Progressive Pessimist's Favorite Films

[Progressive Pessimist]

Jumping on the bandwagon Dule started, this is a thread where you can see my overly long ramblings about movies separate from the dedicated Movie Watching mega-thread, if you're willing to subject yourself to it.

I would like to note that I don't have a specific order or set amount of films I want to talk about but will just kind of post here when I feel like it or a movie I love is on my mind, which is kind of why I'm doing this today. It's the last day of Passover and 'Uncut Gems' has been on my mind (it partially taking place on Passover) which will be the first movie I detail here, and has definitely become one of my favorites. Here it goes!


'Uncut Gems' (2019), Directed by Josh and Benny Safdie:

I don't want to repeat what I said in the Movie Watching mega-thread, I already wrote about it after first watching it about three years ago, but I've had more to say since I've seen it several times since. Usually I can qualify a movie as one of my favorites when I can watch it almost any time I encounter it. And that's a real feat for a movie like this which gave me so much anxiety (not even exaggerating) from how it's shot and the events that unfold that it took me three occasions to try and watch it in full the first time. However, upon re-watch it's less tense since you now know what's coming, but is always an intense, stress-inducing roller-coaster of feelings about a complicated character who you simultaneously root for and are frustrated with to the point of despising him. It's especially fun to watch this with people who haven't seen it before and see how they react to Adam Sandler's characters' many poor choices and self-defeating behaviors.

Upon watching it several times the movie also kind of exemplifies my feelings towards Adam Sandler. Howard Ratner is an amoral, absent-minded mess of a person who often earns his own demises, but even then he has this particular charm and charisma where you also want things to work out for him. This is similar to how many of Adam Sandler's movies I loathe and then project that on the man himself, until he goes and partners with visionary directors and makes a movie like this. When I watch atrocities like 'Jack and Jill' or 'Little Nicky' I want to hate Adam Sandler but then I see what he is capable of as an actor or even just see what a seemingly nice and affable person he is in real-life and I just can't hate him anymore. Those complicated feelings suggest to me that this character was truly made for him and it was one of many brilliant decisions the Safdie Brothers made when they crafted this absolute masterpiece. It's one of my favorite movies ever (obviously) and at the very least one of the best films of the 2010's to me.

Also they mention my hometown in the film!...in a negative way...but still. Now we have this in addition to 'Coneheads!' Finally!

This will also be the first of several movies you may encounter me writing about that involves themes of Jewish identity and morally intricate protagonists. For some reason I tend to gravitate to movies like that.

[Progressive Pessimist]

^'Apocalypto' is a cool movie, but not exactly one of my favorites.

Instead my second entry is going to be:

'Bicycle Thieves' (1948), Directed by Vittorio De Sica:

From a film by Jewish filmmakers to one by Italians-my other heritage. I only saw this film for the first time last year but I was immediately enthralled by it. It's possibly the best Italian film ever made (alongside 'The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly-I'll get to that one!). It falls into the category of Italian neorealism in which films are shot on location and with non-actors. That doesn't sound like a big deal today, but was quite out of the ordinary for the time. And that makes the film all the more impressive to have non-actors, especially the lead, be able to portray the desperation that the main character, Antonio, demonstrates throughout the film.

Desperation is truly the main concept of the film in a run-down part of post-World War II Rome after Antonio takes a job pasting posters that requires a bicycle which he has to buy by pawning his own bed sheets to make ends meet for his wife, elementary school aged son, and baby. That bicycle gets stolen (as the title says) and Antonio and his oldest son then must scour Rome to get it back which is made all the more difficult as Antonio finds difficulty in showing vulnerability in front of his son which all culminates in him stooping to the lowest point possible after their search for the bike continuously fails to bear fruit.

That aspect of the film is probably the most compelling part and will likely resonate the most with viewers who have children or anyone else that depends on them. The sheer feeling of helplessness and inability to reassure your loved ones is a painful feeling an Antonio faces that through the film and that's what propels Antonio to make an immoral decision that he can't even bear to have his son witness, which ends up happening anyway much to his shame. He is incredibly sympathetic and you continue to feel for him and share in his frustrations as all he seeks is to just get his bicycle back so he can provide for his family. It's not much to ask yet it keeps meeting obstacles, many of which may infuriate you as you watch. In some sense there are similarities to 'Uncut Gems' in that regard, but Antonio comes across as much more of a conventionally good person, and even when he reaches his lowest point you understand why he does what he does. I guess I just really like movies like this, as depressing as they can be where things constantly go wrong for a protagonist and end on real downer. The last shot of this film too is just such a gut-punch. I don't know what that says about me, but I can't really help what movies I love and which ones I don't.

[Progressive Pessimist]

'The Wrestler' (2008), Directed by Darren Aronofsky:

Aronofsky tends to be a very polarizing director. He has his avid fans and his devout detractors. I fall a bit in the middle but closer to a fan. I like all of his films I have seen to varying degrees, but being very mixed on 'Mother!' (I haven't seen 'Pi,' 'The Fountain,' or 'The Whale' though). But 'The Wrestler'-in my opinion- is his best, most down-to-Earth, and accessible film. I recommend it even to Aronofsky's biggest critics.

Aronofsky has a reputation for being over-dramatic and pretentious, and those are fair criticisms even as a slight defender of his, but this one is a simple story about an aging former wrestler star who struggles to move on from his prime even when he is forced to after having a heart attack and trying to find meaning in his life elsewhere, specifically with a stripper he is romantically interested in, and reconnecting with his estranged daughter. The wrestler protagonist, Randy "The Ram" is played excellently by Mickey Rourke who is simply perfect for the role and has this energy to him, even as pathetic he can be at times, where you understand why he was apparently such a big deal back in the 1980s and despair for how low he has sunk in the time since then and why, no matter how much he tries, only has wrestling as all that gives him a purpose in life. He is so devoted to it that he puts his body through some viscerally sickening things to satisfy that need of his culminating in a hardcore wrestling match which involves staples, barbed wire, glass, and a prosthetic leg. It's a rough scene to watch but also very entertaining and even if you don't care for professional wrestling as a "sport" it makes you appreciate the reality of what the performers put themselves through even if it is all performative and fake in the end. And that's the real conflict of the film: Randy prioritized the surface-level love he got from fans in his heyday over the love of those who should be more important and genuine to him until he finally has to settle for and reconcile with the latter when he loses the former. It's such a well-done character piece that is really kind of beautifully poetic in spite of how gritty and grimy the film can be.

And speaking of which, the film takes place and was shot in New Jersey!...the most working class, run-down parts of the state possible! At least at the time. One fun thing for New Jersey residents to see is one part of the film where Randy and his daughter go to Asbury Park and you see how much the once dilapidated community has changed in the fifteen years since this film was made. I went there a few weeks ago and now you have million dollar condos being built next to upscale boutiques and restaurants. It's quite a funny contrast, but even that fits gloriously into the themes of the film. And also fittingly, the film ends with a Bruce Springsteen song made specifically for it, which is also really good and follows a breath-taking (though perhaps abrupt to some) final shot.

I urge everyone to give it a watch, even you're wary of Aronofsky and his usual gimmicks.

[Progressive Pessimist]

'Nocturnal Animals' (2016), Directed by Tom Ford:

After writing my opinion on 'The Northman' in the Movie Watching mega-thread, I was inspired to write this entry since this too is a revenge film-possibly the most unconventional one ever. The way this movie tells its story is very interesting to me and depicts someone getting their retribution for being wronged in a way that is very unusual yet also very harsh. This involves a story within a story and flashbacks which flesh out the film's conflicts even more. If that sounds jarring...well, it kind of is, but that's the point. But it also rewards multiple viewings, and I always love a film I can watch again and notice new details which add to the experience. And this film does that excellently. It might not all come together upon a first viewing, but all clicks at a certain point, or at least it should.

Besides the structure of the movie, it's simply amazing to look at. And that shouldn't be surprising with a fashion mogul like Tom Ford at the helm. There is a lot of beauty and extravagance to the film but also a lot of griminess and darkness to contrast that. And this film truly gets dark, and challenges you with it. This film might get you to support extrajudicial justice, police corruption, and pure vengeful violence because it so compellingly sets up a situation where you want to see justice when it comes to the story within the story. It's hard for me to sympathize with those sorts of things in any form of media, but 'Nocturnal Animals' succeeds at that among so many other things for me. I think it's a fun watch for most people, especially those who love a good film noir or even relationship dramas, as long as you can take a bit of a slow pace. It has a bit of everything otherwise from romance to horror. The score is also excellent; really reflecting that beauty combined with the bleakness, as I touched on before.

But I should warn first-time viewers of something: the very first shots of the movie feature out-of-shape, middle-aged to elderly, nude women. It has a purpose in the film, but if you go into watching the movie without knowing about this it can be off-putting and make you question if you are watching the right movie or even want to continue watching it. Bare through those fairly bizarre first few minutes, I assure you that it will be worth it.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I will try and get Bicycle Thieves and give it a watch.

It's on HBO Max.

Anyway, next up:

'Ordinary People' (1980), Directed by Robert Redford:

It was not hard for this film to resonate with me given the timing of me first watching it. I saw this in mid-2017 which was part of the worst one year span of my life. I don't want to go into every occurrence that made me fall into despair, but the two relevant ones were my parents divorcing and one of my best friends committing suicide a few months prior. Two similar things happen to Timothy Hutton's character in this film and needless to say, I related a lot to him and was pretty much inconsolable by the end of the movie. It might have been a mistake to watch it when I did, but that made its emotional content more palpable in the end, so I'm glad I did see it.

As for what it's about, if you don't know, it's basically about a family in picturesque upper-class suburbia dealing with the grief of the eldest son dying in a boat accident and how grief takes different forms. And that's what makes the movie so compelling because nobody goes about grieving in the same way, and sometimes that can cause further conflict and tension, particularly in a family. I've gone through similar circumstances, I would imagine that everyone has at one point or another. In this case, you have Donald Sutherland who tries to keep up a facade of positivity and aloofness, perhaps even bottling up his true feelings; there's the surviving, younger son, Timothy Hutton, who is contending with survivor's guilt and attempting to get over it with the help of a psychiatrist after attempting suicide and being committed; and perhaps most controversially, Mary Tyler Moore who lays the mom/wife and comes across as incredibly passive-aggressive and cold towards her son in regards to processing her grief. And I say she is "controversial" because one of the first things you'll hear about the film is that she is a huge b**** in it. While she does come across that way she isn't necessarily villainous or a bad person, there is a lot of nuance to her and in comparison her husband his approach might not actually be as positive as it seems either at times. As I said before, she is just dealing with what the rest of her family is in her own way, for better and worse. It's a real gripping drama sold well by the excellent actors and one hell of a good directing debut for someone who was mostly known for acting prior, Robert Redford. And I would hope that it's identifiable to everyone in some way or some form, because grief is indeed human and "ordinary" as the title suggests, no matter how idyllic your life may seem on the surface.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I will try and get Bicycle Thieves and give it a watch.

-SNIP-

Two scenes always get me bawling: when Conrad has his cathartic, breakthrough moment with Dr. Berger, recognizing that he feels guilty about his brother's death, ...
"Are you really my friend?"
"I am. Count on it."
And, of course, the very end.
Such a beautiful movie, and such an effective tear-jerker.

That reminds me of certain dialogue from an episode of Wings:
Lowell: I remember the time I cried; I went downtown to see Ordinary People.
Roy: Yeah, that was a sad movie.
Lowell: What movie?

Yep same two scenes get me as well. Also a third would be when Conrad tries to call his friend only for her parents to have to admit that she committed suicide.

Do you have letterboxd, Progressive Pessimist?

I do not. I probably should

-SNIP-

I always thought that Bicycle Thieves was the lesser movie by De Sica and Umberto D. was his neorealist masterpiece.

I haven't seen it, but I think I'll try to track it down now.

[Progressive Pessimist]

'In the Heat of the Night' (1967), Directed by Norman Jewison:

I enjoy a good film noir or mystery film, but this one in particular takes the genre and puts it in a different setting than is typical and with a different type of protagonist. Sidney Poitier plays Detective Virgil Tibbs, a Philadelphia detective, who is visiting his mother in small-town, post-Jim Crow Mississippi and gets involved in an investigation into the death of a wealthy industrialist. It was rare for the time to see a film noir that takes place outside of a big city and with a black protagonist no less. And that's just one of many aspects involving race with this movie. It was revolutionary for the time to have black protagonist alone, and especially one who is proud and stands up to white men who expect the worst out of him, going as far as slapping one back after he slaps Tibbs. That made the film quite controversial too, for being a bit ahead of its time in some ways.

In spite of what you might be thinking, the film is not "anti-white" and while it definitely takes an anti-racism stance it also shows growth from many of the white characters Tibbs interacts with, particularly the Police Chief who ends up admiring and developing a mutual respect and friendship with Tibbs after initially distrusting him and letting prejudice cloud his judgment. As Tibbs ends up more competent than his own police at solving the crime, the Polcie Chief softens and becomes more understanding. And that revelation of who committed the crime is difficult to really guess, and I always appreciate that out of a whodunnit sort of film (take notes, Rian Johnson!).

Oh, and a bit of an aside here: this movie will make you crave a nice, cold glass bottle of Coca-Cola. I don't know if they paid for product placement or something, but it worked. So many characters drink Coke and it looks so refreshing in this humid setting and whenever I watch the movie I find myself buying one the next time I see one at a grocery store or wherever else has them.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Another download to look for this weekend.

'In the Heat of the Night' was on HBO Max last I saw. And I also forgot to mention that there's a TV spinoff, which I've never seen and a sequel called 'They Call Me Mister Tibbs' that is nowhere near as good as its predecessor. It's not bad, just kind of average and lacking the social commentary and relevance the first one had.

But moving on, this film appeared on Laki's list and I want to make it clear that I am not trying to copy him in any way, this film was always going to appear at one point or another:

'The Killing of a Sacred Deer' (2017), Directed by Yorgos Lanthimos:

It's weird to call this one of my favorite films since it's so uncomfortable to watch and so f***ed up at times, but it has this weirdly fascinating aura around it that makes me want to watch it if I ever see it on cable or something. It's hard to explain why and it's especially hard to recommend to people, but I enjoy it for whatever morbid reason.

So much about this movie is so weird and unique from the way the characters talk in almost complete monotone to what they talk about and how inhuman their conversations and interactions feel. It's somehow even stranger because it takes 45 minutes or so for the central conflict to unfold and prior to that just seems to be about a heart surgeon's odd friendship with a creepy teenager (played by Barry Keoghan in the first role I ever saw him in that made me instantly hate and be freaked out by him forever). It's fairly mundane and ordinary but something is just so off and unsettling about the whole thing, and part of that might be the overtly horror movie score that plays throughout which features the most deranged accordion solo you will ever hear. But having that score over simple scenes of these two characters talking about banal topics like watches somehow manages to really keep your attention.

Of course, things escalate in very disturbing ways soon enough, and as much as I might be building this up to be a horror film, I kind of think it's better classified as a psychological thriller. But I can't blame anyone, especially a viewer with at least one kid and a spouse, for being horrified by the movie because what ends up happening might just be the scariest thing any family could go through. And to add another layer of discomfort to watching the film there are some darkly comedic moments where you may laugh but feel bad or confused as to why. One scene in particular, which is simultaneously hilarious and upsetting, involves Colin Farrell's character destroying his kitchen. And there are more moments like that where you're not sure if you're laughing out of anxiousness or because the moment is genuinely kind of humorous, or if you should even be laughing at all.

I think in recommending the film it would also help to note that this a loose adaptation of  Euripedes' Greek tragedy "Iphigenia" (which the title references and is even outright name-dropped in the film), where it's a successful suburban man being victimized by a Godlike figure for revenge instead of a Greek general. So if you go into the film with that mindset of this almost being a modern Greek myth with the same logic applied to it, it will make more sense, because certain seemingly important things are never explained, but don't really need to be once its inspiration is understood. Just read a basic synopsis of it if you have to, it will help the experience of watching this.

Overall, if you are not interested in watching this movie from how little of it seems conventionally attractive to watch, I can't blame you, but I for one, found it riveting upon first viewing and in subsequent watches too...though I always feel like absolute s*** afterwards and then kind of wonder why I did that to myself.

[Progressive Pessimist]

-SNIP-

I always thought that Bicycle Thieves was the lesser movie by De Sica and Umberto D. was his neorealist masterpiece.

I saw it and enjoyed it a lot. I put some detailed thoughts on it in the Movie Watching Megathread.

But without further ado, my next post:

That last film I posted a reflection on was pretty dark, huh? Let's lighten the mood with one of my favorite comedies ever!

'Hot Fuzz' (2007), Directed by Edgar Wright:

Sometimes there isn't much more to say other than that this movie is really damn funny and witty. Now, I love all three entries in the "Cornetto Trilogy" but this one is my favorite by far.  It's one of the most perfectly crafted comedy movies, perhaps even most perfectly crafted movies in general, I have ever seen.

 There are so many details and layers to the film and its jokes that even after seeing it dozens of times-I s*** you not-I always notice something new and subtle every time I watch it, that makes the movie and its many gags even better. One of the best examples is the "Aaron A. Aaronson" joke which took me maybe three viewings to really grasp and upon putting it together laughing my ass off.

This movie never gets old, and that is definitely because all its jokes are set up and paid off perfectly. Everything has a purpose, and that includes the characters too, which can get left by the wayside in comedy films sometimes. Literally every character, no matter how minor, gets something to do or has some relevance to the plot. And while I'm talking about the plot, it even manages to be a pretty good mystery movie on top of everything. It so perfectly sets things up to make you think one thing and then goes completely the other direction in the most darkly hilarious way possible. It's just so much f***ing fun and such a loving tribute to action movies in general, that I can gush about it all day. I'm going to stop myself right here though because I'm seriously getting the urge to watch it right now. Please check it out if you haven't already!

[Progressive Pessimist]

I borrowed a movie from Laki a few posts ago, now I am going to borrow John Dule's favorite film:

'The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly' (1967), Directed by Sergio Leone:

I feel like it's hard to say anything truly original about this masterpiece so what I want to discuss is why this is my absolute favorite Western being that its a genre that is among my least favorite. I only like a handful of them and two of that handful are Leone's other entries in his loose "Dollars Trilogy." But this latest entry is by far the best of them still. It's the Western that revolutionized the genre, perfected it, is the most well-known, and has never been surpassed in my opinion.

Now, getting into my history with Westerns, I've always found it to be a genre where the majority of films are boring, cheap, and cliche to me. I even thoroughly dislike many supposed classics in the genre such as '3:10 to Yuma,' 'High Noon,' 'The Magnificent Seven' (good music in that one though), 'Tombstone,' both versions of 'True Grit,' and 'Unforgiven.' I've given all of those a chance, but they feel flat to me.

So why do I like this movie so much? Well, for one thing it is far less sanitized and simple than most Westerns, particularly of the time, were. Here, instead of the typical white hat or black hat characters all of our main characters are mostly self-interested and amoral (even Clint Eastwood's "The Good" character who is really not "good" as much as he is only "good" by the standards of being compared to the other main characters who are complete cretins). And he's just so unflappable and rad, honestly. He is always outsmarting everybody and always projecting coolness and confidence. Furthermore, Tuco ("The Ugly") is one of the most original characters in any Western and definitely the most fleshed out character in the movie. Comparatively, it's just so dull to see the perfect protagonist getting into a small-scale conflict with an obviously cliched villain and his gang in the town where there's a standoff, and he kisses the woman, etc. 'The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly' says "f*** that!" and takes your expectations and assumptions about a Western movie and flips them on their head. We get a three-way Mexican standoff all over a clue to where gold is hidden, we get two bounty hunters who are partners only out of symbiotically benefiting their interests, and if that wasn't enough there is no hackneyed love interest (in fact there are barely any women in the film at all), and so on. This movie kind of borrows the cliches in some sense but makes them far more interesting and complex. And that goes for the overall epic feel of the film too. Most Westerns, even the previous Leone ones, are fairly small scale usually just taking place in and around one town. Again, f*** that! Civil War battles, confrontations in cemeteries, Mexican Missions, desert treks, ghost towns, prison camps, anything you want to see in a Western is all here at once, and more! Despite being over three hours long it never gets boring because the locations and situations change so often. Finally, I have to acknowledge the score. Ennio Morricone always delivers quality work, but this score is his magnum opus. You know these tracks even if you never saw the movie before. He toyed around with them a bit in Leone's previous films, but he perfected them here. If you want an eargasm just listen to the Mexican standoff theme and the immortal, untouchable "Ecstasy of Gold." It's one of my favorite and one of the most objectively phenomenal soundtracks to any movie ever, and also unlike most Western music you ever heard prior and also being yet another revolutionary aspect of this film. This score is so good nearly every Western after it tries to replicate it and rarely do save for them actually using Morricone like Tarantino's 'The Hateful Eight' did.

Please see this movie. Don't be intimidated by the three hour run time, you won't feel it because it's filmed so much more dynamically than your typical Western in addition to all the other positives I mentioned before. Just keep in mind that it's an Italian "Spaghetti Western" film so the film is dubbed due to actors being from different countries, all speaking their native languages, and was filmed without sound as most Italian films were at the time. So it might feel a bit off. Also the actor playing Tuco is in brown-face...Eli Wallach is great as Tuco but I can't blame anyone who is a little uncomfortable by that decisions, though it has to be accepted that this was common in the era it was filmed in. He was also in brown-face in 'The Magnificent Seven,' playing a Mexican.

It's kind of sad that Italians took the most American genre and blew almost everything we had to offer out of the water right down to it being the most famous and most commonly attempted Western to be replicated. You'll know moments of this film without seeing it, but the whole package is so much better when experienced.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Given the relevance of Harrison Ford in yet another legacy sequel, today's film is:

'Blade Runner' (1982) Directed by Ridley Scott:

I should be more explicit in saying that the only version I have ever seen of the movie is "The Final Cut" which is often the preferred version by fans...save for one scene. But anyway, this is another classic which is hard to have anything new to say to praise it. It is possibly the coolest looking film of its time with some of the most revolutionary special effects since 'Star Wars' that still hold up upon re-watch today. The world it establishes is so awesome looking you almost want to live there...almost...because the reality of that would truly suck. It revolutionized sci-fi and has tried to be replicated many times to no avail. That's all well and good, but what about the story? I believe this is one of the first science-fiction films to tell its story in a noir fashion and that adds a lot to it creating a sci-fi mystery film that also has much to say about philosophy with the central idea of what makes someone "human." And yet again, I have to acknowledge the phenomenal score by Vangelis. I often note memorable scores in retrospectives because so many movies have forgettable or incidental score, so when a film has music that adds to the film and fits it like a glove, and even stand son its own, I think its important to note and give composers the appreciation they deserve.

But every cinephile knows all that, right? What about that terrible romance with Ford having little chemistry with Sean Young? What about how there really is no mystery because you already know who the fugitive replicants are? What about the unicorn scene!? I've heard these criticisms left and right, and aside from the unicorn scene (which I prefer to ignore-not being part of the film's script or original cut), they have actually been addresses by the sequel. 'Blade Runner 2049,' from 35 years later actually makes up for a lot of that to the point that I almost view it as a companion piece as much as a sequel. But that will be my next entry because it is possibly one of the greatest sequels ever and does a lot to elevate its predesssecor retroactively, making it even better, as any sequel should do. Hell, it might even be better than the original and together create the best sci-fi film franchise when all its entries are averaged together. Just have some patience, I'll get to it. It's not like you're a replicant and have a limited lifespan.

[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.

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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.