JoshuaMHetu

Watching "Gangs of New York" again, I was awestruck by the power of Daniel Day-Lewis' performance as Bill the Butcher - the flawless accent, terrifying rage, and shrewd intelligence combine to create a villain unlike any other that I've seen. Had the studio campaigned for Day-Lewis to be nominated for Best Supporting Actor, rather than Best Leading Actor, at the 2003 Oscars he likely would've won. And not only is DDL perfect as Bill Cutting but the storyline centered around him is fascinating, focusing on a dynamic slice of American history rarely given the Hollywood treatment: the so-called "Nativist" reaction against Irish immigrants and the 1863 New York draft riots. As a descendant of Irish-American immigrants, this aspect of the movie hit home for me as it showcased the bigotry that the Irish had to overcome before finding their place in America.

Unfortunately, Bill Cutting plays only a supporting role in a movie cluttered with various storylines and side characters that don't fit together. The real protagonist is Amsterdam Vallon, played by Leo DiCaprio, who is on a quest for revenge against Bill because he killed his father. But that storyline takes a backseat to a cliched love triangle between Bill, Amsterdam, and a pickpocket named Jenny. And THAT storyline is overshadowed by a subplot involving the underhanded dealings of political boss William Tweed, and then that aspect of the film is sidelined in favor of another political thread focusing on the 1863 draft riots.

Throughout the movie's nearly three hour running time, it shifts breathlessly between these elements without fully developing any one of them. The result is an often messy film that struggles to find a compelling story to tell. Never before have I been bored by a Scorsese movie, but in this instance I just wasn't interested in what was happening throughout the majority of the film because so much of it seemed underdeveloped and unnecessary to the overall plot. Scorsese would've done better to focus exclusively on Bill Cutting and the draft riots, rather than undermine what could've been a great movie with superfluous side characters and subplots. So I recommend watching "Gangs of New York" for Day-Lewis, but keep in mind that it's not one of Scorsese's better movies. 7/10.

If you've seen Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho," then you've already seen "Dressed to Kill." Like Hitchcock's masterpiece, "Dressed to Kill" focuses on a mysterious blonde who is suddenly killed by a man dressed as a woman one third of the way into the movie. Like "Psycho," the story shifts gears to center around the investigation into the murder. In a twist ending, the killer is revealed to be a man with a split personality. He appears to be a gentleman, but in reality he is a sexually frustrated psychopath who dresses like a woman in order to resolve his psychosis. Both movies open with a love scene, feature a shower sequence that is key to the plot, and even the crucial murder sequence is almost a remake of the now-infamous murder of Marion Crane from the music down to the direction.

The similarities are so striking they're beyond homage - from beginning to end "Dressed to Kill" plays like a modern remix of "Psycho" that neither improves on the Hitchcock classic nor is it entertaining in its own right. Like countless other 1980s thrillers, "Dressed to Kill" is a cheap, cheesy, and often silly movie with bad production value and shallow characters. None of the "scares" are effective and by the time the main character is killed off, the plot looses momentum and the movie becomes nothing more than a run of the mill horror flick. While the performances are engaging, they're not enough to save the movie from a weak script and uninspired direction. Watch "Dressed to Kill" if you have nothing better to do on a Saturday night, but otherwise you should avid this one. 5/10.

"When Lions Roared" is a bizarre miniseries that on the one hand features quality performances from the main cast, while on the other hand suffering from poor production value and inexplicable storytelling choices. John Lithgow, Bob Hoskins, and especially Michael Caine do a good job portraying complex historical figures and for the most part I enjoyed seeing them bring the Allied leaders to life. But the performances aren't enough to make up for bad sets and costumes that look obviously fake, even for a 1990s miniseries. The unnecessary usage of green screen is jarring; often the series looks more like an SNL than an Emmy-worthy drama.

But worst of all was the strange decision to have Churchill, FDR, and Stalin somehow interact via split screen - while Churchill is in London he looks to his right and starts speaking to Stalin, who is shown in Moscow. Then at the far end of the screen Roosevelt pops up and he starts speaking to both Churchill and Stalin - even though he's halfway around the world! There are equally strange moments when FDR and Churchill suddenly stare off into the distance, and then the screen splits and Stalin starts speaking to them directly from Moscow - even though he's in another country! I found this choice distracting and silly. Characters break the fourth wall and the portrayal of Roosevelt is not historically accurate: after the attack on Pearl Harbor is shown to be upset that America has entered the war, while in reality FDR had wanted to enter the war on the side of the Allies and he'd spent years preparing the United States for just that. Overall "When Lions Roared" contains good performances but on the whole it's poorly made. 5/10

I have to say that I was surprised by how much I liked "The Way Back." It's true that sometimes the movie follows formula and is a bit predictable here and here. But those minor problems are outweighed by the engaging story, rich characters, and fantastic central performance from Ben Affleck. I have to confess that I once disliked Affleck as an actor. To me, he lacked the charisma that made his regular co-star and real life friend Matt Damon so magnetic. But "The Town," "Argo," and "Gone Girl" convinced me that Affleck is indeed a talented performer when given the right script. "The Way Back" shows that not only is Affleck capable, but he can give a truly Oscar-worthy performance. This is probably because "The Way Back" seems to be based on Affleck's own recent life experiences with divorce, alcoholism, and career letdowns. As washed up basketball player Jack Cunningham, Affleck gives the most riveting performance I've seen all year. From beginning to end, Affleck's raw vulnerability carries the movie and made me heavily invested in his sometimes painful life story. I won't give anything away, but "The Way Back" left me deeply moved. The movie deals honestly with real world issues like addiction and trauma in a manner that few movies do. The supporting cast, mostly made up of non-white teenagers, also does a fantastic job of portraying an ethnically diverse basketball team struggling to overcome their losing streak despite overwhelming odds. I found the characters so relatable and compelling that the the movie's ending, which I won't give away, left me wanting more - and in a good way. I highly recommend "The Way Back." 8/10.

"Climate Hustle" is the worst "documentary" I've ever seen. It's an intellectually dishonest piece of political propaganda with awful production value, unconvincing arguments, and a clear right-wing bias. Regardless of your political beliefs, it goes without saying that a documentary should be informative and as truthful as possible. It should include a range of viewpoints that accurately represent both sides of an issue. But "Climate Hustle" - which was funded by the conservative advocacy group CFACT - is completely one-sided. The climate denialists are portrayed positively, while environmentalists are attacked as either crackpots or liberal elitists involved in a conspiracy to manipulate the American people. The interviews included in the film are heavily edited, clearly done in order to match the filmmaker's conservative political agenda.

The movie's attempts to discredit widely accepted climate science fall flat on their face, as no evidence is presented to back up the filmmakers' claims. At times, "Climate Hustle" comes across as a parody of climate denialism: the filmmakers argue that climate change is a hoax because Thomas Jefferson once wrote a letter describing a hot summer in 18th century Virginia and in the modern day Obama's climate adviser refused to answer a bizarre question about giving his daughter a sled as a present. This movie appeals to neither side of the climate debate: liberals won't be convinced by this movie's ridiculous arguments while conservatives will scoff at its childish representation of their point of view. And as a movie, "Climate Hustle" even fails as entertainment. Its obviously fake green screen effects and cheap title cards look like a high school student film, not a proper documentary that played in theaters. Regardless of your political beliefs, "Climate Hustle" is a terrible movie that is neither informative or entertaining. 1/10.

Let me preface this review by saying that I've always been a "Star Wars" fan: the original movie from 1977 changed my life, and I've seen "The Empire Strikes Back" more times than any other film. While I didn't always like the movies that followed, I still dedicated my time to seeing them because I love the mythology that George Lucas created.

So I'm approaching this review from the standpoint of a fan, not someone who wants to tear the franchise apart. I was looking forward to seeing Episode 9, not just because of "Star Wars" but also because I wanted to appreciate J.J. Abrams' visual style and I was curious to see how he'd continue the story from "The Last Jedi." While there was a lot that I enjoyed about "The Rise of Skywalker," there were so many things that I didn't. I'll start with the good: the direction, special effects, action sequences, performances, and musical score are all excellent. I liked seeing Abrams' bold visual style on the big screen, and the action - in particular the lightsaber duel - is great. On a technical level, I have no criticisms of this movie.

Where I do have problems is with everything else. The storyline is a needlessly convoluted and lazily-written retread of "Return of the Jedi," with not only many of the same plot points but even specific scenes taken straight from Episode VI. I could easily predict where the plot was going right from the first scene. By the third act, when I should have been cheering for the main characters to win, I found myself totally uninterested in the plot because I knew exactly how the story would end. As a conclusion to an epic nine part saga this movie fails - aside from the Emperor's appearance, Episode 9 has almost nothing to do with any of the movies that came before it. The old characters, even Lando, get almost no screen time while the new characters, especially Kylo-Ren, are handled so poorly that I couldn't believe a group of adults wrote the script. I won't spoil anything, but I chuckled when I found out where they decided to end Kylo-Ren's journey.

On top of all that, this movie has serious pacing issues. If you thought "The Last Jedi" was too long then get ready for Episode 9: this movie is even longer, and boy do you feel it. It seems like Abrams and company felt the need to cram as much as possible into this movie to make it a worthy end to the saga, but the result is a choppy and unfocused beginning and a drawn-out ending. "Return of the King" didn't take as long to end - and that movie is 4.5 hours long! So do I recommend you watch Episode 9? Yes and no. It was a fun movie going experience with enjoyable action sequences, but it served as a disappointing end to a classic movie franchise. 6/10.

Martin Scorsese's "The Irishman" is more than a movie - it's an event. In assembling the greatest actors of his generation, and the best "de-ageing" effects that modern technology has to offer, Scorsese has crafted an epic meditation on violence, guilt, and the role of organized crime in American history. This movie is a once in a lifetime experience that I doubt will be repeated ever again. At 3.5 hours "The Irishman" is long, probably too long. But it's always entertaining thanks to an outstanding screenplay by Stephen Zaillain (of "Schindler's List") and of course the phenomenal cast.

Everyone from Joe Pesci to Ray Romano and Anna Paquin delivers a perfect performance, but the movie belongs to De Niro and Pacino. It goes without saying that these are two of the greatest actors alive, yet for the past twenty years their movies have dramatically declined in quality. (I mean seriously: who thought making "Dirty Grandpa" and "Jack and Jill" was a good idea?) But in "The Irishman" they're at the best they've been since "Heat" in 1995. The decision to cast them was a masterstroke: De Niro owns the role of a quiet but ruthless hit man, while Pacino creates a vibrant, charismatic, yet fatally flawed Jimmy Hoffa who we know is doomed from the start. I tend to shy away from making Oscar predictions, but Pacino is my personal choice for Best Supporting Actor of 2019.

The Oscars have never been friendly to Martin Scorsese. But it will be hard for the Academy to snub him again for "The Irishman." Scorsese revisits his signature themes of family, loneliness, and guilt while making something refreshingly new. Unlike "Goodfellas" and "The Wolf of Wall Street" that are aggressive and fast-paced, "The Irishman" is slow, thoughtful, and ultimately different from what has come before. While many older filmmakers have seen their relevance diminish with time, Scorsese has updated his distinctive style for a new era of online streaming and I loved every minute of it. Beautifully shot, written, and acted, "The Irishman" is a deeply profound and highly engaging movie that's one of the year's very best. 9/10.

When I first saw "The Doors" as a teenager, I didn't like it. While I appreciated Oliver Stone's direction and Val Kilmer's performance as Jim Morrison, I felt that the overall movie was an empty, emotionless exercise in visual style. But having revisited the movie some years later I find myself converted: "The Doors" is a spellbinding exploration of one of the greatest rock bands of all time. Stone avoids making a conventional biopic by focusing on the troubled psyche of Jim Morrison, and how his inner demons produced brilliant music while sending him on a downward spiral that culminated in his death at the age of 27.

I don't always agree with Oliver Stone's political opinions: I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone and I have little sympathy for Vladimir Putin. But there's no denying that Stone is a filmmaking genius who's directed some of the greatest movies of the past 35 years - my favorite is "Nixon," the best movie ever made about politics. "The Doors" is masterfully directed by Stone, who recreates Morrison's concerts so realistically you feel like you're up there on stage with him. In a masterstroke, Stone structures the movie's poetic, avant-garde imagery around The Doors' finest music - resulting in what feels like an extended music video that deconstructs the myth of Jim Morrison. Stone shows why Morrison was such a compelling icon of rock music while also highlighting his darker side, making for an incredible viewing experience.

I'd be lying if I said that I'm usually a fan of Val Kilmer as an actor (let's just say he's not my favorite Batman) but I was awestruck by his performance as Morrison. Not only does Kilmer exactly look and sound like Morrison, he totally inhabits the role and frankly I'm surprised that Kilmer didn't receive an Oscar nomination. I really enjoyed "The Doors" this second time around, but I still have a few problems with it. I don't think Stone handles Morrison's death particularly well: I was expecting more emotional resonance than that was conveyed in the final film. I also would've liked to have seen more emphasis on the other members of The Doors, as well as Morrison's childhood and his relationship with his father. But despite these qualms not only did I like "The Doors," I'm surprised by how much I liked it. 8/10.

In 1987 Steven Spielberg's "Empire of the Sun" opened to mixed reviews and disappointing box office returns. But the film's reputation has grown with time, and it's now rightfully considered an underrated Spielberg classic. "Empire of the Sun" tells the true story of Jim Ballard, an English boy who's separated from his parents in China during World War II. Featuring an excellent performance from the young Christian Bale, "Empire of the Sun" is an emotional and visually striking drama about loss, family, and the horror of war. Spielberg also uses Ballard's story to address thought-provoking questions about social privilege, militarism, and the lengths that humans will go to in order to survive. Spielberg doesn't provide easy answers to these questions, making this one of his more mature and contemplative works.

Having seen "Empire of the Sun" multiple times, I've grown to deeply appreciate it as both a sweeping historical epic and a powerful tale of a traumatic childhood. The movie isn't perfect - at two and a half hours it's too long. The second act in particular drags and this causes the movie to lose much of its dramatic momentum halfway through. But despite its length "Empire of the Sun" does more than enough to maintain your interest with compelling performances, amazing visuals, and of course John Williams' award winning score. 8/10.

"The Phantom Menace" isn't quite the worst "Star Wars" movie - that would be "Attack of the Clones." Unlike Episode II, Episode I has a basic level of awe and wonder that leads to compelling action scenes, some heartfelt moments of human drama, and of course an amazing John Williams score. But everything that fans and critics alike complain about is truly bad: the acting is often stilted, the dialogue is awkward, the story is mundane, the characters are flat, and Jar Jar Binks is an unbearable nuisance. Thankfully he doesn't play an integral role in the film's plot, making it easy for you to simply skip through most of his scenes without missing anything important. But I still can't believe that the same filmmaker who created Han Solo and Darth Vader also gave birth to perhaps the most annoying character in recent film history.

There's several reasons why Episode I doesn't work. Firstly, Lucas hadn't directed a movie in 22 years and it shows in the lackluster performances and poor special effects. The visuals from the original 1977 "Star Wars" still hold up as completely convincing - and beautiful - but the GCI characters in "The Phantom Menace" appear like they're copied and pasted from a video game. Secondly, Episode I has none of the heart and soul - the pure inspiration - that made the original trilogy great. Thirdly, "The Phantom Menace" just wasn't a story that needed to be old. We already know Anakin's backstory from watching "Return of the Jedi," and we didn't need three movies to explain it all over again. The reason why "Revenge of the Sith" is the best "Star Wars" prequel is because it's the only one with a story worth telling. "The Phantom Menace" is simply unnecessary, and therefore not very interesting. I recommend checking out the action sequences individually, and listening to John Williams' score independently from the movie, but I can't give a thumbs up to "The Phantom Menace" as a whole. 5/10.

"Attack of the Clones" is by far the worst Star Wars movie - it has the worst acting, the worst story, the worst special effects, and even the worst title. "The Phantom Menace" gets its fair share of criticism, but at least that movie had a sense of wonder and epic scope. "Attack of the Clones," however, is a weird soap opera with a bland, disjointed plot and an awful protagonist in the petulant Anakin Skywalker. What should've been a grand science fiction adventure is an often boring and silly hodge-podge of political intrigue, throwbacks to old B-movies, and an excruciating romance that might be the low point of the entire "Star Wars" saga.

To be clear, I don't hate George Lucas or "Star Wars." Lucas is one of my favorite filmmakers and I love the "Star Wars" mythology. The original film from 1977 and "The Empire Strikes Back" are among the greatest ever made, and I will always defend them against those who snobbishly dismiss them as not being high art. (Yes they are!) But there is no excuse for this truly terrible second installment in the prequel trilogy. Certain elements of "Attack of the Clones" work well enough: once again Ewan McGregor gives a stand-out performance as Obi-Wan, John Williams' score is great as always, and the climactic lightsaber battle is superb. But the overall movie fails both as art and as entertainment. 5/10.

After stumbling with two bad prequel films, Lucas returned to form with "Revenge of the Sith" - an operatic tale of an innocent man's corruption that lives up to the spirit of the original trilogy while telling a gripping story in its own right. This isn't just the best prequel film, it's also one of the best "Star Wars" films. It's by no means as good as the 1977 original or "The Empire Strikes Back," two of the greatest movies of all time. But ROTS is better than "The Force Awakens," "The Last Jedi," and even "Return of the Jedi."

ROTS is a vast improvement over Episodes I and II: no more talk of midiclorians, the painful Anakin/Padme romance is all but eliminated, and Jar Jar Binks is reduced to a throw away cameo. This time, all the emphasis is on character development, the series' central themes, and making direct connections with the original trilogy that - for the most part - create a satisfying transition from the new to the old. I'm impressed by how Lucas builds upon his own mythology to create an effective combination of Greek tragedy, adventure serials, and a commentary on post-9/11 America that all together create a movie with more emotional resonance than almost any other Episode in the entire saga. While I found much of the CGI in Episodes I and II unconvincing, in ROTS Lucas' visuals aren't just believable they're truly stunning. Shot after shot took my breath away, especially during the spectacular action sequences.

But sadly, Lucas didn't recapture the seamlessness of the original "Star Wars" and "The Empire Strikes Back." Most of the dialogue is solid, but a few lines here and there come off as clunky. Hayden Christensen is much better in ROTS than he was in "Attack of the Clones," but he still goes over the top in key dramatic moments that should be the high points of the movie. Christensen's performance doesn't ruin ROTS by any means, but it doesn't help either. More importantly Anakin's fall to the dark side isn't fully developed. This seriously harms the movie because his character arc is at the heart of the picture. While it fits fine into the film as a whole, Anakin's transformation doesn't flow properly from scene to scene and the result is an uneven viewing experience.

There are additional flaws: ROTS has a few silly moments that take away from the drama of the story, plot holes create confusion here and there, and sometimes you're left wishing that Lucas had done better. Although there's some choices I wish Lucas had made (such as hiring a co-writer), I really enjoy "Revenge of the Sith" as a whole. 8/10.

"Triple Frontier" is an entertaining albeit somewhat empty adventure. If you want a fun action flick for a slow Sunday afternoon, this is your movie. It has solid performances from the central cast and a strong enough premise to carry a familiar heist story. Think of this as a darker, grittier version of "Ocean's 11" where our heroes kill and can be killed with hardly a moment's notice. The best way to describe "Triple Frontier" is capable: it has an interesting but not very engaging plot, and likable but ultimately shallow characters. There are moments of compelling drama and convincing emotion that elevate the story and maintain your interest when the movie's narrative threatens to falter. I watched "Triple Frontier" late on a Saturday night to close out my day, and though I wasn't seriously invested in the story I was satisfied by a well-made and fun action movie. 7/10.

I'll admit that when "Doctor Sleep" was announced I was skeptical: how can anybody possibly make a film that lives up to "The Shining," one of the greatest horror movies ever made? But having finally seen "Doctor Sleep" I'm won over: this movie is an absolute blast. It isn't perfect by any means - it's maybe 20 minutes too long and the ending didn't fully work. But I was blown away by the incredible performances (especially from Ewan McGregor and Kyliegh Curran), engaging story, and the flawless incorporation of Kubrick's visual style into a fresh and enjoyable sequel.

"Doctor Sleep" does what every follow-up needs to do: it builds upon the world established by the first movie and goes off in new directions while staying true to the spirit of its predecessor. So much effort was put into developing the original characters while updating them for a new generation without becoming a retread of old material. By the end, I truly cared about Dan Torrance even more than I did while watching the original, and I came to love new characters just as much. In particular, Rebecca Ferguson plays a great villain who's menacing without going over the top like many horror antagonists. Also, look for Henry Thomas (Eliot from "E.T.") in a surprise role that I won't dare spoil.

"Doctor Sleep" shouldn't have been this good. But it is. This is a horror movie done right. 8/10.

Christian Bale and Matt Damon are two of the most talented actors working today, so my level of anticipation was high for "Ford v Ferrari." I'm happy to say that the movie doesn't disappoint: it's an engrossing, emotional drama that held me on the edge of my seat throughout all of its 152 minutes. "Ford v Ferrari" takes an obscure true life story and turns it into a heart wrenching and thought provoking tale of friendship, creativity, ego, corporate politics, and human ingenuity. I knew little about the facts behind "Ford v Ferrari" before walking into the theater, but afterwards I couldn't get enough of reading about the real characters portrayed so well by Damon and Bale. In "Ford v Ferrari" these two are in top form: Damon's charisma and Bale's quirky genius spark amazing chemistry that carries the entire movie.

This movie is masterfully directed by James Mangold: the cinematography is awe-inspiring and the racing sequences are among the best I've ever seen. As a filmmaking achievement, "Ford v Ferrari" is outstanding. I do have a couple of problems with the movie: certain elements of the plot were predictable, and a few scenes here and there weren't fully developed so it was somewhat difficult to understand what'd just happened. But these are only minor flaws with the script that are outweighed by great performances, beautiful cinematography, and terrific racing sequences that should set the standard for future racing movies. 8/10.

Since Jodie Foster is one of my favorite actresses, I've always wanted to see "The Brave One." But while Foster gives it her all, she can't save a bad script with countless plot holes, poorly developed characters, and a confused message. So much of the story makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and key plot details often go unexplained. Although "The Brave One" is marketed as a vigilante movie, only the beginning and end actually deal with the protagonist's quest for revenge. The entire second act has almost nothing to do the basic premise and can be easily skipped over. The characters have little to no personality and exist only as stereotypes: Foster as the big city Bohemian, Terence Howard as the sympathetic cop, and all of the bad guys who are stock "gangster" characters that could've been copied and pasted from any other crime drama from the 2000s. "The Brave One" attempts to present a thoughtful depiction of violence and vengeance, but its message is contradictory: sometimes it tries to make Foster look just as bad as the people she's hunting, while at other times trying to justify her actions. The result is a muddled moral that tells the audience nothing meaningful about the themes the movie wants to address. Overall, while Foster is great "The Brave One" doesn't work as either art or entertainment. 5/10.

As a fan of director Danny Boyle, I've always been excited to see "Shallow Grave," his debut feature. But while I found the visual style impressive, the story and characters are run of the mill and not interesting. To be fair, the central cast puts a lot of effort into their performances and the basic premise is intriguing. Boyle's camera zooms through each scene and many of the film's images are truly inspired. However I found the main characters irritating and bland, and the overall story lacks tonal consistency or dramatic momentum. By the end of the first act I'd almost completely lost interest in watching the movie. I can't care about the events of a movie if I don't care about the story and characters, which I didn't while watching "Shallow Grave."

I won't give away the ending, but for me it was disappointing. The climax is so silly I actually laughed - it felt more like a parody of a slasher movie than a Hitchcockian thriller, which I don't think is what Boyle intended. Ultimately I was let down by "Shallow Grave." I liked elements of it, but not the movie as a whole. 6/10.

"The Lighthouse" is a stunning psychological thriller with beautiful cinematography and haunting performances. Director Robert Eggers uses a simple premise to create an engrossing and memorable viewing experience that will keep you on the edge of your seat. I liked aspects of his previous film, "The Witch," but I found the third act underwhelming. "The Lighthouse" is a vast improvement - and a great example of how to get a horror movie right.

Willem Dafoe, who's always good, does an amazing job. Having been familiar with Robert Pattinson only from his unremarkable turn as Edward Cullen, I was pleasantly surprised by his intense but complicated performance. The music, sound design, and visuals of "The Lighthouse" are captivating. However I found a few scenes poorly lit, and Willem Dafoe's dialogue is difficult to understand due to the thickness of his sailor dialect. But despite a few problems here and there, "The Lighthouse" is a powerful tale of insanity and isolation. 8/10.

Kubrick's take on the Vietnam War is haunting and powerful, with amazing performances from Vincent D'Onofrio and R. Lee Ermey. This isn't Kubrick's best movie, or even his best war movie, but it's definitely a memorable look at the horrors of war. "Full Metal Jacket" is Kubrick's deepest exploration of the duality of man, with the movie divided into two halves in order to demonstrate humanity's contradictory nature.

The first half, which focuses on boot camp training, is by far the best. It has the finest performances, cinematography, and pacing in the entire movie. The second half is still really good, but it suffers from unsympathetic main characters and a sometimes unfocused story. But despite these flaws the second half is one of the most entertaining and shocking depictions of war ever put on film. The climax in particular is truly amazing with its intense, horrific portrayal of a futile conflict. "Full Metal Jacket" isn't the best movie about the Vietnam War (that would be "Apocalypse Now"), but it's still a must-see. 9/10.

The first "Godfather" is one of my favorite movies. So is "The Godfather Part II," which is not only superior to the original but has a serious claim to being my favorite movie of all time. While Marlon Brando's presence is sorely missed, "Part II" does everything the original did and does it better. Its story is deeper, richer, and ultimately more thought provoking. While "Part I" was a tale of good and evil, "Part II" explores the Mafia as the ultimate perversion of the American Dream - something that took the innocence of the immigrant ideal and warped it into a criminal monstrosity.

"Part I" showed how a good man can become evil. "Part II" continues that story and demonstrates how an amoral but complicated man can lose his own soul in doing what he thinks is right. Like "Part I," "Part II" is endlessly entertaining but it's also more emotionally involving and satisfying. I love how the filmmakers show the parallel stories of Vito and Michael Corleone, who're both played brilliantly by Robert De Niro and Al Pacino. The fact that Al Pacino didn't win the Oscar for "Part II" is unbelievable; it's easily the best performance of his career. In fact everyone in "Part II" is great, from Robert Duvall to Diane Keaton to John Cazale. Like "Part I" the writing, directing, and music of "Part II" are flawless and make for some of the greatest scenes in movie history. "The Godfather Part II" is an unqualified masterpiece and essential viewing for anyone who loves movies. 10/10.

"Eyes Wide Shut" has a polarized reputation: some say it's one of Kubrick's best movies, others say it's one of his worst. While there's much to like about "Eyes Wide Shut," I have to agree that this isn't Kubrick at his finest. The movie is beautifully shot and thoughtfully addresses compelling themes of love, lust, and marriage. I love how Kubrick essentially recreated New York City in a London studio - the setting looks so real you believe it's genuine. The overall storyline is solid and the film's most infamous scenes in a certain upstate mansion are truly unsettling. The sex in "Eyes Wide Shut" isn't at all pornographic: it's cold, lifeless, detached. Kubrick shows that human relationships can often appear fulfilled when in reality there's no true love to be found, and the people in those relationships will pretend otherwise thinking it will make them happy. In other words, they keep their eyes "wide shut."

There's no doubt that Kubrick's direction is stellar and he, as always, uses the art of filmmaking to convey an important message about the human condition. But "Eyes Wide Shut" is also deeply flawed: there's a certain point halfway through the film where the story should clearly end, yet the movie continues aimlessly for another hour and a half. By the two hour mark "Eyes Wide Shut" almost becomes painful to watch due to its narrative emptiness and sluggish pace. Even in the first half the conversation scenes are extremely slow, and we only remain invested because of the movie's visual beauty and the committed performances from the central cast. "Eyes Wide Shut" is a strong final feature from Stanley Kubrick, but far from a masterpiece. 7/10.

"Return of the Jedi" is widely considered the weakest of the Original "Star Wars" Trilogy, and I agree. "Jedi" lacks the breakneck pace and narrative focus of the first two, and its famous climax is essentially a less interesting remake of the Death Star sequence from "A New Hope." But despite its flaws, "Return of the JedI" is still a fun space opera with some of the best moments in the entire "Star Wars" saga.

What I love most about "Jedi" is the character development: Luke finally accomplishes his goal of avenging his father and becoming a Jedi knight, while Vader's redemptive self-sacrifice is one of the most satisfying conclusions to a villain's story in movie history. The lightsaber duel between Luke and Vader is my favorite in all the "Star Wars" films by far. Ian McDiarmid's performance as Emperor Palpatine is a major highlight of the franchise, and one of the most memorable pieces of acting in any science-fiction movie.

The action sequences are spectacular and the special effects are so good you don't even notice that they're just special effects. But I will criticize the Ewok costumes, which are obviously fake and seem out of place in an otherwise sophisticated movie. While the beginning and end of "Jedi" are terrific, the movie suffers from a slow and tonally uneven second act. I also don't like that the filmmakers decided to bring back the Death Star - the final battle makes for a great action sequence, but couldn't they have done something more original? Regardless, while it's not as good as the first two "Return of the Jedi" is an entertaining and moving conclusion to the original trilogy. 8/10.

"The Silence of the Lambs" is so good it's hard to believe it was ever made. That one movie could contain two of the greatest performances of all time, the greatest detective story ever put on film, and remain endlessly entertaining 28 years after its release is truly amazing. Every actor, every shot, every scene, and every line is brilliant. Clarice Starling is maybe my favorite movie heroine and certainly one of my favorite characters. Foster's Oscar-winning performance creates someone who's both brave and honest but also very relatable, allowing the audience to be so emotionally invested in her story that it's impossible to turn away during any of the movie's 118 minutes.

Then of course there's Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter - by far the best performance of his career. Hopkins manages to be both menacing and gracious as this cultivated serial killer, it's one of the most unique pieces of acting in cinema history and his Best Actor Oscar was well deserved. Jonathan Demme's direction is spot-on: he crafts a chilling atmosphere and a realistic, believable world that makes the film's story all the more engaging. Another director might've turned Thomas Harris' novel into a cliche slasher movie, but Demme transformed it into one of the most effective dramas of all time. "The Silence of the Lambs" is one of my favorite movies and I couldn't recommend it more. 10/10.

Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho" isn't just one of his best thrillers, or simply one of the best horror films, it's also one of the greatest movies ever made. It's a film with an amazing, haunting power that probes the darkest depths of the human psyche at an exhilarating speed. Fifty-nine years later "Psycho" still grips you with the same energy that made it a hit in 1960.

The story is so well known at this point that I don't think I need to summarize it here. What I will say to those who haven't yet seen "Psycho" is forget everything you think you know about Hitchcock, horror films, or classic movies. "Pyscho" defies all expectations with its beautiful black and white cinematography, Bernard Herrmann's now infamous score, and of course Anthony Perkins' iconic performance as Norman Bates - one of the greatest villains of all time. These elements, along with the efforts of the rest of the cast and the excellent screenplay, combine to make a thrilling cinematic experience like no other. 10/10.

I went into "Joker" expecting little: I didn't think that a Batman movie without Batman would work, or that the filmmakers could possibly do something original with a villain whose story has already been told countless times. But I'm glad to say that seeing "Joker" proved me wrong: this is a riveting drama that uses a familiar character to craft a compelling origin story that serves as a parable for our divided times. Many have accused "Joker" of trivializing or glorifying violence. I disagree: the movie shows how a rotten environment creates crime, violence, and chaos by taking disturbed people and pushing them over the edge. Arthur Fleck, played so well by Joaquin Phoenix, is not a sympathetic character. We understand why he becomes a villain, but we also understand why he's a monster. As a character study "Joker" gets an A: buoyed by Phoenix's standout performance, Arthur Fleck is a complex and engaging character who we both pity and fear in equal measure.

Although "Joker" is set in 1981, the movie parallels modern America by dramatizing the division, hatred, violence, and social strife that has come to define our contemporary experience. Like many viewers, I don't think it's clear what exactly "Joker" is trying to say about these things. Perhaps it's trying to serve as a cautionary tale about a society that turns to an immoral demagogue in an era of confusion and despair. Maybe the film has no message at all. Regardless, by tapping into these themes "Joker" makes an old character relevant for our times.

On an aesthetic level "Joker" is excellent: the direction is stellar, so many visuals say in my mind as either haunting or beautiful. The entirety of the cast gives it their all, especially Phoenix as the title character and Robert De Niro as a smug talk show host. I loved De Niro's performance, but here is where the movie falters. "Joker" is not only inspired by "Taxi Driver" and "The King of Comedy," it's so derivative of those films that you can point of specific shots and plot points taking straight from Martin Scorsese. Further, certain scenes feel out of place in a serious drama and for the most part the comedic elements didn't work for me. (Then again, maybe they weren't supposed to). As a warning to other viewers: while I liked the dark tone, this movie is one of the very darkest I've ever seen - to the point of being depressing. If you don't like gritty, downbeat films "Joker" isn't for you. But if you want to see an engrossing drama with great performances, you should definitely check it out. 8/10.