With the Barnes & Noble Criterion Collection sale ending today, I chose a movie from my Criterion collection to ponder last night night.  My Beautiful Laundrette is an aged film that seems ever-so-relevant to this day.  The film centers around a young Pakistani Briton named Omar (Gordon Warnecke) with ambitious plans to promote within the working world.  When greed, corruption, sexual tension, and racial inequality start to affect his lifestyle, he continues to work hard and tries to make a difference for the people surrounding him.  Omar opens a laundromat in order to continue rising in the working world, against the wishes of his father.  

For a film released in 1985, the message is quite progressive even in the modern world.  Gordon Warnecke (Venus, A Fatal Inversion, Boon) turns the main character from an innocent Pakistani young man into a hard-working money-oriented individual.  The character's identity is always shadowed by other characters, as Omar reaches out to his family and his white co-worker/boyfriend for advice along his journey.  Daniel Day-Lewis (There Will Be Blood, The Last of the Mohicans, Lincoln, Gangs of New York) plays the white boyfriend that causes a lot of the conflict surrounding Omar's life.  Day-Lewis hardly needs to talk in order to grab the audience's attention towards his character.  Johnny is a tough but also charming white Briton, raised around a rough group of friends.

Through clear direction, Stephen Frears's (Philomena, The Queen) early film portrays many powerful messages.  Hanif Kureishi's (Venus, My Son the Fanatic, Le Week-End) screenplay is simple, but includes many different aspects.  As a Pakistani in Britain, Omar is seen as a threat to Johnny's white friends.  The world is currently struggling with immigration policies, and this film displays some of the reasons why immigration is such a heated topic.  Furthermore, Omar and Johnny's relationship is a conflict for both of their friends/families.  The more the viewer looks into this film, the more conflicts arise throughout the short runtime.  While the score for this film is not the most powerful, it is interesting to note that Hans Zimmer (Gladiator, Inception, Dunkirk, Interstellar) composed the music.  The music fits into the film well, but I never would have guessed that Hans Zimmer created this subtle soundtrack.

The Bottom Line:  While My Beautiful Laundrette dates back to 1985, the topics discussed are still relevant to modern society's political struggles.  

Score: 8/10

Image credits:

By Nrbelex - Own work, CC BY-SA 2.5, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=8954299

By Towpilot - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1289613

​

Every so often, you need to sit back and watch a classic comedy from the past.  Modern times are filled with bad news, indecent conflicts, and too much seriousness.  Mel Brooks (The Producers) reminds us of simpler times, when we could relax and not worry about who we offended.  This is a blessing and a curse for the acclaimed director.  I like the idea of his films, but a lot of the time they are too simple in their punchlines.  Throughout Blazing Saddles, Brooks relies on racial stereotypes and sexual content to make jokes.  ​Blazing Saddles is unique because of Brooks's direction, but grows stale after the same jokes continue to appear.

For me, it was hard to settle into the genre that Brooks has molded over time.  The first half hour of the film creates the western setting for the film.  We see a chain-gang working on a railroad in the middle of nowhere.  We see vast landscapes, saloons, and small-towns in the western setting of the properly-titled film.  However, the script shows us right away that this is not a typical western genre.  Offensive racial terms are dropped here and there, without any sign of remorse.  It's as if the offensive words were never outlawed by society.  After the first half hour, we finally get to see the redeeming trait of the film, the bromance between Gene Wilder (Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory) and Cleavon Little (Vanishing Point​).  Both of these actors carry the film forward, progressing a storyline that constantly changes.

The storyline remains interesting for the full runtime, because of how unpredictable it is.  Nothing really makes sense, but the plot is still linear.  It's as if Brooks had no idea of where he wanted to take the film.  From the very start, we are introduced to oddball characters that are not worth remembering because they only show up once or twice.  Rather than being a clear narrative, Blazing Saddles is an hour-and-a-half of improv filmmaking.  While it may not be for me, I do acknowledge that Brooks has defined his own genre throughout his career.

The Bottom Line: It is hard to relate with a comedy as obscure as this one, but the cast helps progress the story with likable and unlikable characters meshed together.

​Score: 5/10

Image credit: ​By Towpilot - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1140646

I am 22 years old and have just now had the privilege of investing my time in a viewing of Animal House.  This film was a base for its genre, opening new doors for coming-of-age/college movies.  John Hughes reigned over high-school coming-of-age with Ferris Bueller's Day Off, but John Landis (The Blues Brothers) reigned over college coming-of-age with this one.  Animal House is quirky, wild, and of course raunchy.  While the story is too rushed and poorly scripted, it seems like the creators knew exactly what they were going for with this one.

That begs the question: with a dull story and odd happenings, how has this film continued to attract audiences?  Well, maybe it's the cast.  Tom Hulce (Amadeus, The Hunchback of Notre Dame), Stephen Furst (Babylon 5), Kevin Bacon (Footloose), and many others keep the film enjoyable and zany.  But the real star is the neanderthal-like John Belushi (The Blues Brothers​).  As John Blutarsky, Belushi keeps the audience guessing what he will do whenever he is on the screen.  Belushi was cast in a heck of a lot of fun films, but there is a reason why this one sits towards the top of his whole filmography.  

Okay, so the cast is fun to watch.  There has to be more to this film than just a fun cast.  After all, Batman v. Superman had a fun cast, but still was very unenjoyable.  Animal House has become a sort of initiation into the comedy genre for cinephiles.  Why is that?  I think it has to do with the initial release of the film.  In 1978, this was surely a huge shock for film audiences.  Beer and topless women constantly pop on-screen as Landis decides to bring out fraternity life to the world.  Sure, not all fraternities are well-represented by this film.  Yet, there are definitely college students and fraternity brothers that are relatable to the characters in the film.  The scattered story doesn't matter, so long as viewers can reminisce on their college memories.  Even though most of us did not go through college like this, we probably know someone who did.  

The Bottom Line: Don't expect a grandiose and well-rounded story, but rather a beer-cladden romp through a stereotypical fraternity.

Score: 6/10

Image credit: ​By Visitor7 - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=29127671

Airplane II: The Sequel succeeds in being an almost exact replica of it's predecessor.  Wordplay and puns again rule the day when a passenger space shuttle ends up off course, heading straight for the sun.  The special effects are fun for the classic that strives to be bad.  The film kicks off with a spoof of a franchise that still rules the space cinema genre.  That's right, Ken Finkleman (Grease 2) was ballsy enough to spoof Star Wars with an overly lengthened text crawl.  Just as Airplane spoofed Jaws in the first scene, Airplane II spoofs an equally large film.

The beauty of the Airplane franchise is how far it is willing to go.  Nudity constantly comes up throughout the film, shocking audiences with crude imagery.  I thought it was hilarious that the metal detector worked as a full body scanner at certain times in the airport.  It's as if Airplane II: The Sequel predicted the future of airport security.  Yet, the film was only using it as a butt of an ongoing joke that men see women in certain ways.  Sure the stereotypes are outdated, but you have to admit that they were clever and astonishing considering the film came out in 1982.

Airplane II: The Sequel really shines bright with its use of wordplay and puns.  Every character name is incorporated into the story to create sidetracks from the basic plot.  Peter Graves (Airplane!), Kent McCord (Predator 2), and James A. Watson Jr. (Whitney) steal the spotlight for the first half of the film with their portrayals of crewmembers Oveur, Unger, and Dunn.  These are "Shirley" great names to work with, reminding us of why Airplane was such a great spoof!  Robert Hays (Airplane!) also makes for a good lead actor in his role as the mental asylum escapee Ted Striker.  All of these characters are the opposite of rich, but what more could you ask for with such a spoof?  William Shatner (Star Trek​)?  You get that too, so don't complain!

The Bottom Line: Airplane II: The Sequel picks up where Airplane left off, keeping an audience engaged with it's clever script.

Score: 8/10

This 1986 Indonesian action film is a cult-film lovers dream of a well made movie.  In other words, this movie sucks in the best way possible.  Rambu the Intruder is kind of a cheap rip off of Rambo, but its not really even that.  Alex Trambuan (played by Peter O'Brian) is a guy who decides to become a vigilante for pretty much no reason at all.  I think he was trying to save a woman from the villain, but the characters and plot get so turned around that I'm not really sure if that is the correct synopsis.  Not to mention, this was a midnight screening so my brain was more tuned off than usual.  

The dialogue in this film is one of the most poorly written scripts I have ever heard.  But, it added humor to the show.  To be clear, I definitely was laughing at this film, not with this film.  Odd moments of seemingly unintentional sexism and racism pop up here and there, making this reminiscent of other cult films.  The dialogue is extremely similar to that of Tommy Wiseau's masterpiece, The Room.  Yet, I loved this film as I love The Room.  I have never seen Rambo, but I'm sure that this film has almost nothing in common with it aside from maybe the character's headband.  Unlike Glen or Glenda, I actually enjoyed this SIFF awful classic film and want to see more Peter O'Brian performances.

The formatting of this screening was different because B-Movie Bingo was going on as the film screened.  If you have never done B-Movie Bingo, its pretty fun and keeps you engaged throughout the whole film.  The moderators gave out Rambu posters, VHS tapes of pizza spinning for two hours, candy, and many other prizes.  Unfortunately I didn't get a bingo until the last 20 minutes of the movie, but I still enjoyed reading my bingo board and comparing it to the others.  Overall, this was a fun way to experience an awful film.

The Bottom Line:  This cult classic features poor dubbing and ridiculous dialogue, but it is still a great achievement in filmmaking because it shows us how screen garbage can be fun to watch.

Score: 4/10

Image Credit: ​http://rymimg.com/lk/f/l/9a7d49b6c4e29cd59e4149823bd6711d/1151056.jpg

What a treasure this one is!  I got to see this one as a midnight screening during SIFF and even the Mystery Science Theater peeps couldn't save this film from being sheer garbage.  Having never seen an Ed Wood movie before, I had no idea what to expect.  I've of course seen classic cult films such as The Room, Miami Connection, and The Rocky Horror Picture Show.  But, those at least had something to grasp at and enjoy.  Glen or Glenda is sheer madness though.  What the hell was the point of this film?

The Mystery Science Theater guys tried to help the film run a bit smoothly.  Riffing on films is also something I've never watched, let alone seen in a live performance.  To be honest, the first 20 minutes of the film went smoothly and made me chuckle, but eventually the riffing itself got old.  Once the clock struck 12:30AM I felt like what I was watching would be a good way to extract information from a combatant.  I mean really, this whole movie fiasco was sheer torture.  There are now two movie directors that I never want to watch, Jean-Luc Godard and the ever-so-torturous Ed Wood.

The Bottom Line:  Skip it if you have anything better to do with your life.

Score: 1/10

Image Credit: ​http://www.gstatic.com/tv/thumb/movieposters/92953/p92953_p_v8_aa.jpg

With tickets to see Tarantino's new film, I had to go back and watch the others again.  Whether this will be successful or not, I have made it through the first film and have nine to go.  After starting with Reservoir Dogs, I think that this task will not be too hard.  I truly love this film and it is a film that strives off of witty dialogue, plot twists, a fantastic compilation soundtrack, and of course Taratino-esque violence.  The classic shows off a star-studded cast that Tarantino still constantly works with.  For example, Tim Roth and Michael Madsen are both appearing in The Hateful Eight and I am truly grateful for this.  What amazing actors these two are, playing off of each others characters and giving there all for the dramatic story.

Of course, the plot brings quite a bit of ingenuity to the films.  The who-dun-it model keeps the audience guessing until the very end.  Not only that, the timeframe is unique as it shifts to past events and back into the present day.  This helps the plot reveal itself in a much more mysterious method.  This type of directing really set up and foreshadows a lot of Tarantino's later films as he has often used it over and over again for his sleek style.

Finally, it is crucial to bring up the compilation soundtrack for this film.  This is another tool that Tarantino has used to compliment his movies.  All of the 70s music really brings the audience into the time period that the movie supposedly takes place in.  Maybe I just love 70s beats, but every scene has some sort of iconic piece of music that keeps me focused on the screen through its constantly pushing tempo.  The music creates a flow that the film might not have without it.

The Bottom Line:  This is a fantastic film that foreshadows most of Tarantino's later films through its unique style and method.

​Score: 9.7/10

In the 1980s, Wes Craven created one of the most iconic horror characters ever.  Freddy Kreuger is shrouded with mystery as a character who disturbs his victims in the dream world.  Craven was certainly a genius horror film maker whose legacy has lived on through time.  Unlike most modern horror films, A Nightmare on Elm Street moves beyond the basic jump-scare horror convention.  Rather, the film creates a mesh between reality and dream.  For me, this is a film that is more fun to watch than many other horror films.

This film stands out as a classic, but clearly has some dated aspects to it.  A lot of the effects are based on creating a creepy character.  Kreuger is made to be a repulsive creature with burn marks and other oddities.  Certainly I was disgusted by much of the character model, but some of it just seemed out right creepy.  Often, Kreuger seemed more like a pedophile than he did a killer.

I think I am going to finish up this review with a short rant on why horror films do not appeal to me very much.  The last horror film I saw in theaters was The Babadook and I loved it, but I just cannot help but notice that contemporary horror films are not made with quite as much attention to detail as other genres often are.  Most of them just go on jump-scare tangents that get boring to me after a while.  In film history, there have been many horror films that I have enjoyed because they reach a broader approach.  For example, The Shining is a brilliant horror film because it brings in a brilliant soundtrack, engaging cast, and Kubrick's amazing direction.  I just wish that the genre would turn back to its roots and strive to create better films than Paranormal Activity and Annabelle.

The Bottom Line: Wes Craven creates a memorable character that lives on in the horror genre.

Score: 7/10

In Annie Hall, Woody Allen creates a love story that can endure through time because of its relevance to everybody.  This is definitely the best film that I have ever seen by Woody Allen and clearly will remain a classic.  Not only is Allen's directing unique and attractive, but his acting backs up the fact that he is a diverse individual in Hollywood.  The first image in the film introduces us to his character, an uncomfortable young man who cannot seem to connect with anyone.  Allen pulls of the amount of cynicism necessary for the character's background.

Various different filming methods help the movie to flow freely.  A few of these methods are breaking the fourth wall, adding commentary subtitles, and putting two shots into one scene.  The audience can connect with Alvy Singer (Woody Allen's character) by going directly into his mind.  Whatever Singer is thinking at a given time is relayed to the audience through the different filming methods.  Not only do the methods put the audience into Singer's head, but they also make the film feel short because of the innovation.

One reason why Woody Allen has received so much applause throughout his career is because of the actresses in his films.  In this film, Allen puts Annie Hall at the same level as Alvy Singer.  Both of them are similarly lost in the world and cannot seem to live a steady life.  Neither of them is placed in a more powerful position than the other.  While at times Alvy might seem to know everything, Annie is there to point out that he is wrong.  This sort of equality is great to see in cinema, where actors seem to get the upper-hand over actresses most of the time.

The Bottom Line:  Annie Hall can relate to all viewers and it shows the creative mind of Woody Allen at his finest.

​Score: 9.8/10

Great direction and strong acting work together to create a glorious cat-and-mouse chase that stands out in a classic action genre.  The French Connection plays out as a classic chase film that shows off William Friedkin's skills as a director.  With such a simple plot, Friedkin brings the audience into the forefront of the action by using multiple types of shots.  Most of the movie is compiled of chase scenes, which could have gotten old after a while.  Yet, they don't because they flow so well together.  Different long shots put the audience in a recon position, truly giving them the chance to hide from the connection.  My favorite shot of the film puts the audience up against a window, where they stake-out the connection through the glass.

To go along with this filming perfection, the acting is spectacular.  Gene Hackman plays Jimmy "Popeye" Doyle, bringing a sharp edge to the character.  As a NYC cop he and his partner go around intimidating drug addicts with witty, but harsh commentary.  Hackman's acting is perfect for this; sharp and direct when enforcing the law, but friendly and relatable when he is with his partner.  The dynamic between Jimmy Doyle and his partner Buddy Russo (Roy Scheider) also gives a buddy cop aspect to the movie.  Russo and Doyle connect to each other perfectly and are a great duo in action.

The one critique I have for this film is the ending.  Without giving away any spoilers, I felt as though the ending could have played out a bit more.  Friedkin takes a cop-out direction for the ending of the film and I just wished to see more.  Honestly, I would have loved if the film were two hours long just to create a more solid close.  

The Bottom Line:  This film is one the strongest directed and acted cat-and-mouse chase that I have seen to date!

Score: 9.8/10