'The Big Short' is the feel-bad feel-good movie of the year

The Big Short reminds me of a great character actor playing against type, and I mean that as a compliment.

Director Adam McKay, whose film this unabashedly is, has made a name for himself by making smart comedies about dumb people.

Now, for the first time, he's making a film where the characters are as clever as he is and it's an entertaining change of pace.

The movie does have one big, glaring flaw however, it's basically asking you to root for a bunch of already wealthy white guys who got richer by predicting the pain of far more disadvantaged people -- but I'll get to that in a minute.

McKay takes great pains to make an accessible movie about the financial meltdown of 2007-2008, and for the most part he succeeds. He's aided by a terrific cast with the best turns coming from a moving Steve Carrell, as an honest and righteous hedge fund manager, and a surprisingly funny Ryan Gosling who shows great comic timing as a Wall Street shark with some scruples. Christian Bale's performance was a little too mannered for me at first, but he grew on me as the movie progressed.

They all play men who saw the housing bubble early and bet against the big banks. It's a remarkable story, told with lots of energy and justified rage by McKay. In the film's most ingenious gimmick, he periodically breaks the fourth wall, either with the Gosling character, or a prominent celebrity making a cameo to break down and explain what exactly all these financial wizards are talking about.

As clever as these bits are, I must admit I still had trouble wrapping my puny brain around some of the ins and outs of the financial schemes at play in this movie. But I was never bored, nor was I so overwhelmed by the narrative that I couldn't enjoy myself.

The problem with The Big Short though is that for all its valiant effort to find heroes worth cheering for, it's an undeniably bleak picture -- as its closing titles confirm, another collapse could very well be coming, and most of the people seeing this film won't be reaping any windfalls.

Steve Carrell in The Big Short

The movie does point out the moral incongruity of betting on people's inability to pay their mortgages, most effectively in a well-played scene featuring Brad Pitt as a former Wall Street big shot who voluntarily backed out of the game.

But the film does feel a little lacking in this regard. It's not as immoral as the predatory lenders it portrays but I do think it's guiltier than a movie that is sometimes vilified -- The Wolf of Wall Street -- of showing the allure of playing the markets, rather than showing its collateral damage.

Still, this is an important film, if not my favorite film I've seen this year. I appreciated the presence of Adepero Oduye, but this is a such a white male-dominated film (Marisa Tomei is largely wasted as Carrell's wife) that it left something of a bad taste in my mouth.

And yet I admire the hell out of a relatively mainstream crowd-pleasing comedy-drama that takes dead aim at our country's most powerful financial institutions and has the audacity to name names. I think McKay wants us to leave the theater a little angry, a little indignant and, by that measure, his film is a rousing, likely hit.

'The Revenant' and my tentative top 10 2015 movies

Leonardo DiCaprio in The Revenant

The Revenant is an intense, spare and unflinching vision.

Shot in natural light with several of director Alejandro Inarritu's now signature single takes, the movie has a brutal power and a bravura, physical performance from Leonardo DiCaprio, which may finally earn him a well-deserved Best Actor Oscar.

I'm curious what it's commercial prospects will be. It is grisly and had minimal dialogue, but as of right now, I'd rank it among the best films I've seen this year.

Before I get into my top 10 of the year, I will have to dispense with some pretty obvious caveats. I still have not seen a number of films that very well could or should make my top ten -- including The Big Short, Bridge of Spies and Sicario. So, this is very much a first draft or a first impression as of this moment, as the year comes to a close.

I would say all-in-all this has been a strong year for movies, better than last year, so I have a lot of honorable mentions that I want to give some love to.

This was a banner year from mainstream blockbuster fare. Sure, there was the giant disappointment of Jurassic World, but for the most part, the big budget extravaganzas delivered this year. Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation proved there's still plenty of life left in Tom Cruise's spy series. Ant-Man was a welcome return to the more light-hearted tone of the original Iron Man film. And Spy was the rare big action comedy that was satisfying from start to finish.

Horror made a bit of comeback to -- Goodnight, Mommy for example. There was a terrific reboot of the biopic with Steve Jobs. And yes, while Spectre was no Skyfall, it was still a worthy Bond film that ranks among the series better entries.

A few movies just barely missed the cut of my top 10. Grandma, which had one of my favorite performances of the year from Lily Tomlin, Black Mass, which provided Johnny Depp with a great comeback role, and Inside Out, which was yet another conceptually brilliant Pixar movie.

The Hateful Eight is still a film I'm torn about. I just don't know if I'm on board with it, so for right now it's not in my top 10. Here is what is:

10) Listen to Me Marlon - An incredible documentary that will be appreciated by anyone who is a fan of Marlon Brando's but also anyone intrigued by the craft of acting. The film uses never-before-heard private recordings made by the On the Waterfront star to create a compelling portrait of a flawed but unbelievably charismatic man. It didn't get the audience it deserved, but hopefully will be discovered by younger generations, who will learn to appreciate the best actor of his time.

9) Where to Invade Next - Director Michael Moore makes a major comeback with this surprisingly optimistic take on the positive gifts the rest of the world has to offer the U.S. This film is both a stirring indictment of how America has lost its way and a call to arms to its citizenry to correct their course. Moore has made many of the points he's made here before, but this film has a lot more poignancy and laughs than some of his more recent work.

8) The Revenant - It's relentlessly bleak and grimy -- but this revenge thriller is still a gorgeous epic, which ideally should be see on the big screen. Besides being one of the most incredible-looking films of the year, it's also emotionally satisfying because of DiCaprio, who sheds all vanity to portray a literally broken man. Tom Hardy provides great support as the antagonist but the real show stopper here is the -- I presume -- CGI bear which you've likely seen in the trailers. Riveting stuff.

7) The Gift - One of the biggest surprises of the year. This film was advertised as a creepy guy in the house thriller, but it was actually much more complex. Director-star Joel Edgerton made an old fashioned psychological drama, and brought out new, darker shades in Jason Bateman's persona. A truly unpredictable and sophisticated film that will only grow in stature when people discover it on streaming. I'm glad it found an audience through word of mouth.

6) Spotlight - A classy prestige picture with a flawless cast, and a unforgettable story. The film dramatizes the efforts of a Boston Globe investigative reporting unit which uncovered the widespread child abuse cover-ups of the Catholic Church. Sober and realistic, this film is a refreshing departure from the usual over-the-top Oscar fare. Mark Ruffalo and Michael Keaton are the standouts in a movie driven by performances and a script that is literate and sensitive.

5) Room - One of the most emotionally effective movies of the year, featuring my pick for Best Actress, Brie Larson, in the lead role. She performs opposite the young Jacob Tremblay, who is just as extraordinary, as a mother and son held captive.

The film, which is based on a best-selling novel of the same name, does a moving job of creating a whole world in which these two people are forced to inhabit and then fleshing out the consequences of that world as the story progresses. A very original and illuminating movie experience.

4) It Follows - This evocative, cool horror film really haunted me and I keep returning to it whenever I think about my favorite movies of the year. It's premise was so simple I was surprising no one had ever thought of it before -- and unlike so many films in the genre, this one sustained its tension throughout and never caved in to cliches. It Follows is both scary and exciting. Like many of the films on this list, it creates its own world that you get absorbed in and it has real characters and acting. What a novel idea!

3) Creed - As a lifelong Rocky fan, I was rooting for this movie to be good, but I never in a million years expected it to be a masterpiece. Michael B. Jordan gets the star role he's long deserved and knocks it out of the park. And Sylvester Stallone does the best work of his career in an Oscar-worthy performance as his best character -- Rocky Balboa. The real champ here though is Ryan Coogler, who staked his reputation of rebooting this series with an edgy story and new concepts (single take fight scenes, yes!), and yet didn't disregard what we loved about the originals. A rousing success.

2) The Force Awakens - There's little daylight between #1 and #2 for me. This is the first legitimate Star Wars film in over thirty years. It's relentlessly entertaining, funny and heartwarming. J.J. Abrams did something almost impossible here by making the most hyped movie ever be satisfying to nearly everyone. Harrison Ford turns on the charm and brings back all our fond memories of the original trilogy, while John Boyega, Daisy Ridley and Adam Driver get us psyched for the Star Wars to come. A nearly perfect mainstream sci-fi adventure, that deserves all the success it's getting.

1) Mad Max: Fury Road - Although this film came out several months ago and is essentially just a chase movie at the end of the day, it was an original, beautiful and wildly inventive tour de force, one of the greatest action films I have ever seen and a tribute to cinema at its finest. This is, after all, a visual medium and director George Miller leaves nothing on the field here. From the very first frame our attention is captured and what follows -- unbelievable stunts and gritty, minimalistic acting -- hasn't been topped for me, yet.

Why 'Christmas Vacation' is the best holiday movie ever

After re-watching the 1989 hit National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation on the big screen today I am now convinced that it is the best holiday-themed movie of all time. It is as wall-to-wall hilarious as Elf, it's got just as much heart as It's a Wonderful Life and enough edge to stand toe-to-toe with the likes of Gremlins.

It's a surprisingly touching movie. Despite all of its mayhem and slapstick, it's a very sweet film. Clark Griswold's desire to provide his extended family with the "perfect" Christmas is both noble and endearingly doomed.

And, in this film, Chevy Chase does some of his best work ever.

Although he is best known for (and usual excels at) aloof characters who sort of play things close to the vest, here he allows himself to be vulnerable in a way that he never did in another movie role.

It's a mistake to consider Griswold an idiot. He's not. He's naive maybe, certainly earnest to a fault, but he is relentlessly witty and knowing. Take for instance his scenes with the uproarious Cousin Eddie (played flawlessly by the underrated Randy Quaid). Their scenes are a tour de force in passive aggressive underplaying.

Each line is laugh out loud funny, with Chase deftly playing off of Quaid's obliviousness. These scenes also speak to a universal truth -- the awkwardness of navigating unwanted family members -- which is such a huge part of the holiday season.

Chevy Chase and Randy Quaid in Christmas Vacation

The film also has a spot-on sense of how much the holidays are about the best of intentions, which almost always fall short. Everyone wants to be with family, to have their home be pristine, to serve the ideal dinner -- but like most things we over-prepare for, stuff becomes unpredictable and chaotic. Christmas Vacation takes the concept of the "gradual breakdown" to its furthest extremes -- it is a broad comedy, after all -- but I think the reason it has stood the test of time is that the honest, truthful elements of it keep it grounded and relatable.

This may be a white, suburban, middle class family -- but everyone can relate to the horror of griping elderly relatives, or the anxiety of setting up Christmas lights. And once the film gets rolling, and the disasters start piling up, we all can cheer on Clark's inevitable meltdown, even if we're relieved that we've escaped the same fate.

My favorite part of this film is Clark Griswold's brief dissent into madness. Not only is his "where's the Tylenol?" rant one of the best in movies, but there are few left field jokes more amusing to me than his substituting "coffin" for "tree," just brilliant.

Christmas movies can often be a touch too cute and predictable, and this film effectively avoids most of the worst cliches of the genre. Even the feel-good ending comes after a totally unique sequence where a full-blown swat team descends upon the Griswold household, and Clark's wife uses one hand to cover her husband's genitals while keeping another one up in defense.

Watching this film around the holidays has become a welcome tradition for me. I know every line, every joke by heart and yet they still bring a smile to my face, and occasionally a tear to me eye.

'Hateful Eight': Tarantino's most indulgent film (for better or worse)

I have sometimes likened Quentin Tarantino to Kanye West. They are both undeniably talented, but also so convinced of their own genius and insecure about it -- that they are always declaring their own work a masterpiece -- literally and figuratively.

If you want to continue the Kanye comparison I would call The Hateful Eight Tarantino's Yeezus. It's his most aggressively indulgent and uncommercial film in years and it will likely be his most divisive.

As a pretty diehard Tarantino fan I am not entirely sure how I feel about it.

It's all of Tarantino's obsessions dialed up to 11, and although he claims he plans to make two more films before he retires it seems as if he wanted to leave everything out on the field with this one.

Now the version I saw was just over three hours with an intermission, so I'm not sure if what I saw will be what mainstream audiences will eventually see. Even with cuts, this is far more extreme stuff than Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained.

And I'm not entirely sure that is a good thing. The first half of this film may bore some audiences to tears. Tarantino is his own dialogue's biggest fan and in the long early set up of this movie he really revels in his own use of language, for better or worse. In the second half the movie descends into an uncompromising gore fest with very pronounced homages to the work of Brian De Palma.

But while Tarantino's previous two films were about larger subjects and seemed to have larger themes, this film feels more like an exercise in style and excess. There definitely is some racial commentary in there but it's muddled at best by the chaotic nature of the film.

The Hateful Eight

Speaking of race, this is the first Tarantino film where the use of the N-word bothered me. It feels like an act of defiance here that feels entitled and hostile. I don't care if the word is used in the proper context but this was the first time I found myself wondering if Tarantino has a complex. I didn't care for his forcing Zoe Bell into the narrative either.

Still, there's a lot to love about this movie.

The performances are pretty much uniformly excellent, albeit over-the-top. Ennio Morricone's score is a throwback classic. And the movie looks phenomenal. There are sequences that rank among some of Tarantino's best if nothing else because of their sheer audacity, but this is definitely the first film of his I've seen that I didn't instantly love.

That said, I didn't love Yeezus on first listen either. I thought the rave reviews were overstated and that Kanye had burrowed too deep into his own sense of self importance. But now when "Black Skinhead" comes on I bob my head. I could see myself warming up to The Hateful Eight easily after a second viewing but right now I'm on the fence.

'Home Alone' is one truly weird holiday movie

The iconic shot

I hadn't watched Home Alone in years.

It used to be a staple in my house growing up, especially around the holidays. I even remember seeing it in theaters.

Macaulay Culkin was pretty close to my age, so this movie was very much in my wheelhouse but I must say after revisiting it -- I found it to be a jarring movie experience.

It's especially interesting viewing in the wake of that new viral video, in which a disheveled Culkin plays an aging version of his Home Alone character who's been traumatized by the events of 1990 film.

It's hard to believe watching the movie now that it was such a phenomenon. It wasn't expected to be a hit when it was first released. it was up against the highly anticipated Rocky V. Today, that movie is remembered as the one universally disliked entry in that series, and Home Alone is ironically admired by hipsters.

The basic premise of Home Alone has the potential to be charming. What would happen if an 8-year-old kid was left to fend for themselves when his family accidentally departs for a Paris vacation without him. The movie handles the early scenes of Culkin's abandonment well -- he's pretty cute when he imagines he's made his family disappear, goes shopping and tries on after shave.

But then it feels like the filmmakers had no where else to go -- so they graft on a truly creepy subplot about bungling burglars (a slumming Daniel Stern and Joe Pesci) that becomes downright sadistic. Culkin's character turns into a total sociopath and the crooks don't fare much better. I found all of this riveting as a child, but now it just leaves me puzzled.

Here are a few observations I had watching the movie again for the first time in well over a decade:

The McCallisters may be one of the most unlikable, obnoxious families captured on film. They are loud, rude and totally oblivious to the fact that what appears to be a police officer (Pesci in disguise) has entered their home for a considerable period of time.

Also why on earth would they take a trip to Paris with at least a dozen extended family members, most of which are children? How can they afford a trip like that? And while we're at it, how do they afford that house?

Why does the scary old man in the neighborhood go out of his way to act as scary as possible? Until his big reveal at the church in the film's third act he just stares intensely at Kevin. "Use your words," I kept saying. Who just stares menacingly at a child for literally no reason? And his decision to reconcile with his son because an 8-year-old suggested he should is laughable.

Is this funny to you?

Also, at the end of the movie, the old man somehow miraculously enters a house, which is not his own, and disarms the crooks (who are threatening to eat Kevin's fingers at the time -- um, Merry Christmas) with a shovel. But how does he get into that house? How does he know where to be at that exact moment?

Where did Kevin learn how to booby trap like some kind of trained assassin. The movie does nothing in its early scenes to establish him as particularly bright or creative. In fact, even as a child, I thought he came off as smug and spoiled. And yet, almost arbitrarily, he develops next level MacGuyver skills.

And is it weird, that at this stage in my life, I feel a lot more sympathy for Pesci and Stern than I do the 8-year-old they're supposed to be terrorizing?

Keep in mind that I find this all very compulsively watchable. John Candy has a great little cameo. Culkin has his moments too. And I love the bit where he uses a fake old film noir to intimidate people outside of his house ("Keep the change, you filthy animal").

That said, the success of this movie now seems very dated to me. It's not really heartwarming. It's funny but now moreso unintentionally than not. It's not really about anything more sophisticated than what you see on screen. It's like one half kids movie, one half slapstick with a real mean streak.

And yet, Home Alone still endures.

Finally, 'The Force Awakens': JJ Abrams does right by 'Star Wars'

NO SPOILERS HERE. For hardcore fans of the original Star Wars trilogy, and I count myself among them, there's been this needling frustration, a feeling that a great new Star Wars film could be made, but series creator George Lucas had simply forgotten how. Now that he's handed over the reins to J.J. Abrams (and a host of other new directors to come), the films are finally being stripped of his worst impulses -- most specifically: humorless dialogue, unengaging stories and characters without character.

After finally getting to see Abrams' long awaited follow-up to Return of the Jedi, I am relieved to say that Star Wars is back with a vengeance.

Is The Force Awakens the best Star Wars film ever? No. I would even put it just a notch below the original three, if for no other reason than that I have zero quibbles with those films and I have a couple tiny ones with this one. But Abrams has really done something remarkable here, and he totally deserves legendary status forever because of it.

He has managed to create a totally worthy Star Wars film that lives up to more hype than perhaps any other film in history, a story that both pays tribute to an expands upon probably the best trilogy in sci-fi and maybe all of cinema. He's created wonderful, memorable new characters (my favorites of which are John Boyega as Finn and Daisy Ridley as Rey) and provided a terrific platform for one of my favorite actors of all time -- the legendary Harrison Ford -- to do what he does best.

There are already the grumpy inevitable detractors who are obsessing over the few flaws in the movie. This is the age we live in, where no one is ever universally satisfied by anything. But I would like to deflate the one most consistent gripe without spoiling anything. Yes, the film is very reverential and referential of its predecessors. But quite frankly that was what was wrong with Lucas' prequels. It was as if he had contempt for what we all loved about the originals.

Coming over 30 years after Episode VI and with all the fan anticipation that comes with that, of course Abrams was going to load The Force Awakens with "Easter eggs" and I loved it. I will say that this new film probably won't win over those who weren't already converted and quite a bit in the movie will make zero sense to people unfamiliar with the series. This is a movie made by a fan for the fans, and I think that's a unique and glorious thing.

Also, even The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi had callbacks to earlier moments in the series, so it's really not a big deal to me that The Force Awakens revisits some of the iconography of the first films.

In fact, the theme of the films is arguably that history is cyclical, hence the rise of a New Order. Villains rise, heroes fall, heroes rise again and villains fall.

From the very first sequence, The Force Awakens announces itself as the farthest thing from the prequels, totally within the same DNA as the original trilogy and also something totally fresh. Like Mad Max: Fury Road, Creed and other recent successful reboots of long dormant franchises, it's clear first and foremost that this was a movie made with care, with attention to detail and desire to present a richly developed story with accessible character arcs.

Keep in mind, Abrams achieves this with an incredibly fast pace, dizzying and dazzling special effects and the requisite crew of alien/robot creatures (I loved BB-8, too). Movies like this never get Oscars -- it's such a nakedly commercial product that critics almost always hold their nose while admitting they loved it. But this film truly deserves consideration -- and repeat viewing -- there are several layers and levels on which it works, and like the original trilogy there are many little moments that are ripe for rediscovery and appreciation.

The ending, without spoiling it, is the series biggest cliffhanger since Empire Strikes Back, and it will be simply torturous waiting to see how the story pans out. In the meantime all Star Wars fans should rejoice -- at the performances of Boyega, Ridley, Ford and Adam Driver -- who makes an excellent villain as Kylo Ren, at a fantasy universe which feels real again and commercial filmmaking of the highest order.

The Force Awakens is easily one of the best films of the year, a total classic, and a movie that had me cheering and smiling for nearly its entire running time.

'Where to Invade Next' may be Michael Moore's best film

Last night I was lucky enough to attend the New York City premiere of Michael Moore's latest documentary -- his first in six years -- Where to Invade Next, and I am still reeling from the experience.

It may go down as his best film ever. At the very least, it may be his most sprawling and ambitious.

After making a series of films that more or less centered on one subject -- our obsessive gun culture, the flaws of the American health care system, corporate greed and the wrongheadedness of the Bush's foreign policies -- Moore does something different with this film.

In Where to Invade Next, Moore satirically "invades" countries abroad to "steal" their best ideas -- from decriminalizing drug use to eliminating homework -- and bring them back to the United States.

At first I feared that the film would largely be a disheartening guilt trip, where our country's considerable flaws are compared unfavorably to Europe's. To a certain extent the film does do that and the effect can be demoralizing. But then Moore does an interesting thing, he pivots into more inspirational territory and reveals a more optimistic message than perhaps any of his previous films have.

The thing about Moore that many of his detractors overlook is that he is first and foremost a patriot. He loves this country so much -- and is so convinced in its inherent greatness -- that with each film he is pushing and prodding it to live up to its highest ideals. Where to Invade Next is no exception to that ethos, its overarching theme is that our democratic principles inspired the world but somehow we didn't follow our own lead.

Michael Moore outside of Trump Tower on Dec, 16.

The other facet of Moore's career that is never given its due, is the fact that he is a truly phenomenal director. His use of found footage and archival interviews is sublime, as is his comedic timing, which is employed to great effect in this movie.

Now, there will inevitably be those that poke holes in this project -- and at times it does feel like a love letter to all things European, but it's also a reminder of how inspirational American ideas and ingenuity once were, a reminder that all of us need to do better to broaden our horizons to get a sense of all that we're missing.

Looking at Moore's filmography, they almost all feel like masterpieces, so it's very difficult to rank any particular film over another. But here is my take on each of his major documentary films to date:

Roger & Me (1989) - Even people who hate Moore will find little to fault in the film that made him a star and clearly plays closest to his heart. It's as much about the systematic destruction of his hometown of Flint as it is about the heartless corporate leaders of GM, who embrace a profit-over-people philosophy that points to the future in ways that are both galling and infuriating.

Bowling for Columbine (2002) - This Moore film floored me. It both chronicles our nation's irrational attachment to guns and tells the chilling, emotional story of what happened to the victims of the mass shooting at Columbine High School. Moore's final confrontation with Charlton Heston has a chilling power, as does his face-off will Wal-Mart over their sale of bullets.

Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) - The film for which Moore will probably forever be best remembered -- and that's a good thing. Although it failed to derail George W. Bush's re-election bid, this stunning indictment of his foreign policies still holds up as both spot-on and prescient. It plays like a thriller at times except the stakes are all too real. The box office success of this film is still mind-blowing.

Sicko (2007) - Moore's plea for single payer health care was not entirely heeded -- although Obamacare does address some of the ills in the American system which this film underlines. This films feels almost a little ahead of its time considering how much the health care debate has come to define the last several years.

Capitalism: A Love Story (2009) - Perhaps Moore's bleakest film, it's as much a history lesson as it is a condemnation of corporate greed. Although he tries to provide some uplift at the end, this is the first Moore film where I felt not so much let down as disparaged at the end, since the forces he's fighting against seem more intransigent than ever.

'Chiraq' is one maddening Spike Lee movie

Chi-raq

There's a very funny, interesting movie somewhere in Chiraq. But it gets buried underneath Spike Lee's increasingly exhausting indulgences, which is a real shame. This is not the comeback movie some critics are hailing it as. It's certainly a solid step up from the dregs of Miracle at St. Anna, Oldboy, Red Hook Summer and Da Sweet Blood of Jesus, a series of disasters that has really shaken my confidence in Lee's future as a filmmaker.

At its best Chiraq brings back some of the humor and vibrancy that has been missing from Lee's work in the last decade or so. He has a luminous and charismatic leading lady in Teyonnah Parris which is complimented by some very nice work from Wesley Snipes, Samuel L. Jackson and Dave Chappelle in what is little more than a cameo role. And it has an appealingly outrageous plot -- the women of Chicago go on a sex strike to induce the men to put down their weapons.

The film has its heart in the right place and makes some prescient points about a topic I am incredibly passionate about -- the proliferation of guns and gun violence in this country. Unfortunately, Lee doesn't seem able to make up his mind about what kind of movie he wanted to make.

So what you wind up with is what feels like a very good first draft of a movie, one that gets bogged down (literally) with sermonizing, some truly awful stunt casting -- Nick Cannon does NOT have the gravitas for this kind of film -- and a narrative that swings wildly from over-the-top absurdity to awkward stabs and gritty realism.

Take for instance Jennifer Hudson's role in the film. She draws on her real life tragedy to give a very raw and emotional performance as a grieving mother whose young child in struck down by a stray bullet, but what is she doing in a movie with comic dance numbers and a scene where a racist military drill sergeant mounts a canon in Confederate flag undies?

I admire the audaciousness of this movie but too many scenes had me scratching my head or rolling my eyes. Why does Lee seem so hellbent on objectifying women in his films? Why does he drown out interesting scenes with his R&B flavored soundtrack? Why does he insist on staging awkwardly uncomfortable sex scenes that are just painful to watch?

And yet, Chiraq is certainly never boring. Perhaps Lee has just decided to abandon commercial and accessible filmmaking for good. There is something rebellious about this movie, particularly it's willingness to name names and point fingers.

Still, it will persuade no one who isn't already vehemently on the side of gun control. There is not a single shred of this film that is any way neutral, and when John Cusack appears on-screen as a well-meaning anti-gun pastor the film feels almost amateurish in its desire to beat us over the head with its message of love trumps hate.

Of course, like all Lee's films, it looks great, and has some very striking sequences but this one, for me, feels like a real missed opportunity. I'm not sure, beyond Lee himself and his more diehard fans, who this film is really supposed to appeal to. I'm still a fan to the degree that I'll see everything he does, but Chiraq missed the mark in my opinion.

The many problems with 'Prometheus'

Ridley Scott has been enjoying something of a renaissance as of late, due in part to the breakout mainstream success of The Martian, but I am still shaking my head about his unsatisfying and somewhat stupefying non-prequel to Alien, Prometheus.

I revisited the movie recently, after recalling a somewhat disappointed reaction I had the first time I saw it in theaters, and wondering if it would improve upon second viewing -- it didn't.

It's not a terrible or unwatchable film, it looks phenomenal from a visual and technical point of view, but it's lacking in narrative purpose, which makes the news that a sequel is imminent all the more galling.

Prometheus promised to return to the complex universe Scott helped create in Alien.

It had a phenomenal trailer that suggested a thinking man's sci-fi thriller. While the film doesn't devolve into a generic chase film, it doesn't reach any highbrow heights either.

Even the part of the film which drew the most praise, Michael Fassbender's performance as a Lawrence of Arabia-inspired robot named David, is frustratingly flawed. After an intriguing beginning, the character's motives are maddeningly unclear, and I was never sure if he was a pawn or a villain. Speaking of the film's villain -- the closet thing to it is Guy Pearce, wearing pounds of crappy old-age make-up -- why not cast an actual old actor? That made zero sense.

Idris Elba and Charlize Theron try mightily, but for the most part none of the characters really stick with you and none come close to being as compelling as Sigourney Weaver's Ripley.

The whole movie amounts to a two-hour plus tease. There are plot holes galore and long slow stretches. But whenever the viewer nearly passes out, Scott sprinkles come visual homage to his superior 1979 film to make us think the inevitable link to that classic will present itself. It never does.

Prometheus

Or does it? The SPOILER ALERT end is a tremendously obnoxious fake out. The monsters -- which appeared to be a hairless, pale musclemen -- are dead. And a baby version of the original creature pops out of his chest and roars -- the end. Is this supposed to be just one very long trailer? And after Scott spend dozens of interviews denying that this film was a prequel, why did he put a scene like that in?

Suddenly everything that took place before feels even more pointless. It's kind of akin to watching Attack of the Clones after The Phantom Menace (I know, hating on the Star Wars prequels again!). Episode II proved that the events of The Phantom Menace were almost entirely inconsequential. Which only made audiences resent that movie more.

Prometheus actually provides an important lesson to the makers of the new Star Wars films. It actually got solid reviews and performed quite well at the box office, but it left a sour taste in a lot of viewers mouths because it barely delivered what people were paying for.

That kind of mistake can come back to haunt you, especially when films age over time.

RIP Robert Loggia: 'Never underestimate the OTHER guy's greed!'

Robert Loggia

I am little bit late to this but I would be remiss if I didn't pay tribute to one of the great character actors of recent memory -- Robert Loggia.

He passed away this week, after what I've read was a long battle with Alzheimer's, and his distinct brand of tough guy grit will be sorely missed.

Loggia was one of those actors who always seemed very old and extremely imposing. I think most audiences probably first encountered him playing Richard Gere's deadbeat dad in An Officer and a Gentlemen and he will always be remembered for his iconic and infectious dance to "Chopsticks" with Tom Hanks on the giant keyboard in Big.

But for my money his best performance comes in one of my favorite movies of all time -- Scarface, as Al Pacino's ill-fated mentor in the criminal underworld, Frank Lopez.

He has several memorable lines and moments in this movie, and just oozes charm. He even is halfway plausible as a Latino gangster, which I attribute to his gravitas and acting gusto. I've always loved how he shouts "never underestimate the other guy's greed," in Pacino's ear and then erupts into laughter. There is literally nothing funny about this remark, which makes it all the more unforgettable when it elicits this reaction.

My other favorite Loggia scene from Scarface -- SPOILER ALERT -- is his death scene. Even that film's detractors have acknowledged that it is a virtuoso performance. It takes a hell of an actor to pitifully beg for one's life on screen without it seeming forced and phony. John Turturro pulls it off probably better than anyone in Miller's Crossing, but Loggia's crawling, groveling display is right on par.

It's especially effective because Loggia almost always projected such strength in all his roles -- to see him that vulnerable is disconcerting.

Take for instance his late career role in David Lynch's Lost Highway. He must have been in his 60s at the time, appears to look like he's in his mid-70s, and yet he is scary and formidable as hell. One of Lynch's most incredible sequences features Loggia savagely beating a man who was riding his tail before cutting him off on a stretch of road.

Loggia is so unhinged in the scene, it's hard to tell where the acting begins and ends.
He would go on to do a memorable turn on The Sopranos, but largely faded from the spotlight. Here's hoping a new generation of film fans will rediscover his best work in the years to come.

'No wire hangers!': 'Mommie Dearest' is a camp masterpiece

Faye Dunaway as Joan Crawford in Mommie Dearest

The first I saw the 1981 cult film Mommie Dearest years ago I hated it. It felt overlong, shrill and pretty morally reprehensible.

I also viewed it as sadly derailing the career of one of my favorite actresses, Faye Dunaway (Bonnie & Clyde, Chinatown), which also left a sour taste in my mouth.

But after viewing it a second time I've come to appreciate the movie -- which is based on a controversial tell-all about actress Joan Crawford written by her adopted daughter -- for what it is, a certifiable camp classic.

A couple scenes from the film are well known even by people who've never seen it. They both typify why the movie and Dunaway's performance are an undeniable hoot. The first features a completely deranged Dunaway, in a crumbling, Kabuki-like face mask, berating and then beating her daughter over her use of wire hangers. And the other, which I've heard is a favorite in gay bars, features Dunaway dressing down a board of directors for Pepsi, warning them that this isn't her first time at "the rodeo."

Both these scenes show the full spectrum of Dunaway's infamous, Razzie-winning performance. Instead of showing Crawford's alleged mental disintegration subtlety or realistically, she decides to go for broke almost from the beginning, whipping around to face the camera to deliver the hammy line: "Let's go."

She gives an intensely physical performance, complete with exaggerated eyebrows, costumes and make-up to create a larger than life parody of an already over-the-top conception of Crawford, created by her daughter. This version of Crawford is both a self-obsessed perfectionist and a vindictive misanthrope.

For instance, after seeing her daughter somewhat innocently imitate her in the mirror, she decides to violently cut off huge swaths of her hair while shaking uncontrollably. Keep in mind, this is not really a film about anything. It's not trying to say something about the price of fame or provide insights into abusive mother-daughter relationships. It is just salacious for the sake of salaciousness. And once you embrace the film on those terms, it's undeniably entertaining.

The part of the film that remains icky is the source material. Crawford had been dead for a few years when the book and film were released, so she never got to tell her side of the story. And what is presented on screen is so virulently unsympathetic and extreme, it's hard to take seriously.

Did Crawford really choke her own daughter with an apparent intent to kill just a few feet away from a reporter trying to profile her? And even if she did leave her adopted children out of her will, was it truly done for spite? These questions will perhaps permanently go unanswered.

The reason to see the film is to delight in Dunaway's scenery chewing. She had gone over the top before, most noticeably in her Oscar winning performance in Network, but those performances were always controlled. Even Dunaway herself has since lamented that the director of Mommie Dearest didn't rein her in more.

She would work in Hollywood again, but she was so associated with her nutty version of Crawford that she fell from the A-list, and sadly she is one of many performers that is mostly forgotten by modern audiences.

At least she will always have Mommie Dearest, one of the most memorable "bad movies" ever made.

Is Cate Blanchett the best actress working today?

Cate Blanchett in Carol

After seeing her new film Carol last night, I think it might be time to crown Cate Blanchett Hollywood's female MVP.

It's not one of my favorite films of the year. It's a gorgeously photographed but very slow paced companion piece to director Todd Haynes' superior Far From Heaven.

Still, Blanchett is spectacular in it -- as she is in pretty much everything.

Take a look at her filmography. She has virtually no missteps. She has effortlessly transitioned from blockbuster fare (both Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit films, for instance) to more artistically satisfying fare, like the underrated Notes on a Scandal.

Although she is stunning, I can't think of one part where she was cast simply to be a beautiful accessory to a male lead. Her career, to me, most resembles that of Meryl Streep, the previous reining best actress alive, whose longevity in Hollywood can be mostly attributed to her pure acting talent.

Streep is still very active, but for the most part she has been coasting on her track record for the last few years. On the male side of the aisle, Robert De Niro had been the man. Several would-be replacements have stepped up over the years -- Ryan Gosling and Sean Penn come to mind. Daniel Day-Lewis is probably that dude right now, but he doesn't make movies often enough. Right now there really is no go-to actor who can guarantee quality time-in and time-out.

Blanchett right now does have that kind of track record. I've never seen her give a bad performance and, like Streep, she takes on accents and personas with such grace that she makes it look easy.

Cate Blanchett and her second Oscar

In Carol, she plays a barely closeted lesbian woman in a disintegrating marriage, who falls for a young department store clerk (played by Rooney Mara) after a chance encounter. The film would be a triumph of production design and little else if it wasn't for Blanchett, whose face registers so many complex emotions over the course of the roughly 2-hour running time.

It's actually not my favorite female performance of the past year. Right now Brie Larson in Room and Lily Tomlin in Grandma are a notch higher for me, but Blanchett certainly deserves to be and will be in the conversation for the Best Actress Oscar.

That's pretty remarkable considering how much the academy tends to lean towards ingenues for that award. Blanchett won just two years ago for her remarkable work in Blue Jasmine, one of those performances that you just knew as soon as you saw it, would win.

In an era when the best actors of either gender are forced to make superhero films and reboots to stay relevant, Blanchett has been a brilliant outlier. She has chosen smart, interesting projects that clearly speak to her on a creative level, without diminishing as a commercial force. Her films average a $73 million gross, much better than many male A-listers.

I'm excited to see her career continue to evolve (she's only 46!) as the decade progresses.

'Return of the Jedi' provides clues for 'The Force Awakens'

Return of the Jedi

I just finished watching the classic, albeit occasionally maligned, third installment of the original Star Wars trilogy, ostensibly to prepare for The Force Awakens.

But the thing about the upcoming sequel that is both exciting and nerve-wracking, is that there is no official direction the series is SUPPOSED to go.

George Lucas, as far as I know, has never spoken in great depth about where he imagined the series would go (or if it could) from here. The prequels were always at a disadvantage because most of the audience knew where they were inevitably headed.

They were robbed of a certain level of tension from the get-go because we were essentially waiting for Anakin to become Darth Vader.

The sequels are a total blank slate. That said, watching Return of the Jedi not only got me amped but it also raised a lot of questions and ideas for me. And that does include: Why does no one talk about the fact that the Emperor gets sexually turned on by the dark side?

In all seriousness, I would love to see Leia's maturation with the force explored in the new film. I am under no illusion that Carrie Fisher will dominate the narrative of The Force Awakens, but I would like to see her with the powers of the force at her disposal.

One of the coolest narrative threads that was always somewhat in the background in the original films, was Leia's growing awareness of her own abilities. By The Empire Strikes Back, she was already feeling the feels and sensing Luke from miles away. Her intuitive powers come to the forefront even more in Return of the Jedi, although I've never understood how she could "remember" her mother if we are to believe her mother died during childbirth. Thirty years later, Leia would presumably be much more advanced and adept with the force.. And perhaps equipped with her own lightsaber.

The empire also appears to be unfinished business. Although -- based on the original, unaltered films -- there appears to be widespread celebration over the destruction of the Death Star by Lando Calrissian and company, but it's not as if the entire empire has been wiped off the face of the earth.

Clearly, The Force Awakens indicates a more resurgent empire. But what I am curious about is whether the new leadership has learned from their predecessors' mistakes (no more Death Stars perhaps?) and has something or someone supplanted the Emperor in terms of supreme leadership.

Much has also been made about the fate of Luke Skywalker. J.J. Abrams has minimized his presence on the poster and in the trailer for The Force Awakens. He is listed prominently in the credits, so one would expect that his role amounts to more than just a cameo. Some have speculated that he has become a villain, a distinct possibility, but one I would consider a betrayal to everything that the original series established about his character.

My suspicion is that Skywalker did something that distanced him from the others. If Luke had a predominant flaw throughout the series, it's that he always acted very impetuously.

He was roughed up by sand people, lost his hand and eventually was captured by Jabba the Hut all because he wasn't listening or paying attention. In fact, his grand plan to "rescue" Han Solo from Jabba the Hut consists of all the heroes being captured so they can ... um ... escape?

Luke's tendency to always act first and ask questions later, never goes away. Sure, he grows up over the three movies, but more so in terms of understanding who he is in relation to his father. But he isn't humbled by the experience in any determinable way. I could see the at some point in the 30 years since Return of the Jedi, he might have crossed another line, but I doubt he would full on embrace the dark side.

Obviously, like so many fans I am simply nerding out. And in a few weeks I am sure I will be brought back down to earth. No movie could ever live up the the level of hype surrounding The Force Awakens. I just hope that it doesn't ignore some of the groundwork Return of the Jedi provides.

Championing 'Creed' and ranking the 'Rocky' movies

Sylvester Stallone and Michael B. Jordan in Creed

Happy Thanksgiving. This year I'm grateful for Creed, one of the best films I've seen this year and a real resurrection of the Rocky franchise and Sylvester Stallone's career.

This is riveting mainstream filmmaking of the highest order, that cements director Ryan Coogler's status as one of the most exciting up-and-coming filmmakers in Hollywood.

His first major film, the Oscar Grant biopic Fruitvale Station, was a little-seen masterpiece. And Coogler brings the same realism and frank honesty of that movie to this much more commercial project and strikes gold. This, along with Mad Max: Fury Road, is a reboot that draws on everything fans love about the original films, while bringing something entirely new to the table.

Actor Michael B. Jordan is the new lead, and he is sensational. For years, Hollywood has been searching for the "next Denzel," the gold standard in black leading men. Several actors have stepped up to the plate and whiffed (*cough" Terrence Howard *cough*), and lately some British actors like Idris Elba and Chiwetel Ejiofor have appeared to seize the mantle, but not so fast.

Coming off a big flop in the latest Fantastic Four reboot, Jordan comes out blazing in Creed, creating a vulnerable, but fierce unforgettable hero that in theory could sustain his own series of films. His partnership with Coogler has the same electric charge as Scorsese and De Niro's did 30 to 40 years ago.

But perhaps the biggest revelation of Creed is the performance of Sylvester Stallone. He gives a truly Oscar worthy performance as his most lovable character -- Rocky Balboa. Say what you will about his filmography as a whole, he always plays the hell out of this character. With the exception of the off-key Rocky V, I consider every other Italian Stallion movie fantastic. But in this one, he wisely plays his age (69!) and for the first time ever allows himself to appear frail on screen.

It's shocking to see Stallone appear so weak and unglamorous. Gone is the macho posturing of The Expendables and in its place is a stripped down and emotional performance that shows off how compelling this man could have been had his career taken a different direction.

This is a throwback to his underrated work in CopLand, and it should force audiences to look at him in a totally new way.

But how does Creed match up against the originals? It's hard. It certainly is the most visually dynamic of the series -- Coogler stages incredible fight scenes in one shot, something I've never seen before -- but it's also a more somber and realistic film than any Rocky film since the original. But the Stallone-penned films have a lot of bravado and action, that has become justifiably iconic. So like I said, it's hard, but here goes:

1) Rocky (1976): Ranking this one first is a no brainer for me. Not only is it one of my all-time favorites (and something akin to "our movie" with my fiancee) but it's the movie that creates the whole world based in Philadelphia that makes all of the subsequent films possible. The Rocky-Adrian romance is wonderful, the Rocky-Apollo rivalry is great and the friendship between Rocky and Mickey is key. Paulie may be the most useless character in cinema history, but he's entertaining.

2) Creed (2015): This new classic squeaks into second due to its sheer originality. It manages to do what I thought was impossible, both make Rocky relevant again (although 2006's Rocky Balboa was a tender and terrific send-off for the character in the ring) and bring something fresh to the boxing genre. The entire cast is kinetic and there really isn't a single thing I'd change about this crowd pleaser.

3) Rocky II (1979): Stallone took over the directing reigns in this one and works wonders with the story of the inevitable rematch between Creed and Balboa. Interestingly he sticks with the gritty, dramatic tone of the original here, showing Rocky's struggle to establish a life outside of the ring, while also showing Creed's battle to redeem his image. The final bout is brutal and it's suspenseful finish is epic. This sequel really reaches the emotional heights of the first film.

4) Rocky III (1982): With the casting of Mr. T as the antagonist, the series creeps a little closer to camp territory here, but there's so many great things in the movie, I can't complain. You see a more stylish somewhat cocky Rocky here, which is a cool turn for the narrative to take. SPOILER ALERT, the loss of Mickey is a real gut punch, leading to one of the most heartbreaking scenes of Stallone's career and the heart of this movie becomes the burgeoning friendship between Creed and Balboa, which is convincing.

5) Rocky Balboa (2006): Pushing 60 and reeling from a series of flops and direct-to-DVD drivel, Stallone pulled off this amazing comeback film, which defied all the jokes about an aging Rocky. Not only did he get into phenomenal shape, he brought the character back to his roots, and staged the most believable fight scene in the series up to that point. Even if the movie had its share of cheesy moments, I shed a tear when Balboa gave his final curtain call. A great film for fathers and sons.

6) Rocky IV (1985): Arguably the most over the top of the Rocky films -- Balboa appears to singlehandedly win the Cold War by beating a roid-raging monster played by Dolph Lundgren -- but it's also one of the most purely entertaining of the series. It's fast paced, leaning heavily on flashbacks and music video style cutting. But I enjoy it's absurdism and hubris. It could only work in the era in which it was released though. Today, it would be dismissed as laughable.

7) Rocky V (1990): The one Rocky film that doesn't seem be able to get anything right. I see what Stallone and company were trying to do here by trying to bring Rocky back down to earth, and giving him a plausible, albeit depressing, plot line about brain damage. But his protege in this film (played by real life boxer Tommy Gun) has no charisma and the final showdown -- a street fight -- just lacks impact. Stallone himself seems off in this movie as if he forgot how to play his signature role. Luckily over a decade later he's redeemed himself and the character.

'Fat City' is one of the great, under-seen '70s films

Fat City, the 1972 comeback film for legendary director John Huston, is unlike any other boxing genre movie I've ever seen.

It's not uplifting like Rocky, nor does it plumb the depth of the human soul like Raging Bull.

It's an amiable film but it's not the least bit lightweight. It sort of shuffles along but with an understated power. Basically, it's a perfectly evocative 1970s film.

Seventies movies are often rich with ambiguity, they can be less plot driven and more about mood, and their heroes can be so self destructive they almost invite contempt.

Fat City possesses all of these elements. It's not about one big fight, or any fight in particular. It instead focuses on two characters that might gently be described as losers.

One at the very least has some prospects, that would be the character played by Jeff Bridges. He meets the Stacy Keach character by chance at a run-down local gym, then there stories separate for a time only to converge later.

Keach is a marvel in a performance that shockingly did not earn an Academy Award nomination. He doesn't act drunk, he genuinely appears to be in scenes. He had a lovely, lopsided smile and he can be both petulant and tender in a tour de force performance.

The film is full of these little asides that create such a rich tapestry. Bridges has a hilariously uncomfortable scene opposite Candy Clark playing his girlfriend, where she probes him to compare her sexually to his previous lovers. Another terrific moment comes from an aging black field worker who tells an amusing story of how his ex caught him cheating. These scenes don't necessarily push this languid movie forward, but they feel strangely authentic.

Stacy Keach and Jeff Bridges in 'Fat City'

And I can't say enough about "Earl", a no-nonsense character played by Curtis Cokes that isn't in the film much but has such a memorable presence, that he looms throughout, even when off-screen.

But what is the movie about? It could be about crushed dreams or the nobility of blissful ignorance. The film has a haunting final scene that I think is open to interpretation, it has a quiet grace that is so rare in movies today.

Fat City is also a profoundly funny film. The characters are boozy and blustery, they shout because they are so low on the totem poll, that very few people really listen to them. The ramshackle town where the movie takes place, Stockton, California, is also a character in the film -- its decrepit and seedy vibe really serves the story.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: they sadly don't make movies like this anymore. As much as I enjoy special effects extravaganzas, there is nothing more compelling than stories about real people in a relatively realistic situation. You get to hang out with and get to know the characters of Fat City, and yes, you pity them, but you are never bored by them.

Hear me out: Is 'Showgirls' secretly a good movie?

Last night I had the pleasure of watching what I have long considered one of the greatest "bad" movies ever made, Showgirls, on the big screen.

As I watched this endlessly entertaining film with a sold out audience, I began to see it in a different light, maybe as author Adam Nayman has presupposed in his terrific book, It Doesn't Suck: Showgirls, the film is actually a masterpiece.

There are several reasons I have begun to embrace this perspective on the film, which has become a cult classic 20 years after it was first released to brutal reviews and box office.

First of all, the film's director had been working towards the bombast and absurdity of Showgirls for years. Paul Verhoeven, a Dutch transplant here in the U.S. had been skewering American hubris, consumerism and coarseness effectively since 1987's Robocop.

He managed to top that film with one of Arnold Schwarzenegger's best, Total Recall, and then made the best erotic thriller of the '90s, Basic Instinct.

These movies have several elements in common. They are all gleefully over-the-top, revel in the vulgar and tread the line between earnestness and self parody with relative ease. My point is Verhoeven was too smart to make a purely horrible film. The excesses of Showgirls very well may be intentional.

And it is a well made film from many standpoints. The camerawork is often sublime, constantly in motion and hedonistic to the extreme. The Elizabeth Berkley lead performance is so crazy, so tonally jarring that it seems to be something out of a Russ Meyer or David Lynch film. I think Verhoeven chose to not rein her in intentionally, just to heighten an already extreme screenplay.

Her nemesis in the film, Gina Gershon, seems to be much more knowing about what kind of movie she is in. She actually gives a credible, camp classic performance, even though she has to utter dialogue like: "How do you like having nice tits?"

Gina Gershon and Elizabeth Berkley in Showgirls

Verhoeven's next major film, Starship Troopers, has earned praise and fans for doing many of the same things Showgirls does. It just appears that more audiences were in on the joke with that subversive B-movie, where perhaps Showgirls was hurt by the hype around it when was first released.

The film's biggest liabilities (besides being the most aggressively unsexy film to feature copious nudity and copulation ever) are its dialogue and narrative inconsistency, but I am sort of obsessed with both.

I remember I once played a drinking game where anytime someone in this movie says something no human being would ever say (like "Everybody got AIDS n' shit") you had to take a swig. Screenwriter Joe Eszterhas creates a truly stunning collection of some of the dumbest, most judgmental, shallow and obnoxious characters ever committed to film. And yet they are endlessly watchable. There is not a single boring moment in this film. How often can you say that about a movie?

The plot holes are just as fascinating. Berkley's character, Nomi Malone, veers wildly from naive to wise, and at one point transforms into a Kill Bill style assassin-vixen. There are spans in this film where, in 30 seconds,  so many wild things happen that you can barely digest them all. And yet at one point the movie jumps six weeks showing Berkley's character and her obligatory new black best friend living in domestic bliss after meeting by chance on the Las Vegas strip.

Last night a friend made a suggestion that I desperately want to steal -- there should be a film or a play based on the those six weeks. It should be told from the perspective of the black best friend character. She would write in her diary, venting about how whenever she ask Nomi where she's from she flails around and screams "Different places!"

Showgirls the Musical already proved this material is fertile ground for exploitation and the movie itself deserves a 30 for 30-style expose. In the meantime, I will keep on enjoying a wildly audacious film, that is more consciously funny than some people realize, and that I keep loving more and more, every time I see it.