Top Ten of 2017 - What? It's Almost March of 2018? So What? Have They Announced the Academy Awards Yet? No? Okay, so I'm Still Earlier than the Academy.

*Note: I don't own every movie on this list. However, I already own a few (Blade Runner 2049, Logan, mother!, and The Lost City of Z), therefore it makes sense to post my top ten on this site. 

Top Ten of 2017

Here are my ten favorite films of 2017 (and some honorable mentions). The key word is “favorite.” I’m not saying these are the best films of the year, whatever that means, anyway. I’m not qualified to judge films based solely on how technically good they are (I’m not sure anyone is). I can only tell you which films I liked the most last year. So here goes.

1. Blade Runner 2049

When I first read about this project, I was very skeptical. I just didn’t see Blade Runner as a franchise. Then Denis Villeneuve (Arrival, Sicario, Prisoners) came on board, and things changed. He did not disappoint. Rather than take a moody sci-fi noir and turn it into a cash grab summer action movie, Villeneuve made a nearly three hour film that’s even moodier and more contemplative than the original. Looking back at the original Blade Runner, I always think, “You couldn’t make a film like this today.” It’s too slow and too expensive for a studio to put money behind it. I was wrong...and right. Villeneuve did make a film like the original Blade Runner in spirit, but since it cost so much and it made so little, this will probably never happen again. I’m thankful it happened once, at least. Villeneuve was given the money and freedom to build a world I couldn’t get enough of. They nailed the look (cinematographer Roger Deakins should win the Oscar), the feel, and the sound (Hans Zimmer should have been nominated for this instead of Dunkirk) of the original, and, in my opinion, improved upon it. The cast was great, and the story was a satisfying and logical continuation of the first film. This is a nearly three hour long moody, dystopian sci-fi film with very little dialogue and even less action, and I wish it was longer. I can’t think of anything I did not like about this movie. How could it not be my favorite film of the year?

2. The Killing of a Sacred Deer

If you follow my writing or my yearly top ten, then you know I like my movies weird, and boy oh boy, is this one weird. Every year there’s movie I love but won’t recommend (to most people). This year, that honor goes to The Killing of a Sacred Deer. Writer/director Yorgos Lanthimos (his previous film was The Lobster, my favorite film of 2015) has developed this style of having his characters do or say outrageous things while acting like robots. I don’t know why, but I find it hilarious. I guess it’s the absurdity of the performances and the plots of his films. It also helps that his films are reminiscent of Stanley Kubrick stylistically. The guy is the total weird package. I know that I’ve written nothing specific about this movie in this paragraph about this movie, but I would rather leave it at this: if you liked The Lobster, you’ll like this. If you skipped The Lobster, you should probably skip this one too.

3. Logan

Wolverine has always been one of my favorite comic book characters, and Hugh Jackman has been great all these years. But he never got to truly be Wolverine...until Logan. Being able to see Wolverine rip through people in R-rated glory was a highlight of my movie year. It was like taking all of the implied gory action from all the previous films and letting it all explode in one film. Once I got over the high of the violence, I realized that director/co-writer James Mangold made the most poignant comic book movie ever. I think we all hold comic book movies in high regard these days, but Logan is unique in its brutality, its heart, and its finality. Perhaps the most refreshing part about the film is the fact that it isn’t a direct sequel nor is it setting up a dozen other movies. Logan truly stands on its own.

4. mother!

Writer/director Darren Aronofsky is one of my favorite filmmakers, so when mother! was released to a very divisive response, I knew I would end up loving it. When a movie divides people, it’s almost always a sign that it is at the very least interesting and unique, and mother! is certainly both of those. I enjoyed it for the style alone (the early claustrophobic camerawork and the amazing chaos near the end of the film), but the performances and its allegorical nature made it one of my favorite films. Allegorical films are just more engaging to watch than most films. I spent the entire film wondering, “What does this represent?” You can do this with any movie (whether the movie is attempting to represent something or not), but when the film is intentionally allegorical, it’s like solving a film puzzle. That mind sound terrible to some, but that makes the viewing process much more enjoyable to me.

5. The Lost City of Z

An ambitious movie about ambition. I was excited to see this since I read the book, and I was pleasantly surprised to end up enjoying this more than the source material. Those looking for answers about the titular lost city in the Amazon will likely come away a bit disappointed, but this film is about much more than the city. It’s about ambition, sacrifice, family, obsession, exploration, and racism. It’s ambitious enough that so many themes are evaluated in the film, but to top that writer/director James Gray decided to actually film in the jungle. It also features Charlie Hunnam’s best performance by far. Robert Pattinson is great in it, as well (this film along with Good Time have definitely changed my opinion about the Twilight star). I’ve watched the film twice now and liked it even more the second time. Perhaps if I were to watch it a few more times it would climb higher on my list. I do think this film more than most this year will be looked at later on as an underseen and underappreciated masterwork.

6. Phantom Thread

It’s a safe bet that if Paul Thomas Anderson releases a movie it will end up on my top ten list. I was initially worried about Phantom Thread because of the, well, boring subject matter: a dressmaker in the 1950s has his controlled life thrown into disarray when he begins a new relationship. Only Anderson could not only get me to watch a movie with this plot, but also make me love it. Of course, Daniel Day-Lewis’s involvement made it an easy film to love, also. The film isn’t about dressmaking, really, but about the creative process, in general, and the dynamics of power in relationships. This is another movie that makes you study every moment and every sound. It’s also very funny, which I imagine many people would not expect. Paul Thomas Anderson continues to prove that you can have arthouse goals with a film while also genuinely entertaining the audience.

7. Hostiles

Westerns are few and far between these days, so it’s important that the few that get made are of high quality. Thankfully, that’s the case with Hostiles, a bleak and violent film about the complexities of the treatment of Native Americans in the late 1800s. The cast is amazing, as well, with Christian Bale standing out, as usual. It’s a bit quieter performance for him, but no less impressive than his more famous roles.

8. The Disaster Artist

I loved this movie, but it’s difficult to judge whether this is really a good movie on its own. The Disaster Artist is about the making of the notoriously terrible movie The Room. I’ve seen The Room multiple times, so every joke and performance (especially James Franco’s shockingly good impression of filmmaker Tommy Wiseau) made sense to me. If I had no knowledge of The Room beforehand, I’m not sure I would have loved this movie so much. I think I would have liked it, but it probably wouldn’t have made my top ten. But I do know what The Room is, so The Disaster Artist is one of my favorite films of the year.

9. Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

Writer/director Martin McDonagh made one of my favorite comedies of the last ten years with In Bruges, a film that showcased his ability to write sharp, often acidic dialogue. So who better to deliver that type of dialogue than Frances McDormand? This is her movie, but the supporting performances from Sam Rockwell and Woody Harrelson are great, too. More than performances, the complexity of this angry, shocking, and funny film make it one of the year’s best. The film has faced a bit of backlash because (SPOILERS) a racist character redeems himself a bit at the end a bit too easily. I don’t see a problem with a despicable character also doing something good. That just shows complexity and realism. It makes no sense that a film should be attacked for presenting something that happens in the real world every day, because, unfortunately, people can be terrible and do good things from time to time too. Most of us are not all good or all bad, and neither are the characters in McDonagh’s films, and that’s a good thing.

10. I Don’t Feel at Home in This World Anymore.

The ten-spot is always up in the air for me, and I changed my mind about a dozen times before going with this truly surprising film from writer/(first time)director Macon Blair. The story is pretty basic (a woman’s house is robbed, and the cops don’t seem too concerned, so she takes matters in her own hands), but the themes concerning justice, being a good person, and fitting in in society make this film interesting. What put it over the edge for me was the surprising and funny violence throughout. Also Melanie Lynskey is always good, and Elijah Wood was great as a dorky weirdo.

I’ll finish up with my honorable mentions. Most of these could have easily been my tenth pick, but for whatever reason didn’t make the cut. Still, I liked and/or appreciated all of these movies.

Honorable Mentions:

The Shape of Water - An R-rated fairy tale from Guillermo del Toro; that’s enough for me.

IT - This one made my list because I assumed I would hate it, but I ended up really enjoying it.

Molly’s Game - Aaron Sorkin’s script is getting the attention, but this is Jessica Chastain’s film.

I, Tonya - I really liked the faux-documentary/4th wall-breaking style about this crazy moment from the 90s.

Baby Driver - Some of the best chase sequences ever, but it makes my list for the Michael Myers mask joke alone.

T2 Trainspotting - A film that pretty much makes a case against its own existence and nostalgia in general; a rare sequel that has something to say.

John Wick: Chapter 2 - A rare sequel that is nearly as awesome as the original.

Alien: Covenant - Double Michael Fassbender made this prequel/quasi re-make stand out.

War for the Planet of the Apes - A fitting end to one of the most surprisingly good trilogies ever.

The Post - You can’t go wrong with Spielberg, Streep, and Hanks.  

Logan Lucky - Excellent heist film, but it mainly made my list because of the Game of Thrones joke in the prison.

Dunkirk - This is the one I appreciated more than liked; the use of tension is masterful.

"Blade Runner 2049" - More "Blade Runner" Than "Blade Runner"

Blade Runner 2049

(This site is supposed to be about movies I own, but I'm making an exception for this Blade Runner 2049 review since I will own it when it is released on blu ray.)

Returning to beloved films from decades ago usually results in disappointment. But thanks to a recent influx of new films that continue the franchise (Star Wars, Alien) rather than reboot it, the results have been a bit more satisfying. Still, revisiting Blade Runner seemed like a bad idea. There's not much to the original film that begs for a sequel. In fact, one of the most interesting aspects of the film is the unanswered question of whether Deckard (Harrison Ford) was a replicant. It seems like a sequel featuring Ford would be problematic for that question. Also, the first Blade Runner was not an action movie. It was a moody noir set in a dystopian future. Would Hollywood allow a sequel to be made without turning it into an action film?

Thankfully, the filmmakers (director Denis Villeneuve, producer [original director] Ridley Scott, and writers Hampton Fancher [original] and Michael Green) handled things beautifully. They do not answer the question of Deckard. In fact, they add more to the debate for both sides of the argument. And, more importantly, Blade Runner 2049 is nowhere near an action film.

The plot, which I'll be vague about since the studio left it very vague in the promotional materials, is in the same vein as the original, playing out as a simple detective story in a complex, visually stunning setting. While the plot does add plenty of questions to the series and brings up plenty of existential themes concerning humanity and technology, the true appeal of the film is its style.

Director Denis Villeneuve (Arrival, Sicario) was the perfect choice to succeed Scott in the director's chair. He has proven himself a master of tension and mood already, so it was great to see him set loose with a large budget in an already richly designed world. I rewatch the original Blade Runner on a yearly basis because of the world of the film. Blade Runner 2049 takes that bleak future and turns into perhaps the bleakest future in a film that isn't post-apocalyptic; perhaps it could be described as pre-apocalyptic. It's interesting that such an ugly moral world can be so beautiful. Villeneuve and director of photography Roger Deakins take massive landfills, radioactive cities, and bleak farmlands and turn them into cinematic wonders. 

The visuals, which are a perfect blend of CG and practical effects, are amazing on their own, and the nearly oppressive score (which rattled the speakers of my theater regularly) is the finishing touch. A world is only beautiful if you get to spend plenty of time in it, though. This is where critics (and Blade Runner fans) and a typical audience member might differ in opinion. Blade Runner 2049 gives you over two and a half hours in its bleak world, with many sequences consisting solely of Ryan Gosling walking slowly. I see that and can't take my eyes away because I want to examine and enjoy every frame of the film. Others might see that and want to yell, "Do something!" 

Perhaps the best way I can describe how interesting I found this arguably "boring" film is this: I went to see this after working a twelve hour night shift. I went to the earliest show I could, which allowed me to get two hours of sleep beforehand. I've done this with other movies and could barely keep my eyes open no matter the type of movie I was watching. Yet with Blade Runner 2049, I didn't so much as yawn a single time. I was truly worried I would fall asleep when I first planned to watch this lengthy film under those conditions. When I walked out of the theater feeling completely awake, I knew I had seen something special. 

Although the visuals, pacing, and music were the stars of the film for me, that does not mean the performances were lacking. Gosling is perfectly cast in the lead role. Harrison Ford is fine as the aged Deckard (though it seems like he's just being Harrison Ford instead of the actual characters he's returning too). Jared Leto was oddly zen-like in a villainous role, but he was underused. The standouts are the female performers. Robin Wright turns what could have been a one-note boss character into fully realized character. Sylvia Hoeks provides quiet menace as Leto's muscle. And Ana de Armas gives possibly the best performance as Joi, an AI girlfriend. 

With all of this praise I'm giving Blade Runner 2049, you might think it's obvious that I prefer it to the original film, but I'm not sure yet. My impulse is to declare this the better film, but it will take time to truly tell which film has the more lasting effect. The original Blade Runner didn't catch on for years. So maybe my opinion of this film will change over the years, as well. I doubt it, though. Like most films that I love, my immediate thought as I walked out of the theater was, "I can't wait to see this again." I think my yearly viewings of Blade Runner just became a double feature, and Blade Runner 2049 is definitely one of my favorite films of the year.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Unfortunately, this is probably the last Blade Runner for a while since it's underperforming at the box office, but I'm okay with where it ended. It definitely felt like a few things were set up for future installments, but it didn't end on a cliffhanger or anything. You can imagine where things go from that ending. But I do wonder if they ignored Leto's character at the end in hope of a sequel. Or maybe they introduced that replicant underground group to be expanded upon in the future. Either way, it stands on its own as a great movie.

Gosling was meant to play a Pinocchio-like replicant.

The Joi character reminded me of Her quite a bit. It's still an interesting plotline. At times you're watching a robot interact with a hologram. The fact that these two "lifeless" characters make up a big portion of the films says something about the overall question the film posits: What is humanity?

Man, Los Angeles is bleaker than ever. You can imagine if most people had moved off-world back in 2019 how bad it must be by 2049. 

Glad to see Edward James Olmos return, still making that origami.

So is Deckard a replicant? I think he's human at this point, though I thought he was a replicant after watching the original. It's not the aging that makes me thing he's human; it was the scene with him in the car as it submerged. If he was a replicant, he would have easily gotten out of the handcuffs. Of course, Tyrell could have made him pretty much identical to a human in all aspects if he was capable of making a replicant able to procreate. Perhaps Deckard and Rachel were his replicant Adam and Eve... Okay, maybe Deckard is a replicant after all. 

The Mixed Bag of Sci-Fi Nostalgia: Star Wars, Alien, and Blade Runner

(NewsRadio was originally going to be my next post, but I decided to postpone that and write something a bit more relevant since Blade Runner 2049 is coming out this week. NewsRadio is written and will be posted in a week or so.)

Nostalgia seems to be fueling the biggest movies and TV shows recently, and that is not going to change anytime soon thanks to the popularity of Star Wars returning to the original trilogy characters. Star Wars didn't start this trend or anything, but the massive success likely led to the greenlighting of new entries in other older properties. I can't help but think that Alien: Covenant was able to be made because of a promise to be more like the original Alien than the recent, divisive Prometheus. And based on the previews of Blade Runner 2049, it looks like the studio provided a huge budget; it's not a stretch to assume this is because of the Star Wars effect. While I love the resurgence of all these films I loved growing up, the nostalgia factor makes it a mixed bag (though I'm crazy optimistic for Blade Runner 2049). So is nostalgia helping or hurting the integrity of these franchises? Let's start with Star Wars.

The Force Awakens, many claim, gave the fans what they wanted whereas the prequels gave them what they didn't want. Not to get into a prequel vs. original trilogy debate, but one thing that can be said for the prequels is that they are different. For a lot of fans, that means they're terrible (I happen to hold them in the same regard as the original trilogy, but that's not the point). So when The Force Awakens came out, there was this collective sigh of relief: Star Wars was truly back. 

I enjoyed The Force Awakens, but the more I watched it, the more the nostalgia wore off. I still like it, but I also realize that it is an unapologetic rehash of A New Hope. People have pointed this out, but it seems like most give the film a pass. "Yeah, it's basically a remake, but, man, it really felt like Star Wars!" In other words, "Yeah, I've seen this movie before, but, man, it's a really good movie!" 

This is where I disagree with fans of The Force Awakens. Nostalgia is all about feeling, but I didn't think The Force Awakens felt like a Star Wars movie. It had all the right parts and whatnot, but it felt different. Not bad, just different. It's to the point now that I don't even consider that film's success the product of nostalgia; it was successful simply because of recognition. 

This is where the Alien and Blade Runner franchises come into play. Obviously nostalgia and recognition are part of the appeal (hell, Harrison Ford returns in Blade Runner, just like he did in Star Wars [PS - it's my theory that Ford is going through his most iconic characters and killing them off one by one; Deckard is probably going to die in the new Blade Runner, and he could also kill off Indiana Jones in the announced fifth film]), but one major difference with these two properties is that the original director, Ridley Scott, is heavily involved. Meanwhile, George Lucas, to the delight of most fans, has almost nothing to do with the new films. 

Scott's involvement is so important because he's not a fan. Everyone working on the new Star Wars films are fans, so, in essence, all the new stuff is fan fiction. Fan fiction can be good, but it will always feel a step removed. Just like Lucas was willing to do something vastly different (even if a lot of fans hated it), Scott can do whatever he wants with Alien and Blade Runner.

This has happened a bit already. The Alien prequel Prometheus, while certified fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, received a lot of negative blowback online. The film, in my opinion, has been nitpicked excessively possibly because it didn't deliver enough answers and/or the same experience of the first Alien film. The issue here is that Scott didn't set out to do either. Prometheus is not technically an Alien film as Scott has been following a multi-film plan to lead up to the original Alien. That's why there isn't a proper xenomorph in the film, and it's also why there are plenty of unanswered questions.

The more recent Alien: Covenant is different. It's as if Scott listened to the upset fans of Prometheus and tried to do two separate things: continue his multi-film plan and give the audience something very similar to the original Alien. I think the film accomplishes that, but that makes it the lesser of the two new films. I enjoyed the xenomorph sequence at the end of Covenant, but I was much more interested in the continued story from Prometheus. Pleasing fans is important, but when you give into them, it's like giving into a child who wants candy for dinner. Sure, the child will be full, but it's empty nourishment. Here's hoping that the next Alien film leans more towards Prometheus than Covenant. (To be clear, though, I really liked both movies.)

One thing that is undeniable about the Alien prequels is that Scott is still able to create the Alien atmosphere. Rewatching Alien recently, I realized that the atmosphere is why I love that first film more than Aliens. It's slow and brooding and effective. It also took what the original Star Wars presented (a futuristic sci-fi that looks lived rather than shiny and new) and perfected it. I recall Alien being described as truckers in space, and that's exactly what it is. This is best exemplified by the great Yaphet Kotto and Harry Dean Stanton (R.I.P.). How often in a film set on a spaceship do you have characters arguing about wages? All of these elements add up to a nearly perfect film. A film that could not be replicated today because of pacing alone. Look at Covenant; they essentially remade Alien in the last twenty minutes. Audiences don't have time for slow burn tension these days.

Perhaps Blade Runner 2049 will prove me wrong, though. With a running time nearing three hours and a director (Denis Villeneuve) who specializes in mood, this could be the film that gets it right. Blade Runner 2049 could placate fans and retain the atmospheric feeling of the original. 

Blade Runner 2049 may have found the perfect formula for nostalgic filmmaking. Rather than shutting out the original director, allow him to be involved in the process (as Scott is on 2049 as a producer) without giving him total control. Star Wars could benefit from George Lucas's input, as blasphemous as that might seem to certain fans. Don't let him go full prequel with it, but let him in on the process. The guy who started it all just might have a few ideas for where the story can go.

Back to Blade Runner, what made me fall in love with this film over the years was the mood and atmosphere. Judging it on face value, it's a boring film. (SPOILERS throughout the rest of this paragraph.) Deckard is very low energy and is no match against a replicant in a fight, and he only survives at the end because Batty lets him. It's not meant to be much of an action film, though. It's an atmospheric consideration of what life is, especially in a technologically advanced world. It's slow and beautiful. I don't rewatch it at least once a year for the badass action sequences; I watch it because I want to revisit the world of the film.

Of course, simply wanting to revisit the world of a film is what led to some of the problems with nostalgic filmmaking in the first place. I guess the best way to describe it is that The Force Awakens felt like I was looking at a picture of the Star Wars universe, and I hope that Blade Runner 2049 feels more like a return to the world. 

Based on early reviews for 2049, it appears that they got it right with this one. I hope so. Because nostalgia will continue to drive the content of Hollywood as long as it's profitable. Nostalgia doesn't have to be a bad thing. When done right, filmmakers might be able to recreate the magic of the past. I'll find out this weekend when I watch Blade Runner 2049.