Django Unchained - Screenplay

"Now You Can Go Get the Marshall"

Quentin Tarantino is a legend of cinema. He burst into the limelight with his freshman film Reservoir Dogs, a low-budget, bloody, violent crime film that established Tarantino not only as a visceral, original filmmaker, but also clearly identified what would be his trademark style - pop culture references, an eclectic, fun soundtrack, long scenes with great dialogue that build suspense in Hitchcockian fashion (you need look no further than the opening scene of Inglourious Basterds for a near-literal Hitchcock bomb-under-the-table suspense mechanism). After the success of Reservoir Dogs, Tarantino was in a tough spot: trying to top that film. Many thought he couldn't do it, but as Tarantino has stated in interviews, he never thought about trying to top his prior work - he just wanted to make movies that he wanted to see. He's said that he's become "tired" of most film, and so what he does is try to make the movies that he wishes were still being made. And, as most people knows, he draws a lot of influence, some subtle, some not so subtle, from other movies; some popular, some very very obscure. And I needn't tell you that his sophomore effort was a huge blockbuster success, and is considered one of the greatest films of all time.

With Django Unchained, Tarantino is going after one of his favorite genres: the spaghetti western. He's previously noted that both Kill Bill and Inglourious Basterds contained elements of the spaghetti western, which they do, but this is Tarantino diving into that genre full-force, except it's set in the southeast United States, before the abolishment of slavery.

I read this script when it first became public, not long after Tarantino finished the script. He also previously released Kill Bill and Inglourious Basterds before their theatrical runs. Certainly didn't hurt their box office.

Tarantino writes some of the most enjoyably readable scripts out there. There may be misspellings and other such errors abound, but who gives a shit? Django Unchained is one hell of a fun read. Not only is the dialogue an absolute delight to read, but Tarantino creates fascinating characters. The first one we meet, in the opening scene, is the very polite, well-spoken, intelligent, and downright dangerous Dr. King Schultz, a German bounty hunter. He's looking for the Brittle brothers to kill them and collect a bounty, and there's one slave who knows what they look like: Django. Schultz comes across a group of slaves on a cold, wintery night (and their slave owners). Django is among these slaves, and he wants to buy Django. But the owners aren't much interested in selling him, so he shoots both of them, and frees Django. And off they go, in search of the Brittle brothers.

I won't reveal any more than that, and any more than the trailers have. In the trailers it's clear that Schultz makes a deal with Django - if he helps him find and kill the Brittle brothers, Schultz will help him find his wife, Broomhilda and rescue her. This is where the primary villain - the most twisted and fierce villain of the script - Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) comes into play. Broomhilda is a slave residing on Calvin's "Candieland," a huge plantation in Mississippi. To get Broomhilda, Django and Schultz will have to get themselves invited to Candieland and travel there, under the guise of wanting to buy one of Calvin's "mandigos" (slaves that fight each other). "We've got a fight going on over here that's a good bit of fun," says Calvin.

Interestingly, Calvin Candie doesn't appear until about half-way through the script. Before then, we follow Django and Schultz as they collect on several bounties, find the Brittle brothers, and then Schultz teaches Django the ways of killing white folk. And Django picks up on it pretty damn quickly. Soon enough, he's one badass motherfucker - a free man who knows how to use a gun.

The scenes leading up to the introduction of Candie are amazingly entertaining. Brilliant dialogue that builds suspense around fascinating characters that just leap out of the page. Most curiously, it's also absolutely hilarious. Some of these scenes either had me laughing out loud, or reading with a huge grin on my face (such as the scene with The Sheriff, The Marshall, a piano, and a saloon). Or a scene involving a bunch of pissed off slave owners wearing hoods. This will undoubtedly be Tarantino's funniest film since Pulp Fiction, especially if he continues his trend of subtle, nuanced laughs that aren't on the page (such as in Inglourious Basterds and Kill Bill).

When I saw the first trailer, my immediate thought was: awesome! I had already read the script, and everything about the trailer - some gorgeous shots, seeing some of the dialogue brought to life, and the crazy, bizarre soundtrack that somehow is just absolutely perfect - it all fits the tone and style of the 167 pages of script I read. Carson Reeves reviewed the script recently on his blog, where he gave it a rare "genius" rating. I completely agree with that. In a rather funny touch, Carson noted the genre of the script as "Tarantino." But this is accurate. Like Three Kings, this script is so many different things: an action film, a western, a comedy, among many others.

About the trailers. First, while this is a meager and minor complaint, some scenes look like they aren't set in the southern US. Some scenes look more like Wyoming or Colorado than the Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi setting that the story takes place in. The Coens recently did something similar by shooting True Grit in New Mexico, which didn't much look like the Arkansas setting it was supposed to be. But, who cares? More importantly, I wish they hadn't revealed the involvement of Samuel L. Jackson. He is absent for the first half of the script, and like Tom Cruise in Tropic Thunder, I think it would have been a pleasant surprise if we hadn't known of his involvement. Especially since he hardly does anything in the trailers. But oh well, it's a marketing ploy (as is the random appearance of Jonah Hill in the latest trailer).

If the final film result is anything like the script and the trailers, this is going to be one of the best films of the year. One of the funniest. One of the most entertaining. And possibly Tarantino's best since Pulp Fiction. We'll just have to see how it all turns out, but everything thus far seems very optimistic.

Cineasts will also not be able to help loving the cameo of Franco Nero (which is also, unfortunately, spoiled in the trailers), who played the original Django.

Django and Amerigo Vassepi (Franco Nero)

My only concern about this script is the final act. There is a plot twist (not like a Sixth Sense type twist, but a turning point) that I'm not sure about it. I won't spoil it, but the third act was the least enjoyable part of the script for me, and it's all because of that turning point at the end of the second act. I am highly curious how this will play out on the screen, but even if I end up liking it more than I did on the page, I know there will be (just like Inglourious Basterds) some people who will say the film falls apart in the third act.

If anybody is curious in reading the script and can't find it online, contact me and I'll be happy to send you a PDF. Some people don't like to spoil the experience; I understand that. But as a filmmaker myself, I personally love to experience it on the page and then experience the filmic result. And on the page, this was a delightfully fun read with Tarantino in true form.

****/****

Your Sister's Sister

A Sophomore Success

I guess I should preface this by noting that, apparently, Your Sister's Sister is not the sophomore directorial effort of Lynn Shelton. I was under the impression Humpday was her first, but it is not. But it's the only other one I've seen. About Humpday: I love the mumblecore movement, and I love many of the films that fit under such a classification. Jay and Mark Duplass have done some great things with it, eventually going on to direct major stars (as Shelton has done here) in such films as Cyrus and Jeff, Who Lives at Home (both of which I loved). Those films, particularly Cyrus, combine the mumblecore qualities with more "commercial" material. That's exactly what Shelton has done with Your Sister's Sister, her follow-up to Humpday, which I did not enjoy, but recognized some quality potential in it - particularly in the direction.

Mark Duplass is a very good actor. I saw him most recently in Safety Not Guaranteed, where he played his part to sublime perfection. Here he is exceptional as well, along with other stars Emily Blunt and Rosemarie DeWitt (the particular stand-out for me). All of the actors, however, are great, and generate a subtle nuance that is not only difficult to achieve, but key in the success of the film. From wikipedia I've learned the budget of this film was $125,000. That's only surprising to me because of the talent involved, not because of the intricacies of the filmmaking or story. It's set almost entirely in one cabin, with no extras or big, flashy scenes. Shelton is more concerned with the human dynamics afoot here, which are palpable, and appreciated. Having directed a feature set entirely in one motel room, and worked cinematography/editing on a short set in the same, I've long been fascinated by character-driven stories in limited locales.

This film tells a funny, entertaining, and considerably touching story. Unlike Humpday, which I didn't find to be emotionally involving, Shelton has an amazingly improved sense of human relations; of love, loss, friendship, family, and what happens when all three collide. To call this film dramatized realism would not only be a truism, but a considerable compliment. Few filmmakers these days care about the minutiae of life, and even fewer are capable of capturing that essence on screen, while still entertaining. With Your Sister's Sister, Shelton proves she is efficient at both.

The film is not, however, without its flaws. For example, why is Jack conveniently sent to his best friend's (Iris's) father's cabin, where her sister conveniently happens to be? The explanation is simply that he needs an intervention, and sending him off on his own is the best way to do this. Why? What is the intervention for? At first I thought it may be alcoholism, but Jack does not exhibit the traits of an alcoholic, though he's drunk in the first scene. I guess it's an intervention for his grief, but I'm not sure being sent to an island with nothing and nobody around would really help that much. Isolation rarely helps grief, and such a setting seems only like a place for Jack's mind to enhance its chaotic and destructive thoughts. The impetus seems merely like a convenient segway to get him there, where he will be (conveniently and unknowingly to Iris) alone with her sister Hannah. It's a plot device, and not so much an organic one. It's no secret from any trailer (which I encourage you not to watch before seeing this film) or synopsis that Jack has sex with Hannah after they share some stories and tequila. Okay, now here we have some good drama, which is where the exceptional story-telling reveals itself. I can forgive the inexplicable set-up.

From there, the story develops in some fairly obvious ways (many of which are revealed in the trailer - in fact the trailer reveals much of the overall film), but unlike many films in which the obvious often becomes banality, here it becomes something of a dramatic treasure; it's not the semi-shopworn narrative that we care about, but the smaller details surrounding it. That is a great success of which very few films are capable. There is one plot-twist that seems rather contrived as well, but I shall not ruin it, but will say it relates directly to the film's very final (but still satisfying) scene.

Truthfully, the delights of this film rest not in the essence of the story (which as noted has its contrived bits and a few other flaws), but in its directing (which is phenomenal), acting, and the intricacies that exist on the edge of the story. I'm not sure how much of this was improvised, I suspect some is, but one of the pleasures (like the Duplass's Cyrus) is that I'm not sure where the improv begins and ends. From someone who has toyed with improvised dialogue in filmmaking, that is nothing short of a phenomenal feat on behalf of Shelton and the actors. On the flip side, a film such as Baghead (which I do like), clearly has many moments of blatantly improvised dialogue.

Another curious note is the title. It always reminded me of when I would tell people of "my brother's sister." Which actually meant, my half-brother's half-sister, who is unrelated to me. In terms of this film, I am unsure. It seems as though three siblings would have to be involved, unless you wanted to use it as a roundabout way of saying "you." Roger Ebert says at the inception of his review: "The title of 'Your Sister's Sister' means, I think, that you have a sister and are a sister, in an endless loop." But of course if you have a sister, and you're female, you are one. I throw my hands up.

Your Sister's Sister is a good film. An enjoyable film. A touching film. And leaps and bounds beyond Humpday. I look forward to more films from Shelton.

3.5 out of 4 stars

Ruby Sparks

Rewriting Life

The worst thing about Ruby Sparks is the title. I had heard of it a while back, but had never seen a trailer nor knew what it was about. I'd just read the title, and was immediately not very interested. It sounded like either a) a movie about a stripper, which ironically I should be curious about or b) a movie based on some book aimed at tweenage girls (don't ask me why I thought this). Not to mention, it doesn't convey any sort of proper vibe or tone that fits the film to which it belongs, and doesn't speak to any sort of theme (in my opinion, the best titles convey some sort of theme, like Sideways, No Country For Old Men, or Shame). Anyway, a friend recommended Ruby Sparks to me and from there I discovered it starred Paul Dano (already interested) as a writer (sold!).

Paul Dano is a great actor, whom I first saw in The Girl Next Door, an admittedly (self-objectively) not-so-great film, but one that I still love to watch as it was one of my favorites when I was 15 (I mean, come on, what 15 year old heterosexual male would not like that movie?). Then I saw him in Little Miss Sunshine, where he didn't speak much, and then in There Will Be Blood, where he was phenomenal, though couldn't compare to the brilliance of Day-Lewis (few, if any, can). Since then, I think he's only gotten better, appearing in Meek's Cutoff, Looper, and Being Flynn (among others), the latter of which also came out in 2012 and also stars Dano as a writer. I loved Being Flynn, which I found a thoughtful, interesting study of a tumultuous father-son relationship with a great chemistry between Dano and de Niro. I am looking forward to this year's For Ellen, based only on the trailer. 2012 has been a prolific year for Dano, and I firmly believe that it won't be too long before he gets the right role with the right director and scores an Oscar nomination. He's getting better. And he was damn good over a decade ago in L.I.E.

Onto the poorly titled Ruby Sparks. I will admit: films of this nature and topic automatically appeal to me. I love films about writers. Writers love to write films about writers. It's what they know best. But the general populace probably doesn't give as much of a shit as people like me, and probably don't connect with the material as well as I (and other writers) can or do. Adaptation was hardly a box office hit. Barton Fink failed to earn back it's $9 million budget at the box office. Ruby Sparks hasn't even amassed a $5 million gross. But they're all, including Ruby Sparks, great films that I love.

Ruby Sparks regards writer Calvin Weir-Fields, a young writer who wrote his first book in high school and it became an instant hit. Years later, he's struggling to recreate that success. The sophomore slump. He sees a therapist (most writers either do or should). He lives alone in Los Angeles, with the exception of his canine companion, Scotty. His therapist gives him an assignment: to write one page about somebody who he meets and likes Scotty. So he has a dream where he meets a beautiful girl, Ruby Sparks (Zoe Kazan, who previously acted with Dano in Meek's Cutoff), and writes about her. I should also note Kazan is the writer of this film. Anyway, after writing about Ruby, shortly after he finds her in his house. Believing he is going legitimately insane, he calls his brother who comes over. Turns out, his brother can see Ruby too. Everyone can. She actually exists.

Not only does Ruby exist, but Calvin can manipulate her in any way he wants. Anything he writes about her immediately becomes reality. He can make her speak French. He can make her never want to leave his side. He can make her miserable. He can do anything, which raises fascinating questions of moral ambiguity. It also brings up the question: what would it be liked to be loved by someone who, essentially, you have forced to love you. They have no choice. There's an old Klingon proverb that says "to love and be loved is to feel the sun from both sides"(just kidding, that's a David Viscott quote). But what if there is no choice on behalf of the one who loves you? I feel that Kazan and I share a similar feeling on that issue (based on the plot progression of the film): it would be very nice at first, and then quickly fade. In a way, this is a retooling of the mythical "love potion" (that, apparently, some people actually believe in?). Though, to be clear, Calvin doesn't purposefully create Ruby. But he does purposefully manipulate her once she exists.

This is a concept that could have gone dreadfully wrong. It could have been dead in the water after about 50 minutes. Like one of those one-joke Adam Sandler films (though those never last til the 50 minute mark). But Kazan is careful in her approach, and that is one of the film's greatest pleasures. It embellishes in the concept, enjoyably so, but also doesn't fear to ask questions and deny answers. At least not simple answers.

Dano is wonderful, as always. Zoe Kazan not only gets the opportunity to truly be in the spotlight, which she seldom has (aside from her wonderful performance in The Exploding Girl), but she also does fantastic work with the character, which can jump from one emotional pole to the other in seconds. I would like to see her in more movies, and more movies written by her.

This is the one of the best films of the year, one that is likely to make my end of the year top 10 list. I probably like it more than others would because of the nature of its main character, but I also think this is a film that anybody can enjoy and find something to relate to, because it isn't about writing. It's about rewriting. And everybody rewrites, not just writers.

****/****

Safety Not Guaranteed

A Time-Travel Movie With Seemingly No Paradoxes

Not long ago I reviewed the greatly entertaining Looper, which was one of cinema history's finer time-travel films (though far from the best). But I noted, like all time travel films, it wasn't without its plot holes or paradoxes. Back to the Future is litered with them. Most are stricken with an inherent problem: anything that transpired during the going-back-to-the-future would have already happened. In Looper, Bruce Willis (as the older character going back in time) technically would already know everything that was going to happen (and there's an even more major plot-hole but discussing that would ruin the ending). Anyway, of the time-travel films I've seen, the ones that come closest to containing zero paradoxes or plot holes related to the issues of time travel are Timecrimes, Primer, and possibly 12 Monkeys, but I'd have to re-watch that again to say for sure. The previously mentioned films are all great, by the way.

Anyway, here we come to Safety Not Guaranteed, a time travel film that as I see it, contains no plot holes. Arguments could be made about the ending, but I won't go there for spoilers sake. But it also contains little time travel, so that could be a darn good reason. More so, this is an uplifting, touching, dramedy about three reporters and one very interesting, obviously disturbed, man. But the film regards him not with disdain, but understanding and tenderness. Aubrey Plaza is the most major character in the film, existing in most of the scenes, and she does a tremendous job, showing range outside her dead-pan, sardonic humor that has been central to most of her prior work. She is starring in the upcoming film The To-Do List (2013, I believe), which was previously titled The Hand Job, appearing on the 2009 or 2010 blacklist, I forget. I read and reviewed that script on ScriptShadow (where I admittedly overused the hyphen, mainly due to Microsoft Word's insistent upon it, but I ought have known better), and while I noted some flaws in the script, I generally liked it overall. It'll probably be billed as a comedy, but it's truly a coming-of-age dramedy, and I think will give Plaza an ability to show off more of her acting chops.

But back to Safety Not Guaranteed. I'd been waiting to see this for a while, as the trailer appealed to me, and I liked the actors; Jake Johnson who I first saw on the TV series New Girl, Aubrey Plaza, and Mark Duplass, and some guy I've never seen and didn't stand out in the film. They were all excellent.

On the story. It regards three reporters who are trying to get a story about a guy who's placed an ad in the paper wanting a partner to go back in time with him. They obviously think it's a joke, or he's crazy. It quickly becomes clear it's not a joke. So is he crazy? I shall not say what I think, but part of the problem I have with the last 15 minutes or so of the film is that it doesn't bother to answer it either. It builds up the possibility that he is seriously mentally ill, but fails to offer any sort of catharsis to that dramatic element. It also feels as though the end, particularly the last five minutes, were written in a way as if the writer just wanted to get it over with. In other words, the very end is quite hasty, failing to take any time to build toward any sort of satisfaction.

Beyond that, the first two acts are wonderful. They're funny. Charming. Uplifting. One of the film's greatest qualities is its ability to make us feel like doing something more with our lives. And I can't quite point to why it has that ability. But it does radiate that "anything is possible if you make it so" feeling. And that was delightful.

This is a fun film. A good film. A film I will undoubtedly revisit. I just wish some more effort had gone into the ending.

3.5/4

Killer Joe

I'll Never Look at KFC the Same Again....

To paraphrase Daniel Plainview, Killer Joe is one goddamn hell of a show. It is directed by William Friedkin (of Exorcist fame) from a screenplay by Tracy Letts, adapted from his own play. I know nothing of the play. Only of the film that I've seen. Friedkin and Letts similarly collaborated recently on the Ashley Judd/Michael Shannon film Bug (which is an excellent psychological thriller). Previously he also directed The Hunted (which I actually enjoyed). Those are the only three films he's made in the past decade.

Killer Joe is rated NC-17, and rightfully so. It contains plenty of violence, sex, sexual violence, and some of the most dimwitted characters to grace the screen in a good while. The protagonist (I guess that's what you call him) Chris, played by Emile Hirsch - to great effect, I might add, isn't very likable, and ultimately we don't much care about him. When Chris finds himself in considerable trouble with some drug dealers after his mother steals his stash of cocaine (which he would have sold to pay these people back), he talks with his father (now divorced from Chris's mother) about having her murdered by a man named Killer Joe (Matthew McConaughey, in one of his very best performances), they two very casually agree its a good idea. There is some debate, but I say "casually" because it is quite casual when it comes to the subject of murder. As I said, these people aren't very smart. Even Dottie (Juno Temple), Chris's younger sister and Ansel's (Thomas Haden Church) daughter says its a good idea. Apparently none of these people like Chris and Dottie's mother much.

(From left to right) Chris, Sharla, Ansel, and Dottie

Enter: Killer Joe. He's a lawman - a detective for the Dallas Police to be precise - who moonlights as a murderer for hire. He's also a sadistic psychopath, but we'll get to that later. His price is $25,000, which of course Chris doesn't have, or he wouldn't be in this pickle. Joe initially bids them adieu since they don't have the money, but reconsiders when he decides Dottie might be a nice retainer until the life insurance policy can be collected and Joe gets his fee.

From there, the plot twists and turns, the events of which I shall not describe, but only say there is a fair amount of blood, beatings, sex, and sexual violence. It's telling when the first shot of a female character in the film frames her completely below the belt - without any clothing of any kind. But the film isn't gratuitous in its nudity or violence. For example, in the aforementioned shot of a woman's vagina, we immediately know what kind of family this. And the sexual violence serves to show what kind of person Killer Joe really is. Beneath his charming demeanor, there exists a more malevolent, completely psychotic soul. McConaughey plays Joe to perfection; I see not a single flaw in the snake-like, suave, deranged show he puts on. Consider one scene, early on, where he is alone with Dottie. They're having dinner. She has changed from a dress to her regular clothes, saying the dress "isn't me." Joe asks to see the dress, and then asks her to put it on, in front of him. She strips to her bra and underwear ("panties" she insists). He then asks her to remove these remaining garments, but before she does, he turns around. Not out of decency - certainly not; he's about to take her virginity, and when it comes to sex, he's a few screws loose of decent. She strips to being completely nude, and then he asks her to put the dress on.

Juno Temple as Dottie Smith

Or consider another scene involving Joe, Ansel, Ansel's wife, and a drumstick of KFC chicken. I'll say no more, other than the sexuality and ultimate orgasm on behalf of Joe in this scene is very telling of his nature.

What of the other performances? Hirsch, as the main character, is wonderful, but we care little for his character, and thus it doesn't stand out much. But that's fine. It isn't meant to. Particularly wonderful are McConaughey (as previously mentioned), Thomas Haden Church, who carries some of the film's finest darkly comedic moments, and the youngest character of the film played by Juno Temple. She's the epitome of innocence and victimization, though she hardly seems to feel victimized. In fact she likes Joe a good deal. He's good to her. I understand it. This is the first film that Temple has stood out for me in; probably because it's the first film where she's been given a character with depth to build on. I've learned she was in (that I've seen), Notes on a Scandal, Atonement, Greenberg, and most recently, The Dark Knight Rises, but don't ask me to tell you who she was in that film. Here she displays an exquisite ability to display innocence, intelligence, endearment, and ignorance all at once. Along with McConaughey, she's the true highlight of the film.

Beyond the acting, the film has flawless direction, and brilliant cinematography. This small Texas town and the trailer parker where the Smith family resides is portrayed with a grimy, dark, literally "trailer trash" aesthetic. As Roger Ebert noted in his review, "William Friedkin's Killer Joe is one hell of a movie. It left me speechless. I can't say I loved it. I can't say I hated it. It is expertly cast, flawlessly directed, and written with merciless black humor by Tracy Letts." I agree with all of that, except I can say: I loved it.

This is a great film; a fine showcase for one of McConaughey's best performances (perhaps his very best); a great opportunity for Juno Temple to exhibit her acting chops; and a hilariously dark film about one of the most fucked up and incompetent families to grace the silver screen. Though they do it with little grace. I hope Friedkin continues his recent trend (along with Bug) of making provocative, dark, neo-noir, expertly cast films. Unfortunately, due to the NC-17 rating of this film, and its extremely limited availability to the general public, I doubt it will receive much awards attention (even from the Indie Spirits, where this film should receive at least six nominations). As I said of Shame, I can't disagree with the NC-17 rating. I just wish there weren't such a stigma attached to it.

An amazing, outstanding film. If you can stomach it.

****/****

Favorite Films of the 70s

Top 15 films of the 70s. The further back in time I go, the fewer films I have seen from that era, and generally the films I have seen are the "classics" or the go-to films that people will tell you to watch from that time. So this list probably isn't as diverse as some of my others, but these are the films that excited, enthralled, or entranced me when I first saw them. As usual, alphabetical order.

Annie Hall

By far my favorite Woody Allen film, and in my opinion, the objectively best film he's made. Allen's performance is the same as every other film he's been in, but his comedy here is better than any of his others. Some lines crack me up every time, and I can't imagine anybody other than Woody delivering them properly; the line regarding a nutcracker and a lobster gets me every time in its simplicity. And the cameo from Christopher Walken (who would later co-star in one of the decade's best films, The Deer Hunter) is one of the best and funniest scenes of the movie.

Apocalypse Now

This is just one big, monstrous, epic journey into a forest of darkness and death. The acting is superb, and the cinematography is some of the best ever put to the screen. Ironically, the film is made all the better by watching the documentary Hearts of Darkness, which chronicles the tremendous efforts and difficulties (to put it mildly) that went into the making of this masterpiece. Francis Ford Coppola, despite being perhaps the Director of the Decade, went through the closest I can imagine to true filmmaking hell. Along the way, with so many problems arising, he became convinced he was making a complete blunder of a film, but stuck with it because he literally had everything (his house included) on the line. It paid off in dividends when it won the Palme d'Or and went on to become one of the most famous and well-regarded films in history.

Badlands

I have a love-hate relationship with Terrence Malick. I love many of his films so dearly, but am also disappointed many times by his style over substance approach to some of his work. The Thin Red Line literally rides a very thin line for me because in many ways it is very much that - style over substance. But for some reason I love it. I was, however, majorly disappointed with The Tree of Life, which I walked out of about 2/3 of the way through. Only movie in my life I've ever walked out on. It was beautiful, but the substance was practically non-existant for me. No surprise, since the screenplay reads like a novel. But back to Badlands, which is undoubtedly his most story-oriented picture. As with any Malick film, the cinematography is beautiful, but the story is great, as is the acting. And that score. Wow. It's no wonder Tony Scott wanted to use it again in True Romance, where it worked perfectly. One of the great film scores of all time.

Cries and Whispers

Ingmar Bergman was always drawn to stories about death. From the literal embodiment of Death in The Seventh Seal, to The Virgin Spring, to this film, to Fanny and Alexander, Bergman was clearly fascinated with death and all of its intricacies and implications. And in each film, he approaches death in a very different way. The Seventh Seal dealt with it on more of a detached, visually-literal level. The Virgin Spring approached the topic of death by murder (later inspiring The Last House on the Left among others). Cries and Whispers approaches the emotional side of death, which is perhaps why I loved it so much.

Dog Day Afternoon

One of two Lumet films on this list. Definitely one of Pacino's best performances, if not his very best. A great example of contained story-telling and filmmaking. Lumet's absolutely wonderful book Making Movies sheds some light on the filmmaking behind this movie, and ultimately what makes it so powerful. Curious to note is the use of minimal artificial lighting, something that Lumet didn't often use in his films. Beyond the style and story, it's worth seeing just for Pacino's raw, emotionally powerful performance.

Five Easy Pieces

One of four films on this list showcasing Jack Nicholson. Five Easy Pieces may not be his best performance (I'm not even sure what is - the man is so diverse and talented), but it's definitely one of his best. The film itself is magical for showing the darker side of human nature - not in an over-the-top way such as There Will Be Blood, but in a realistic method that regards the way we sometimes take our own self-hatred and regrets out on the world and those around us - even those dearest to us. A powerful story.

Interesting note: This is one of the Coen Brother's favorite films


The Godfather I & II

It seems almost cliche to include these films, but it would be an injustice to leave them out. Not much needs to be said here: they are, quite simply, two of the best films ever made. From the innovative cinematography (which was actually innovated in the earlier Klute, but perfected here), to the wide array of fantastic performances, to Coppola's perfect directing and writing... there's nothing to dislike but only adore.


Halloween

John Carpenter is often credited for "creating" the slasher genre with this film, though that's far from accurate. The Texas Chain Saw Massacre pre-dated this one (side note: the famous meat-hook scene actually appears in an early, absolutely horribly-hilarious film Trog), and Peeping Tom beat Halloween to the stab (get it?) by nearly twenty years (not to mention other slashers like Psycho and Black Christmas). But, Carpenter's film was certainly one of the most successful slasher films to date (considering budget-to-gross ratio). Halloween was hugely successful in building suspense and tension slowly, with very little violence in the first half of the film. If only modern horror films would bother taking their time to establish characters we care about before showing blood (which this film actually does little of).


The Last Detail

Perhaps one of Jack Nicholson's best performances, the film is simple in its story, but elegant in its style and deep in its characters. Nicholson won numerous awards, including Best Actor at Cannes, but failed to win the Oscar (which Nicholson later expressed disappointment at, claiming it to be his best performance). It's an entertaining, touching, and splendid little film.

The Last Picture Show

Bogdanovich, like Paper Moon, shot this in black and white, which underscored the dreary, depressing mood of a story set among a dying Texas town. One of Jeff Bridges' first roles (and his first Oscar nomination), it showed exactly why he would later go on to be considered one of the greatest actors of all time. The story is about many things; love, loss, the growing freedom and independence of the early 70s, and nature of how some things are constantly changing, and some never do. It contains some of the most heartbreakingly subtle scenes of the 1970s.


Network

The second Lumet film, and one of my very favorites of his filmography. Also one of the best screenplays ever written. The film is chalk-full of dialogue, but it moves like an Aaron Sorkin film. The film was way ahead of its time, building to a climax that seemed outrageous at the time, but not so unlikely these days. It also showcases what is in my opinion one of the best, least-gratuitous sex scenes in all of film. A great example of excellent writing, and the best dialogue driven film until Sorkin/Fincher's The Social Network.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

I found this film brilliantly entertaining, with a wonderful performance from Nicholson, and a fantastic supporting cast (note a young Danny deVito). Louise Fletcher is fantastic as Nurse Ratched, one of the best villains in history. The plot is funny, entertaining, moving, sweet, dark, and uplifting all at once. It's no surprise this is one of the few films in history to win the "top 5" Academy Awards (Actor, Actress, Director, Screenplay, Picture).


The Outlaw Josey Wales

Not the first Clint Eastwood western, but one of his very best along with Unforgiven. It's also one of the first to be a rebuke of some of his earlier westerns, and the general western genre up until that time. The atmosphere is phenomenal, the performance of Chief Dan George is one of the film's many highlights, and the revisionist nature of the film is amazing. You'll notice it from the very beginning, when it becomes clear the villains are not Confederate soldiers, but Union soldiers.


Paper Moon

The second (chronologically) of two Bogdanovich films on this list. Paper Moon is the more entertaining of the two, being a comedy set during the Great Depression about a con man (Ryan O'Neal) and a little girl, who may be his daughter (Tatum O'Neil, who deservedly won an Oscar), as they travel across the country. Madeline Kahn was also nominated (but lost to O'Neil) for her performance as Trixie Delight (a name later re-used in the fantastic show Californication). One of the most brilliant directorial moves on behalf of Bogdanovich was his choice to shoot in black-and-white, which perfectly juxtaposes the comedic side of the film with the Depression-era backdrop.

Taxi Driver

See: Best Films of All Time for Description

Runners Up

Blazing Saddles
Chinatown
Dirty Harry
Jaws
Picnic at Hanging Rock
Stalker
Suspiria
The Deer Hunter
The Sting
Young Frankenstein
Shampoo

Top 15 Films of the 80s

Favorite films of the 1980s (1980-89). Alphabetical.

Blood Simple

The first outing from the Coen brothers' is undoubtedly their roughest, grimiest, dirtiest film they've made. It's wickedly dark, containing little of the dark humor that peppers even the darkest of their other works. It's not glossy or as formalist in style as any of their other pictures; for example, it's definitely the only one of their films to utilize the Sam Raimi rush camera (unless Raising Arizona did, but I don't recall it having). But in these ways, it is one of their most unique, and nevertheless, a wonderful, twisty story. Also interesting are several shots that are virtually replicated in No Country for Old Men. It's always nice to watch a filmmakers' origins.

Blue Velvet

One of Lynch's most famous films, and one of his most acclaimed, this is his typically bizarre, dark, fucked up piece of entertainment. Dennis Hopper is an especial pleasure to watch, and there are many scenes (in fact, nearly every scene) that you've never seen anything like, and never will again. One of the few truly original films. It's just a fun, bizarre ride.

Born on the Fourth of July

My personal favorite film in not only Oliver Stone's Vietnam trilogy, but also entire his filmography (though JFK is a close second). Also on prime display is in my opinion Tom Cruise's finest performance. The story is just wonderful, and the direction is amazing. Not surprisingly, like JFK, it has flawless editing and cinematography. Just great filmmaking and acting.

The Color of Money

The Hustler was a great film, one of the best of the 1960s. The Color of Money is not one of the rare cases of a sequel exceeding the quality of the original, though I believe it does in some ways, but it is still a goddamn great movie, with a fantastic early performance from Tom Cruise, and of course the brilliant, Oscar-winning performance of Paul Newman. I've also always had a thing for stories about schemers (con men, hustlers, etc.) so the material was fascinating to me. And Scorsese's style never hurts.

Drugstore Cowboy

A tragic tale of addiction, love, and loss. It's quite funny at times, very entertaining, but also manages to maintain a grounded element of drama that permeates throughout as it hurtles toward its dark ending. Hands down my favorite performance from Matt Dillion. I also have an inherent fascination with good films about drug addiction (or addiction of any kind, like in the case of Shame).

E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial

Aside from my feelings about the title, discussions of which result in me being incredibly annoying about how much it annoys me, this is a goddamn great film. One of the few genuine films that can bring a tear to my eye if I'm in the proper mood. My only regret is that I didn't see it until I was thirteen, and ended up with the 20th Anniversary Edition where Spielberg, in a dumbfuck decision, decided to edit some stuff - like removing the police officer's guns and replacing them with walkie-talkies. Bullshit like that. But, thankfully the true version still exists. And it's a gem.

The Evil Dead II

This *is* one of the rare cases of a sequel being better than the original. Or, in this case it's more that it's different, as my personal preference, I like it more. The original is more horror. The sequel is more dark comedy sprinkled with horror. And with a larger budget, Raimi was able to do some things he couldn't in the original. And interestingly enough, it's almost a remake of the original. Just a fun goddamn movie.

Field of Dreams

One of those movies that I just started watching and couldn't stop. Some think it's sappy and melodramatic. I think it's touching and dramatically rich. The acting is top notch, and the emotion is substantial. Plus, Kevin Costner is one of my favorite actors who never really plays more than one character (an case for exception could be A Perfect World). Like Forrest Gump, Fields of Dreams is one film I'd tag with the adjective "magical."

Heathers

Like Field of Dreams, I started watching Heathers and couldn't stop. I've always loved Winona Ryder, and she is splendid here. Mix in a great performance from Christian Slater, and a darkly comedic plot, and you have yourself a winner. It doesn't stop there, though. Like Clueless, Heathers examines, dissects, and then smartly satirizes the teenage and high school experiences. You'll recognize the jabs as soon as you hear the phrase "diet coke heads."

Midnight Run

Along with Lethal Weapon, Chinatown, and Back to the Future, this is one of the best "by the numbers" screenplays out there. You know, one of those films that hits all the beats at the exact right moments, which would sometimes result in predictability and a formulaic slog, but films such as these don't fall into such a trap. Midnight Run would be my go-to script if I had to recommend one to a beginning screenwriter. Beyond that, the dynamic between Grodin and de Niro is a ton of fun, and it's a fun fucking ride.

Paris, Texas

See description in Top Ten Films of All Time list.

Say Anything

Along with Almost Famous, this is my favorite Cameron Crowe film. It has a somewhat traditional concept, but goes much, much deeper with it, creating complex, original characters with conflicts that are rich and fascinating. And the boom box scene truly is iconic.

Shoah

This 1985 French documentary by Claude Lanzmann is probably the most different film on this list from the others. It is 503 minutes long. That's 8 hours and 23 minutes. This is the longest film I have seen. The movie truly is beyond anything else ever made. It is an event. Roger Ebert hailed it a masterpiece and refused to rank it on his best films of 1985 list claiming it belonged in a class of its own. I do not argue with this. It is a powerful force of cinema.

Tender Mercies

One of Robert Duvall's best performances, he won an Oscar for his portrayal of Mac Sledge, former country singer turned alcoholic. When I watched it, some way through I heard one of the best exchanges of dialogue ever: a woman at the store says to Duvall, "Hey Mister, were you really Mac Sledge?" Duvall responds with, "Well, yes ma'am, I guess I was." I later read that writer Horton Foote felt that line summed up the entire film. I completely agree.

Throw Mamma From the Train

One of my favorite films as a child, I just loved this retooling of the classic Hitchcock picture, framed in the context of a comedy. Danny de Vito and Billy Crystal play so well together, and Anne Ramsey as de Vito's overbearing (to put it lightly) mother is one of the great comedy performances of all time (and she rightfully earned an Oscar nomination). Just a great, fun film.

Runners Up:

After Hours
Bull Durham
Das Boot
Lethal Weapon
Rain Man
Risky Business
sex, lies, and videotape
The Vanishing
The Verdict