Best Christmas Carol Films

It's Christmas time again!  Oh how I love this time of year, even with all the consumerism and the weather that could make it easy to get my tongue frozen to flagpole, I freaking love it! There's just a magical feeling in the air that can't be duplicated.

I was originally going to make a list of my favorite Christmas specials but as I went through the list I realized that the list was really cliched. I mean I had films and specials that everybody lists: A Christmas Story, A Charlie Brown Christmas, National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation, etc. etc.

And I felt like I couldn't add anything else to it that hasn't been said before. So I've decided to move on to my other list idea: Top Christmas Carol Adaptations. The reason I'm making a separate list for this is because the regular Christmas list would just be a bunch of Christmas Carol films, and there's enough adaptations to warrant its own list.

Before I begin the actual list here are some honorable mentions:

Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol (1962, dir. Abe Levitow). This is my Dad's personal favorite. It does have a lot of charm to it and it has some good musical numbers, including the sad and easily relatable All Alone in the World. And yes that's Mr. Howell from Gilligan's Island, Jim Backus, voicing Mr. Magoo. While it has a lot of charm I can't think of a lot of things it does REALLY well or special. It's just Mr. Magoo as Scrooge. It is something I recommend though.

Scrooge (1970, dir. Ronald Neame) A version that has a really nice atmosphere and feel to it and even has some good songs like I Hate People, I Like Life, and the Oscar nominated song Thank You Very Much. Also, Kenneth More is spectacular as the Ghost of Christmas Present. But what kills it for me is a rather bizarre scene where Scrooge goes to hell (no I'm not kidding this happens) and Albert Finney as Scrooge. Don't get me wrong, Finney is a really good actor but he seems to be trying too hard to sound and act like a old man. Also, Tiny Tim's song, A Beautiful Day, that song is just WAY to cute and 'pwecious'. But this film does have some good aspects in it and if you dig it that's fine.

Blackadder's Christmas Carol (1988, dir. Richard Boden) Anyone who is a fan of the classic British tv show Blackadder (or British comedy in general) will dig this. It's a very different kind of Christmas Carol where a man goes from being very charitable to very cruel and cynical. The Scrooge in question is Ebenezer Blackadder (Rowan Atkinson) who is very different from his long line of smart but cynical ancestors, he's kind but is constantly taken advantage of. After a visit from the Spirit of Christmas (Robbie Coltrane) and seeing some visions of past and future relatives, he decides to be cynical and mean spirited. It's fantastic especially if you want something a little different.

Disney's Christmas Carol (2009, dir. Robert Zemeckis). I'm still not sure if I really love this version of it or if I just think it's okay. I mean it has plenty of great quiet moments, a great atmosphere, an awesome interpretation of the Ghost of Christmas Future, Jim Carrey is surprisingly good as Scrooge, and of course you've got Gary Oldman being awesome as always. But there are some moments that get way to intense in the scares and then some really silly moments that ruin it for me. Mainly when they shrunk Scrooge and had him talking in a high pitch voice. It does have good stuff none the less, and a song that has become a holiday staple of mine.

Epic Rap Battles of History: Donald Trump vs Ebenezer Scrooge (2013) Here's a VERY different version of the tale. It's just interesting how they do it and they always have great verses. My words won't do it justice. Just check it out for yourself.

I also recommend Atop the Fourth Wall's riffing of Scrooge (1935, dir. Henry Edwards), the first sound version of the tale. Linkara and company give a great and funny riff of this version.  You can find it here at this website: http://atopthefourthwall.com/linkara-riffs-scrooge-1935/

But onto the actual list, I'll be listing them in chronological order:

Scrooge (1951, dir. Brian Desmond Hurst). This in my book is the definitive version. For me Alastair Sims is the best Scrooge. That's not to discredit the other Scrooges out there but Sims to me has the proper amount of grumpiness, cynicism, and despair. But when he becomes joyful and happy in the end you totally by it. He's redemption scene in the end is probably the best I've seen in any version. 

The black & white cinematography adds a lot to the atmosphere in both the joyful and creepy parts, DO NOT GET A COLORIZED VERSION! It just looks wrong to me. As for the ghosts and other cast members, they do a good job. This is a very traditional telling of the story but the atmosphere and Sims make this more than worthy film to watch every Christmas. 

Also is it more or did Sims serve as an inspiration of Mr. Burns from The Simpsons? I don't know it could just be me.

Mickey's Christmas Carol (1983, dir. Burny Mattinson) Yep, this 26 minute version with Scrooge McDuck, Mickey Mouse, and Donald Duck is a pretty good version. It's true that a lot of stuff is cut out (mainly a lot of stuff involving the nephew, Fred) but it still has a lot of what made the story great. Is anyone really surprised that they picked the one Disney character with Scrooge in his name as Ebenezer Scrooge? But Scrooge McDuck (voiced by Alan Young) is great in the role. McDuck is a great character that is capable of being both a miser and a happy-go-lucky man in the end. Also having Scrooge McDuck as Ebenezer makes it easier to pick a character for Fred, Donald Duck (voiced by Clarence Nash in his final film as Donald). This film also manages to pack in a lot of emotional stuff in just a few seconds of animation. The best example is the reveal of Tiny Tim's death. It's probably my favorite version of it. I would give a spoiler warning but you've all seen this story it isn't a surprise. 

I also love how their selection for the Ghosts. Goofy as Jacob Marley is... odd, but having Jiminy Cricket as Christmas Past, Willie the Giant as Christmas Present, and a cigar chomping Pete as Christmas Future is great. It's a more than worthy viewing. 

A Christmas Carol (1984, dir. Clive Donner) When you hear that American actor George C. Scott is going to be playing the very British Ebenezer Scrooge I'm sure some of you are thinking, "Really? The guy who won an Oscar for playing an American army general? Really?" But, the Scott is considered an acting legend for a reason. The guy take the character of Ebenezer Scrooge and makes it his own. He doesn't just make him extremely grumpy or mean spirited but as a man who has just had enough of the world. To the point where he just scoffs at the ideal of a Merry Christmas, and laughs away at other prospects. Probably the best thing about this version of the story, outside of Scott, is that the story takes a little extra time and expands on events that happened to Scrooge. 

The greatest example is with Scrooge and his father (Nigel Davenport). In a lot of versions they just have Scrooge's sister say, "Father is so much kinder now." But in this film we see young Scrooge interacting with his father and we get to see older Scrooge showing disgust towards his father. It's little touches like this that really add a lot. 

This film also has one of the best supporting casts in any adaptations. Oscar Nominee Frank Finlay as Jacob Marley, Edward Woodward as the Ghost of Christmas Present, David Warner as Bob Crachit, and the then-future Alfred Pennyworth Michael Gough as one of the charity gentleman. 

It's really amazing for a television production. 

The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992, dir. Brian Henson) The first Muppet production made after Jim Henson's death (the film was made in his and Muppeteer Richard Hunt's memory) and I think he would be proud. 

I'm willing to admit that most of my love for this is centered around my obsession with the Muppets.  But there are still plenty of good things about the film. Michael Caine is of course very good as Scrooge, having a very dead pan Scrooge (with random out bursts) in the beginning and a more humble man in the end, I love it. But to me this film does the best version of the three Ghosts. They don't take the Mickey route and just have already existing characters as the ghosts (that was the original idea but they scrapped it). Instead they created three unique and amazing puppets for each Ghost.

This film also has probably the most Christmas-y feeling of all of these Christmas Carols. It just oozes Christmas to me. Just look at this shot! 

I also love the songs written by Oscar nominee and frequent Muppet collaborator Paul Williams. If this doesn't put you in the Christmas spirit I don't know what will. 

It's all just wonderful. Again, this could be my undying love for the Muppets speaking or the nostalgia but I love it none the less. 

That's my list. Do you agree? Disagree? Share you thoughts in the comment section.

Be sure to like the blog on Facebook.

Also follow the blog on twitter @DocJohn90.

And thank you for reading and have a Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Happy Kwanzaa, Happy New Year, and just a Happy Season overall.

P.S.: I just realized that this is pretty much parallels the selections in my Long John Silver list. One from the 50s, an animated Disney one, one with an unlikely American actor, and one with the Muppets. This was by accident I assure you.

Arthur Christmas (2011): Bound to Be a Christmas Classic

Arthur Christmas (2011)

D: Sarah Smith

W: Peter Baynham, Sarah Smith

S: James McAvoy, Hugh Laurie, Bill Nighy, Jim Broadbent, Imelda Staunton, Ashley Jensen, Marc Wootton, Laura Linney, Eva Longoria, Ramona Marquez, Michael Palin

As the holidays draw closer and closer, I’m sure we all like to bust out all the holiday classics and watch them until our copies have gotten all worned out and are unplayable.  We get that warm nostalgic feeling with A Charlie Brown Christmas (1965, dir. Bill Melendez), How the Grinch Stole Christmas (1966, dir. Chuck Jones), A Christmas Story (1983, dir. Bob Clark). National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation (1989, dir. Jeremiah S. Checkik), the countless versions of A Christmas Carol and, of course, that unforgettable classic, Die Hard (1988, dir. John McTiernan). IT COUNTS!

But in recent years we haven’t had that many movies that can be deemed classics or stuff we’d probably watch again.  A lot of these holiday films have been focused on consumerism and nothing that the holiday spirit is about. There was Jingle All the Way (1996, dir. Brian Levant) which was just about getting a toy and that's it. Deck the Halls (2006, dir. John Whitesell) which was mostly mean spirited competition with the spirit of the holidays after an after thought. Christmas with the Kranks (2004, dir. Joe Roth) which seems to take place in a universe where going on a vacation for Christmas or not celebrating it is a bizarre concept. Yeah, it could be commentary but I just didn't find it that funny in my book. And then all the countless sequels to classics that nobody asked for. Lookin' at you  A Christmas Story 2 (2012, dir. Brian Levant)

There have been decent ones in between, mainly the Robert Zemeckis adaptations of The Polar Express and A Christmas Carol.

But in 2011 we finally got one that I’m sure everyone will be talking about, the animated film Arthur Christmas.

The movie is about the Santa Claus family as they try to come to a decision as to who the new Santa should be.  Should the next Santa be the one already in service (Jim Broadbent) or his eldest and tech savvy son, Steve (Hugh Laurie)?  Or should his father be reinstated as jolly old St. Nick (Bill Nighy)?  Or will the reigns be handed to his youngest and clumsiest son, Arthur (James McAvoy)?

Before the decision can be made, the Santas realize that a child has been missed during the Christmas gift delivery.  Arthur, being the holly jolly boy that he is, takes it upon himself to deliver the child’s present himself, with his family coming after him to bring him back home.

What happens is an hour and a half of pure holiday joy. You get some great voice work, especially from the amazing James McAvoy, some hilarious scenes that are perfect for any age, and a message that will remain true throughout the years: it doesn't matter how you give a gift; it’s the thought that counts.

Santa wants to give it because, well, he’s Santa, and he wants the glory.  Steve wants to give it because he’s the oldest, and he feels more up to date to be Santa.  And Grandfather Santa, or 'Grand Santa' as he's referred to as, wants to do it because to him, “Everything was better in my day.”
But, as Arthur shows the audience, it isn't about getting a pat on the back or praise for giving someone a gift.  You give a gift because it feels good, and you get to make someone happy.

So this holiday season, add Arthur Christmas to your holiday movie collection.  You won’t regret it.

Agree? Disagree? Share you thoughts in the comment section.

Like the blog on Facebook and follow me on twitter @DocJohn90.

More Holiday posts to come.

DISCLAIMER: All images belong to their respected sources.

This article was also originally published in UCBA's newspaper The Activist. I've included a few things that weren't in the original.

Star Wars: The Force Awakens theories

Ever since the trailer debuted for Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens I've been watching it countless times. I seriously can't believe how much it has gotten me stoked. I mean, this is just a teaser full of money shots. You know, "Look X-Wings! Look a cool looking lightsaber! Look the Falcon!" But still I can't deny the fact that this has gotten me excited. I feel like a little kid watching the original trilogy on VHS for the first time. 

After watching this trailer over and over again I've started developing my own theories about the film. Let's start with the first thing to literally pop up in the trailer, John Boyega.

Now obviously we see him wearing a storm trooper uniform. My theory with him is that he's actually a spy for the New Republic and they're on Tatooine it seems so it could be that the Empire is invading there for some reason, it could have something to do with Luke Skywalker, and Boyega's character is an operative to help rescue him or something. I am sort of getting a, "I'm Luke Skywalker, I'm here to rescue you," vibe. This leads to the second person to pop up, Daisy Ridley.

Clearly she's on Tatooine as well and she could be anything. She could a member of the New Republic there to rendezvous with Boyega, she could a smuggler who thinks the Empire is after her (her speeder bike seems to be big enough to have cargo containers), she could a Jedi, she could be an Imperial scout. There's a lot of possibility with her and I'm fine with that. 

Then we've got Oscar Isaac. His part seems rather obvious as of right now, he's a member of the New Republic and an X-Wing pilot (by the way, this part was probably my favorite part of the trailer). Heck, he could very well be the new leader of Rogue Squadron. He could be Wedge Antilles's son or something. Okay, I'm probably reaching there.

But onto the moment everyone seems to be talking about, the medieval looking lightsaber. What in the heck is up with that design? I'll be honest and say that this is the one thing that made me tilt my head, those hilts seem so impractical.

 I did like the way it was revealed though. The lone Sith walking through the creepy, snowy forest and suddenly whipping out his lightsaber. Great work there. But who is he/she is the big question. It could be Domhall Gleeson, it could Andy Serkis (who as it turns out was the voice heard in the trailer). I'm guessing just based on that voice he used in the trailer that Serkis could be a Sith who is seeking a new apprentice to take down Skywalker and bring a new empire to power. I can only guess at this point. 

None the less, I'm still excited about this. 

Have you developed any thoughts or theories about the movie? Share them in the comment section. 

Be sure to like the blog on Facebook

And follow me on Twitter @DocJohn90. 

All images belong to their respected sources. 

Jurassic Park & Star Wars trailer reaction

We've had two new trailers for two big franchises and I've got some thoughts for the both of them.

First up, Jurassic World:

This is the fourth installment of the fondly remembered Jurassic Park franchise. Just to give a quick summation of my thoughts of the previous films: Jurassic Park - awesome, The Lost World - it had fun bits but got too preachy for me, Jurassic Park III - disappointing. As for this film, it looks amazing! This movie really seems to be upping the horror aspect a little more which is pretty good in my book. Also, Chris Pratt action hero. I am all for this. Especially since he seems to have a velociraptor army with him. So yeah, I'm stoked.

Now onto, Star Wars: The Force Awakens

First up quick summation of my thoughts of the franchise:  Stars Wars 4-6, amazing and timeless. Star Wars 1-3, while clearly flawed they do have good moments in them and shouldn't be completely shunned away. I mean come on Ewan McGregor was great as a young Obi-Wan Kenobi.

Now I know this is just a teaser, and yes that hilted lightsaber did make me tilt my head a little but I can't help it I'm stoked for it. I seriously want a full trailer now. I mean right now! GIVE IT TO ME! Sorry, lost control there. 

What are your thoughts? Share in the comments.

Be sure to like us on Facebook

Also follow me on twitter @DocJohn90

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 Review

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1

D: Francis Lawrence

W: Peter Craig, Danny Strong

S: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Julianne Moore, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Jeffrey Wright, Stanley Tucci, Donald Sutherland

This week we see the release of the last installment... I mean the second to last installment of the popular Hunger Games franchise. The story continues after the events of Catching Fire (a big 'no duh' there) as our hero, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) wakes up in District 13 which is the home of the growing rebellion against President Snow (Donald Sutherland). There she reunites with her friend Gale (Liam Hemsworth), her family, and meets the leader of the rebellion, President Alma Coin (Julianne Moore). Katniss was brought there not only for her protection but also because President Coin wants to make her the symbol for the rebellion, the Mockingjay. Katniss agrees as long as they make time to rescue the other competitors of the previous Hunger Games, which includes her friend/love interest, Peeta (Josh Hutcherson).

Before I share my thoughts about this film I'll share my thoughts about the previous installments. 

The first Hunger Games (2012, dir. Gary Ross) I thought was a pretty good film over all. It had some pretty good acting and some good commentary about the media. The only real down side was the relentless shaky cam. But it was still pretty good for a young adult adaptation. 

Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013, dir. Francis Lawrence) was surprising spectacular. While it did tread some grounds already covered in the first film it did give some sharp and rather accurate commentary on what it means to be a celebrity and what it mean to be in the spotlight. Making sure you always smile for the camera, stay prim and proper, don't go outside the norm, and so on. And it got rid of the shaky cam! Thank goodness!

But now onto this film.

The first thing I want to get out of the way that has been bothering me for a while and is this films biggest flaw: Taking the final installment of a book based franchise and making it into a multiple part film. Harry Potter, Twilight, and this film are doing something that doesn't need to be done. The worst example of this is with The Hobbit franchise. I enjoy those films in a way, but there is no reason to make it into multi-parter.  

While I understand what it wants to do, basically build up Katniss becoming the symbol of a cause and the pressures that surround it, but this given how the film's plot is also centered on rescuing Peeta it does make it a rather pointless sit through. This stuff could have been done in the first act of one movie. You've could have made this film roughly two hours or two and half hours long and it could have been fine. I haven't read the books so I don't know if this was how it was done there but still I don't see why it was necessary to make this into a two-parter. 

That being said the film does have good stuff in it, mainly the message and themes I brought up earlier in the film. Each installment seems to have comments about the use of media and what comes with stardom. The first film had Katniss and Peeta becoming reluctant love interests for their survival, the second movie dealt with what comes with stardom and the lack of privacy and their identities seemed to get shoved aside, this film deals with becoming a spokesperson for a movement. 

Both sides use a well known person to the rebellion and makes them speak for their side, almost reluctantly.  It really is something to think about and it is nice that it brought the topic up for discussion. 

The film also plenty of good performances from its all-star cast. Lawrence is great as always, but there are two people who don't get enough praise in my book: Elizabeth Banks as Katniss's stylist Effie, and Donald Sutherland as President Snow. Banks completely transforms into her character and is completely unrecognizable, which for me is a sign of a terrific actor, and Sutherland is perfect as Snow. He is completely menacing and threatening without going hammy and over the top. 

Also this particular bit of music great:

  

Lawrence's voice is pretty good in this. It also reminds me of chain gang songs in a way, and old folk songs, specifically old Irish rebel songs. Thankfully it isn't that Marty Robbins song. No I'm not posting a link to it. 

All in all it was okay. I didn't really see the need to split into two parts but it still had some good stuff in it that makes it worth viewing. If you're a Hunger Games fan, then go check it out in theaters, if you're mild fan or not much of one, then I'd say wait and rent it if you're curious.  

Agree? Disagree? Share your thoughts in the comment section and share the post.

Be sure to like the blog on Facebook

You can also follow me on twitter @DocJohn90.

Thank you for reading. 

Rest in Peace Mike Nichols (1931-2014)

The world has lost another legend of cinema. Mike Nichols, the multiple award winning director, passed away suddenly at the age of 83. This man was responsible for bringing us movies such as Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, The Graduate (won the Best Directing Oscar), Working Girl, Silkwood, Catch-22, The Birdcage, and most recently Charlie Wilson's War. 

But he wasn't just a marvel behind the camera but he was also a man who worked magic on the stage and on television. Nichols won a total of nine, yes nine, Tony Awards for doing such shows as The Odd Couple and Spamalot. He also received critical claim for his work on the tv mini-series version of Angels in America. He is of a small group of people to have received an Oscar, a Tony, an Emmy, and an Grammy. 

He was a man of remarkable talent whose films, art, and personality will be greatly missed. Rest in Peace Mr. Nichols.

Double Feature Review: Birdman & Whiplash.

Another double feature weekend. This weekend was a real treat as I checked out two highly anticipated films that have been getting some real awards buzz, Birdman and Whiplash.

Birdman
D: Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu
W: Armando Bo, Alexander Dinelas, Jr., Nicolas Giacobone, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu
S: Michael Keaton, Zach Galifianakis, Edward Norton, Andrea Riseborough, Amy Ryan, Emma Stone, Naomi Watts

First up is Birdman. No, not the 60s Hanna-Barbera cartoon or Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law. While this movie does involve a superhero character named Birdman, this movie is revolved around a washed up actor named Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton) who is attempting to rejuvenate his career by producing, writing, directing, and starring in a Broadway play. As opening night approaches not only does Thomson have to deal with an egotistical actor (Edward Norton), his troubled daughter (Emma Stone), and countless production problems, he also has to battle his own demons and ego.

Right off the bat I must say that the way this movie was filmed was absolutely amazing. I have to give credit to all these actors, directors, producers, and other crew members for this. The movie is essentially shot in a series of single takes. Long, continuous, takes. I heard somewhere that Inarritu wanted to create a feeling that is similar to a stage play and if that was the case it succeeded. Matter of fact, I'd pay good money to see this on stage. Mainly because I'd want to see HOW they do it.

But obviously the real highlight and the one thing that has been drawling a lot of people's attention is the performances, more specifically Michael Keaton. Seeing Keaton again on the big screen in a leading role is an awesome site. To me, this actor, is a truly great actor. Keaton can take on any role and make it his own. Just take a look at his resume, he was Beetlejuice, Batman, provided the voice of Ken in Toy Story 3 (2010, dir. Lee Unkrich), and has even performed Shakespeare on the big screen. Never question his qualifications. He is able to display every emotion that is required of him and more. Frustration, anxious, qualm, quiet, collected, enraged, etc. etc. If Keaton doesn't at the very least get an Oscar nomination, I'll be upset. 

Of course he isn't the only person to give a great performance. Edward Norton fits in almost too well as an egoistical, arrogant, and pretentious actor. Emma Stone as always is wonderful. But one performer who remains unsung with this film is Naomi Watts as Lesley, a first time Broadway actress in the show and we see her battling her own fears and anxiety and her relationship with Norton's character. She is great in the film. 

Now there is one aspect that a couple fellow critics have found troubling and that is Lindsay Duncan's character who is a theater critic. While every character in the film is given some sort of depth and understanding no matter who despicable they can get she is the only character not given something outside of stereotypes of critics. But the more I thought about it, I don't think she's an actual person. No, she's just an amalgamation of Keaton and Norton's character's fears. Both of these characters are so afraid of being called fake or irrelevant that it has gotten to the point where they've created a fake critic. Given how Keaton's character mainly keeps seeing random stuff, mainly a younger version of himself in the Birdman costume, it wouldn't surprise me if this critic character wasn't an actual person. 

I think the only people who given less of a character are the paparazzi and reports like TMZ. Which... yeah go right ahead I don't think anyone is going to be that upset about that. 

This film has a lot going for it and is something that has to be seen on the big screen to be appreciated. 

But now onto the second film, Whiplash

Whiplash

D: Damien Chazelle

W: Damien Chazelle

S: Miles Teller, J.K. Simmons

A young 19-year-old music student named Andrew Neyman (future Mr. Fantastic Miles Teller) is enrolled at the fictional Shaffer Conservatory in New York where he hopes to become the next Buddy Rich. He soon gets to join the studio jazz band as an alternate drummer under the direction of the infamous Terence Fletcher (J.K. Simmons). Why is he infamous? Because this instructor will chew up out, insult you, and even slap you if even do slightly out of tune. This guy can go from comforting and inviting, to being psychotic and furious. This guy would make R. Lee Ermey in Full Metal Jacket (1987, dir. Stanley Kubrick) sweat with fear. 

This guy pushes Andrew so hard and warps his mind to the point where Andrew cuts off social and family ties, and starts living in a practice room where he practices almost none stop. He pushes himself so hard to the point to where his hands bleed. Andrew himself represents the extremes a person will go to when pushing themselves to achieve something, especially in the arts. We see him cry, we see him dripping with sweat, and obvious he bleeds himself. His blood gets all over his hands, all over his sticks, and even on the drums. And while Teller does a decent job in the role, the real highlight performance goes to J.K. Simmons.

Simmons has always been a great presence in movies. Whether it's portraying a psychiatrist in Law &Order, or playing Peter Parker's boss in Spider-Man he is always amazing. With this film, he is amazing and he is truly, TRULY terrifying. I'm still debating as to whether he or Jake Gyllenhaal in Nightcrawler (2014, dir. Dan Gilroy) gets the prize of most terrifying performance of the year. 

I'm sure those of you who have seen the trailer have seen some pretty terrifying behavior from the guy, well that's nothing compared to what's actually seen on screen. Trust me, you'll be terrifying of him in every scene.

One thing this film does that I think will make it last throughout the ages is that this film makes us ask serious question involving art and the pursuit of art: What is the limit to pursuing a dream? If you're going to push someone how far is too far? Is okay to nourish someone? Is it just pandering to say 'good job'? Do the ends justify the means? Is it a good idea to cut ties? 

This is a great film. And I'll say for Simmons what I said about Keaton, if he doesn't get at least an Oscar nomination, I'll be upset. 

Any thoughts? What did you think of the films? Share your thoughts in the comment sections.

Be sure to the like the blog on Facebook

and also follow me on Twitter at DocJohn90.