius" for a reason. And due to that I felt compelled to "honor" him here.

[Progressive Pessimist]

'Die Hard' (1988), Directed by John McTiernan:

I think I mentioned before that action tends to not always be my favorite of the big popcorn genres. To me I more appreciate enjoyable schlock that doesn't take itself too seriously like 'Face/Off' instead of serious, but not too serious kinds of action which probably constitute the average action movie in that sort of middle-ground. Those tend to not hold my interest for whatever reason with 'Die Hard' as the exception to that, as you might have expected.

This is the pinnacle of action movies to me and has what I want out of a mainstream action movie that can make me invested in it. There is a reason why this became one of the most ripped-off templates for action movies in the early 90's trend of "'Die Hard on a ___.'" But none come close to the original. Hell, its own sequels don't even come close.

What makes this movie so great to me to the point of it being a film I can always watch whenever it's on (and make an effort to watch every Christmas-it is a Christmas movie, dammit!) is the fact that John McClane is just an average guy in the wrong place at the wrong time and has to use the skills he has to settle a dangerous situation being vulnerable and even unsure what to do at times, but far more relatable than a Schwarzeneggar character, for instance. And that situation he is in is driven by another great character, Hans Gruber, who is just so cool and in control all the time until the very end when he gets outsmarted. He is one of my favorite villains in film history and is such a great foil to one of my favorite protagonists in turn. It's just a such a well-written action movie that has enough humor and light-heartedness to it while still taking itself seriously, offering exciting action, and making you care about the characters and stakes of the scenario.

I could go on about other characters and details I love, but I want to end on a sentimental note since the next time I watch it will be the first time since Bruce Willis retired from acting. It makes me a little melancholy, and that's compounded by Alan Rickman having passed away a few years ago too. But no matter what kind of mood I'm in this classic will always perks me up.

[Landslide Lyndon]

'Die Hard' (1988), Directed by John McTiernan:

I think I mentioned before that action tends to not always be my favorite of the big popcorn genres. To me I more appreciate enjoyable schlock that doesn't take itself too seriously like 'Face/Off' instead of serious, but not too serious kinds of action which probably constitute the average action movie in that sort of middle-ground. Those tend to not hold my interest for whatever reason with 'Die Hard' as the exception to that, as you might have expected.

This is the pinnacle of action movies to me and has what I want out of a mainstream action movie that can make me invested in it. There is a reason why this became one of the most ripped-off templates for action movies in the early 90's trend of "'Die Hard on a ___.'" But none come close to the original. Hell, its own sequels don't even come close.

What makes this movie so great to me to the point of it being a film I can always watch whenever it's on (and make an effort to watch every Christmas-it is a Christmas movie, dammit!) is the fact that John McClane is just an average guy in the wrong place at the wrong time and has to use the skills he has to settle a dangerous situation being vulnerable and even unsure what to do at times, but far more relatable than a Schwarzeneggar character, for instance. And that situation he is in is driven by another great character, Hans Gruber, who is just so cool and in control all the time until the very end when he gets outsmarted. He is one of my favorite villains in film history and is such a great foil to one of my favorite protagonists in turn. It's just a such a well-written action movie that has enough humor and light-heartedness to it while still taking itself seriously, offering exciting action, and making you care about the characters and stakes of the scenario.

I could go on about other characters and details I love, but I want to end on a sentimental note since the next time I watch it will be the first time since Bruce Willis retired from acting. It makes me a little melancholy, and that's compounded by Alan Rickman having passed away a few years ago too. But no matter what kind of mood I'm in this classic will always perks me up.

I always found the third Die Hard the best of the series.
Sam Jackson and Jeremy Irons are great and the set-pieces around NYC are spectacular.

[Progressive Pessimist]

SNIP

I always found the third Die Hard the best of the series.
Sam Jackson and Jeremy Irons are great and the set-pieces around NYC are spectacular.

The third is probably the best of the sequels, but by that point the film series felt less special to me and more formulaic and forced as opposed to the first one which did feel inspired.

Anyway, my next entry, brought on by the director having a new film coming out soon starring one of the same main characters from this one:

'Sideways' (2004), Directed by Alexander Payne:

Alexander Payne is another director who might have most of the films in his filmography be featured here at some point. While many of his movies are somewhat similar in featuring complicated protagonists going on an existential, life-changing road trip-they are always very compelling and different enough to me. My favorite of all those is of course this one. In this case, two best friends go on a road-trip for a bachelor party weekend in California's wine country (Santa Barbara in this case) where one of them has an ulterior motive that leads to hilarity and chaos.

 It's such a well-crafted, well-acted, and well-directed character based story which I have always found disturbingly relatable. It might be something I should be embarrassed to admit, but I always felt a kinship with Paul Giamatti's character of Miles. I may not be a divorced alcoholic like him but I am an anxious, insecure, confidence lacking, depressed, neurotic, mess of a person. Furthermore I have a close friend who is a lot like Jack, played by Thomas Hayden Church, who is very much the inverse of Miles yet shares a close, unlikely friendship. Both of them are also deeply flawed people and do some foul actions, but they feel realistic enough and both have enough charm where you can forgive them and continue enjoying watching them and their antics. Those kinds of characters, as other entries on this list may indicate, are right up my alley. It's kind of eerie to me how it almost feels like this movie was made for me; right down to its fairly dark, cynical sense of humor that is balanced incredibly well with some drama that doesn't get too sappy or over-the-top. The only way I could like this movie more is if I was actually a wine-o (wineo?, wino?) and not a teetotaler. But the wine itself is interesting as an overarching thematic element of the film, even if you aren't ordinarily into alcohol. It all comes together so well in such a fun, yet also smart little misadventure full of wild, yet still somehow believable moments. It's a movie I can watch anytime, and if you haven't seen it, I cannot recommend it more...just don't drink any f***ing Merlot while you view it!

[Progressive Pessimist]

'Fiddler on the Roof' (1971), Directed by Norman Jewison:

Since it was Yom Kippur earlier in the week, what better time to discuss one of my favorites in a genre I don't often care for? In this instance, musicals. Sure, I talked about 'Willy Wonka' before, but this is a legitimate adaptation of something that was a musical first. It's a wonder of wonders and miracle of miracles that I like this movie as much as I do because it does have the conventional trappings of musicals where people stop what they're doing and sing what they want to say in an elaborate number. Usually I hate that, yet here I am into it for whatever reason. And I believe part of that is because of the subject matter and the music itself.

Pertaining to the subject it involves an Ashkenazi Jewish milkman in the Russian Pale of Settlement just before the 1917 revolution as he faces the prospect of marrying off his three daughters, making ends meet, facing conflicts with his faith, and facing persecution. Minus the music this was the story of my ancestors and it isn't often a time period that is seen in films as Hollywood tends to only really depict Jewish characters in either the Old Testament days or during the Holocaust. It was hard for me not to relate to the conflicts in this movie, and as has been evident by my past entries, I am a sucker for media that deals with Jewish identity and faith as is something I and most other Jews I know have faced in their lives.

But beyond that, the songs are just plain classics in many ways. Even if you've never seen the musical or an adaptation of it, you know "If I Were a Rich Man," "Matchmaker," and "Sunrise, Sunset." They are all wonderful songs and musical numbers that range from fun to somber. And that's true of the whole movie and the lesser known numbers too. For every sad moment there is also some lightheartedness and joy in another moment. There are many emotions the movie wants you to have and I think it succeeds at it while other musicals usually focus on just one singular tone that gets old after awhile. And most of all it doesn't come across as cheesy or kitschy. They also never feel like they go on longer than they need to.

It's another three hour epic, but I still have to recommend it to gentile and Jew alike. Hell, this ought to be a mandatory watch for any Jew out there, of which the director is not, despite his last name (showing up on this list for the second time, by the way).

[MarkD]

I remember learning the songs "If I Were a Rich Man" and "Sunrise, Sunset" when I was in 7th grade music class, even before I ever saw the musical.

Some day I want to sing "If I Were a Rich Man" as a solo, and as I sing it, I want to make the audience laugh a little by adding a spoken line I came up with on my own:
The most important men in town will come to fawn on me.
They will ask me to advise them, like a Solomon the Wise.
"If you please, Reb Tevye." "Pardon me, Reb Tevye."
Posing problems that would cross a Rabbi's eyes!
And it won't make one bit of difference if I answer right or wrong.
When you're rich they think you really know.
"Which is a lot like being a Supreme Court Justice."

[Progressive Pessimist]

I think for the month of October I am going to focus on other horror films I love in the lead-up to Halloween. First will be:

'The Exorcist III' (1990), Directed by William Peter Blatty:

The original 'Exorcist' film was never really a horror movie that resonated with me. I get why it was such a huge success for the time, but when I ended up seeing it for the first time I might have been too desensitized by modern horror to find it all that compelling or scary. Definitely a well-made and revolutionary film, yet not for me.

The third entry in the series, written and directed by the author of the book series himself, ended up being much more up my alley. I enjoy a good detective mystery film, and this film combines that with a supernatural horror film and depicts its story in a very procedural way which I always found unique. In it a detective (played by the ever-intense George C. Scott) investigates the supposed reappearance of a serial killer largely thought of to have already been executed in prison years after the events of the original film. At first the connection to the first movie seems tenuous though if you're patient and go through the investigation with Scott's character, you'll probably be just as overwhelmed as he is when the connection and explanation becomes clear. It's a little on the ridiculous side, but believable enough in this universe where demons are certain to exist. I want to also give props to Brad Dourif for his incredibly frightening and unhinged appearance in the film, but I don't want to spoil his role. He is an underrated horror villain in this overall underrated horror film which has a staggering amount of moments that are among the scariest scenes and imagery I have ever seen. Horror is subjective though this movie does a good job at keeping certain scares subtle enough while others border on jump-scares (earned ones though)-whatever is more appropriate. You'll also get some payoff for the grisly violence that is teased very early in the movie when a crime scene is described. When you finally see what he describes it is one of the most disturbing and morbid ways of killing someone and portraying their corpse as "art" you can imagine. No matter what there is just this completely uncomfortable, eerie feeling it instills in you, even during the most mundane scenes.

I wish this film was as well-received as its predecessor. It's certainly better than 'The Exorcist II: The Heretic' which is complete and utter nonsense (with no involvement from Blatty, the author). I would even go as far as to say that it's better than the first one. Though to get the most out of it you might need to watch the original film (skip II-it has no impact on III whatsoever). No matter what, this is a piece of cinema that delivers on everything it promises and I am happy to see that it's sort of been gaining more popularity over the years after getting sort of lackluster reviews upon its release. It's a cult hit in many ways though I wouldn't say that it's too much of a stretch to consider myself a worshiper of it.

[Progressive Pessimist]

A bit of a delay here, with it not being Halloween or October anymore, but I do still have another horror movie I want to detail here:

'The Witch' (2015), Directed by Robert Eggers:

This to me is the scariest movie I have ever seen. Horror is subjective, but to me this checks all the boxes enough to have given me nightmares after I first watched it. Aside from an incredibly well-shot, foreboding atmosphere there are disturbing images that stick with you, a feeling of helplessness that you feel from our main characters, being isolated, a sense of overwhelming dread, and downright not understanding what or why such terror is befalling this family.

The movie itself concerns a family in the early colonial days in New England who are exiled after committing blasphemy and forced to live isolated in the woods. There, unexplained supernatural forces torture the family in increasingly confounding and sanity-testing ways. There is a theory that suggests the family is merely hallucinating their torment from eating moldy corn-but that's no fun! I like to watch this taking it literally, as a tale of hubris and sheer bad luck. Yet even with that, the mysterious darkness that befalls the family seems to have a strange sort of code which it uses to eventually spare one member and leads to an ending that will leave you kind of having mixed feelings of both shock and kind of relief, in some ways. And that all fits into the deeper quasi-feminist subtext of the film.

There is so much to this beyond simply being a solid scary movie. And Robert Eggers has proved between this and his two succeeding films after to be one of the most talented rising star directors to me.

I don't know if it will resonate with everyone as much as it did for me-perhaps it will be too slow and the period-accurate dialogue too much to comprehend (but, just put on subtitles!), but I cannot sing its praises enough. At the very least Black Phillip, a goat, is one of the best new horror villains ever. I hope everyone can acknowledge that. He is a literal GOAT, as is this movie.

[Meclazine for Israel]

The VVitch is phenomenal.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I've got one last horror film to complete my sequence here, and this one is apt as a Christmas horror film since Christmas apparently starts on the first day of November:

'Black Christmas' (1974), Directed by Bob Clark:

From the director of 'A Christmas Story' (yes, seriously), we have one of the progenitors of the slasher genre, a film twice remade and never replicated in quality. It's also another contender for one of the scariest movies I have ever seen. And what makes this movie work so well is its killer, known only as Billy, who is nothing more than an enigma. You never see him outside of a silhouette or his eyes (the scariest shot of the film) but he is an incredibly tormenting, ubiquitous presence. His visage over this sorority house he is terrorizing is a perfect example of Hitchcock's rule of tension in film where the audience is aware of something that the movie's characters are not. Throughout the film, from its first shots, we know Billy is at this sorority house as its members prepare to leave their college for Christmas as a few stay behind for various reasons and become his victims. Billy is 100% pure derangement and there is never a motive or reasoning to it. And that just adds to why he is such a frightening antagonist.

It's a bona fide holiday classic! Watch it with your family at your annual Christmas party!

[Progressive Pessimist]

Now that I'm through with horror films for now, my next entry is going to be another John Dule had on his list before.

'The Grand Budapest Hotel' (2014), Directed by Wes Anderson:

As your average white cinephile, I like or love most Wes Anderson movies. He is a true auteur whose movies are unlike any others. I understand why he can be polarizing for some and criticized as being pretentious, but I always enjoy (to different degrees) the amount of inspiration, creativity, and certainly the visual offerings his films convey.

'The Grand Budapest Hotel,' however, is one I hope everyone can enjoy, and if you don't I seriously need to know why beyond the usual Anderson gripes. This is his best movie to me, and one of my favorites ever (maybe in my top five or ten) that I can possibly watch on repeat in perpetuity.

Everything Anderson does well is at its peak here: the quirky characters, the visuals, the symmetry! But he also evolved as a filmmaker with this one. All his usual tropes are here, but for the first time ever he used a soundtrack that is entirely original, and absolutely phenomenal. Credit to Alexandre Desplat for that. Given its period setting he couldn't use his typical Rolling Stones and folk songs. He also makes impeccable use of that period setting that feels simultaneously realistic but also fantastical. And that goes for the story (which is really a story within a story within a story within a story-don't worry about it too much, it makes more sense than it sounds) which is an absurdly fun, yet heartfelt crime caper adventure buddy comedy. Trust me it all comes together better than you might think.

I suppose another qualm I've heard of with Anderson is how sappy his movies can get when they jump from a comedic tone to a dramatic tone, fairly typically. That happens here too, but it's done to the nines. This movie is f***ing hilarious throughout (it's comedy is very dry and sometimes dark in true Wes Anderson fashion, of course), but may leave you verklempt towards the end in a way that doesn't feel like whiplash. It builds to a tragic, yet bittersweet conclusions. And so much of it is sold by the performances in the film. The most credit goes to Ralph Fiennes as M. Gustave who is one of my favorite characters in film history now brought to life by one of my favorite performances ever-the main protagonist who is as charming as he is enigmatic and larger-than-life. He is almost like Wes Anderson in some ways-there's a pompousness to him, but you can't help but just love him, especially with this masterpiece he helmed. Everyone in this ridiculously star-studded cast is great though, of course. Anderson movies usually have very stilted monotone delivery of wordy dialogue, and that's naturally an occurrence here, but something about it feels distinct or almost feels more realistic, maybe because of this picturesque dollhouse of a world that Anderson crafted which resembles Europe in the late 1930's, but also feels like his own little universe. And I think that gives the movie some leeway for how whimsical it is.

I can go on, and would love to, but please see it for yourself and watch its plot thicken (why, by the way? Is it a soup metaphor?)...that's a reference to the movie. Now you have to watch it to get what I'm saying here!

[Progressive Pessimist]

I kind of shot my wad by already detailing two Christmas films before the official holiday, but I still have another up my sleeve that I watch yearly as a tradition:'Elves!' The 1980s horror movie about a Nazi conspiracy to cross-breed a virgin Aryan girl with an elf to create the master race that will lead the Fourth Reich!

Okay, that's not what I will be discussing, though it is a real bonkers movie that I have also watched on a yearly basis, but is certainly not genuinely good.

No, I'm doing:

'Gremlins' (1984), Directed by Joe Dante:

It is kind of an unconventional choice, but being the Scrooge-Grinch I am I prefer my Christmas movies be dark and cynical. But that's only a small part of this movie and its appeal. Really, it's just a fun horror-comedy movie that revolutionized special effects and features one of the most adorable characters in film history: Gizmo the Mogwai.

I think my real love of this movie is because I was exposed to it as a child. I've loved this movie since I was maybe five. I had older cousins who would always watch it, and I wanted to be cool like them. In spite of being afraid of my own shadow for most of my life, even now kind of, this movie never traumatized me for whatever reason, as I know it had done to others who watched it too young. Hell, it helped create the PG-13 rating. Back then the attributes of it to me was that it made me feel brave to be able to stomach watching a movie at a young age where these gremlins outright murder people and get grotesquely murdered themselves by the most badass mom in cinema history. Now, as an adult, I appreciate it more for the humor, satire, and special effects that all come together in a package that weirdly puts me in the Christmas spirit every time I watch it no matter how violent and gross it can be.

The sequel is great too, and maybe I'll get to that some day. But for now, if you haven't seen this absolute classic, please do so.

[vitoNova]

Phoebe Cates is hot. 

[Meclazine for Israel]

Gremlins was huge when I was a child.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Phoebe Cates is hot. 

You've seen 'Fast Times at Ridgemont High,' right?

I love her f***ed up, out-of-nowhere monologue about her father dying in 'Gremlins.'