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

Hell or High Water is not the best motion picture of the year.  There is nothing groundbreaking, or majorly original in this film.  Yet, there is not much to complain about.  The screenplay is not the freshest thing in modern cinema, but the cast is spectacular and they grace the screen with their presence.  The other day I watched The Hollywood Reporter's actor roundtable, which included Jeff Bridges (The Big Lebowski, True Grit, Iron Man, TRON: Legacy).  If I had not watched the roundtable, I might not have been as invested in this film.  If you have any doubts about watching the film, check out the roundtable so that you can connect with Bridges a bit more.  Bridges is as genuinely interesting guy with a lot of experience in acting.

The rest of the cast also makes the film an exciting watch.  Chris Pine (Star Trek), Ben Foster (Lone Survivor), and Gil Birmingham (Rango) act as familiar faces for their roles.  While the screenplay may seem reminiscent of other films in the genre, the acting is excellent and fresh.  Imagine a double-date with Chris Pine and Ben Foster meeting up with Jeff Bridges and Gil Birmingham.  Well it's more of a duel, but there is certain bromance between the two groups of actors.  

Rather than focusing on the storyline, Taylor Sheridan (Sicario) writes deep characters.  With a premise of bank robbers, it is hard to create an original film.  Rather, the setting and the character relationships are the focal point of David Mackenzie's (Starred Up) newest film.  Sheridan's writing is subtly rich and engaging, similarly to his previous work on Sicario.  Look out for more of Sheridan's films in the near future since he appears to have struck gold with this genre.  While Mackenzie's direction is a bit unique, there are some odd moments throughout the film where non-diegetic music starts to play.  I am not sure if I liked the moments where the music kicked in, but it is an interesting way to place more music in film!

The Bottom Line:  Hell or High Water shines bright with its spectacularly written characters, even if it is not the best film of the year!

Score: 9.5/10

I was left speechless after this one.  A little over a week ago, I released my top ten films of 2015 and assumed that it was finalized.  Apparently I was wrong because this one jumps all the way to the top for me.  Going into the film, I had heard that it was a bit too long but beautiful and well-acted.  Well, I thought that the film was the perfect length because of the art it was conveying.  Filled with metaphors and shots of nature, I was never drawn away from the screen.  Every single shot held a sort of magnificence that I wish Steve McQueen could figure out how to handle.  In The Revenant, nature is its own character by adding to the narrative between superbly acted scenes.

Not enough praise can go to each and every single actor in the film.  Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hardy and Domhnall Gleeson each bring out the ruthlessness of the European traders.  Leo of course deserves an Oscar for this film and hopefully someone else won't steal this one from him.  After all, who else actually ate a raw bison liver in their performance this year?  Even with little dialogue, DiCaprio shines as one of the greatest method actors of all time.  Hardy similarly shines as a sort of villain without a very well thought-out plan after his actions.  Lastly, Gleeson plays a strong leader as a captain.  He is really shaping into a fine actor but still seems to be underrated by the public.

Here comes the real reason I fell in love with the film.  The score is probably my favorite score of last year as well.  The drawn-out five notes that introduce the scale of the film fit so perfectly.  It is deep, it is emotional, and it is just as fitting for this film as Concerning Hobbits was for the Shire.  Accompanying the music, the audience gets a glimpse of the mysticism and spirituality of the time.  These are things that modern American society has lost.  Making a case for revival of Native American culture, the film cuts very deep into the land that our forefathers and we ourselves have taken for granted.  The film is just perfection, pure perfection.

The Bottom Line:  On a grand scale, this film reaches out for the audiences emotions as it uses mystical methods to tell a story and plead for a revival of a lost culture.

​Score: 9.7/10

With many great films under his belt, I have come to expect near-perfection in Tarantino's films.  Proud to say that he is my favorite director of all time, I am always astonished with his direction.  The Hateful Eight is another film that astonishes me because of its cast and style.  Taking on a great task of creating a 70mm roadshow film in the modern day, Tarantino creates another movie that exceeds many of my expectations.  However, I will say that in my opinion it is not one of his strongest films.  Clocking in at three hours and seven minutes, the movie moved along quite quickly but never hit a climax that could compare to his previous films.

The first half of the film displays Tarantino's skill at bringing out great performances from his directing and writing.  All of the characters clearly have some hidden background that are brought to the forefront of the film.  As with every Tarantino movie, the audience is forced through a tense buildup until the second half of the film where everything will be revealed.  That being said, the first half of the film showed off a brilliant script that was well-crafted by Tarantino himself.  Yet, the second half of the film fell short in my opinion with its overly-dramatized violence.  Of course violence is a crucial aspect of Tarantino's other films, but this one did not have the plot support to go along with the violence.  Rather, the backstory of the characters falls a bit short of what I was expecting and hoping for.  Nonetheless, the actors do their part in bringing justice to the screen.  Samuel L. Jackson, Kurt Russell, and Tim Roth really shine while acting out a very well-written script.  
In the script, race issues are directly tackled in a setting that occurs right after the end of the Civil War.  As with Django Unchained, The Hateful Eight tackles slavery and the racial power struggle.  Furthermore, Tarantino adds sexism into the mix with Daisy Domergue's character played by Jennifer Jason Leigh.  The development of Leigh's character and Jackson's character twists around different power positions for both women and African-Americans in the post-Civil War society.  Without any spoilers, you can expect a lot of violence that is used to sort out these social matters.  

With this film, I must include the technical aspects which were truly superb.  Starting off with the camerawork, Tarantino truly revives the 70mm format with the wide shots at the beginning of the film.  The landscape is spectacular and reminiscent of old western films such as Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.  I assume that trying to capture a blizzard on camera can be awfully hard, but the screen is often filled with snow and great winds that made me feel happy to be in the theater in the middle of winter.  With that being said, all of the camerawork is what should be expected in a Tarantino film.  Another great expectation from a Tarantino film is a deep music score.  Once again, Ennio Morricone delivers exactly what Tarantino needs for The Hateful Eight.  This is a dramatic score that has a very small western aspect to it.  More than feeling like a western score, the music feels like a very subtle but hard-hitting score that works perfectly for Quentin.

The Bottom Line:  Tarantino delivers another great film that is technically astonishing with familiar acting but falls a bit short in its overall plot-line.   

​Score: 9.3/10