Let the debate begin! Who ain't afraid of no female 'Ghostbusters'?

As I'm sure you've heard by now the tentative cast of an all-female version of the classic comedy Ghostbusters has been revealed by its director Paul Feig on Twitter.

Personally, I am pretty jazzed about the news, while my friend and "Too Fat for Skinny Jeans" blogger Brian Wezowicz is decidedly not.

I invited him to join me for a polite debate on the merits of this upcoming movie, which as of yet is untitled, doesn't have an official release date and hasn't even been shot yet -- but has still managed to spark a huge reaction all over social media.

We'll have to reconvene once this highly anticipated movie finally sees the light of day, but in the meantime please enjoy as we geek out in the extreme about this project...

Brian
Hey Adam, I'm sure you've seen the news that is currently breaking the internet (and my childhood) this week. The all-female Ghostbusters reboot has officially been cast. Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Leslie Jones, and Kate McKinnon have reportedly been hired to fill the tan suits and proton packs made famous by Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis, and Ernie Hudson. This news has caused a split between fans and non-fans alike. I know you're a huge Ghostbusters (especially Bill Murray) fan, so I want to see where you land on this news. I should point out that Ghostbusters is my favorite movie of all-time, and I'm on record voicing my displeasure. Before I go off on what I dislike about this, I'd love to get your take.

Adam
Ghostbusters definitely ranks among my favorite films of all time as well. I binge watched the cartoon, owned the toys and have attended both of its recent re-releases in theaters. I have cringed over the years when I heard about Dan Aykroyd's efforts to reunite the original cast for one more go-round. There didn't seem to be any need to improve upon perfection other than to fleece filmgoers who were understandably nostalgic about the first two films. When I first heard about Paul Feig's desire to reboot the franchise with women I originally thought it was unnecessary but still a more original and appealing idea than bringing the old cast out of mothballs or doing some kind of frat boy version (as was often rumored) starring the likes of Seth Rogen and Jonah Hill.

Kate McKinnon

Now that the all-female Ghostbusters is official, I find the concept growing on me. Something about Ghostbusters speaks to the kid in me and I feel like it's something that shouldn't just be the domain of certain actors or a certain generation. Bridesmaids was one of the best comedies of the last 10 years -- so I have a lot of faith in Feig. I really like the cast -- although I am hoping to see more range out of Leslie Jones than she shows on SNL. The cynic in me says this is arguably Sony's most profitable franchise after Spider-Man and Men In Black; they were going to make another one no matter what, and this is the freshest, most appealing new take I can think of.

Brian
I agree that it was inevitable. There's too much money left to milk out of this cow for Sony to shelve it for good. I think my biggest issue with this remake is that it's completely unnecessary. I consider the original Ghostbusters film to be a perfect movie. There isn't a wasted frame in it. The cast was incredible, the jokes were hilarious, and the special effects mostly hold up (which is rare for a movie that's 30 years old). The thing I loved most about it is that it's a self-contained story. I didn't feel a need for anything else after Winston yells "I love this town!", and the credits roll. I was completely satisfied. I think this is why I disliked the sequel for so long. It felt forced and didn't really add anything to the Ghostbusters canon. I've grown to appreciate it slightly over the years, but it's not a movie that I love revisiting. I know we've disagreed on its quality before, with you having a deeper appreciation for it.

That's the thing that chaps my ass so much about this remake. I don't need to see the Ghostbusters origin story another time. Unlike The Amazing Spider-Man (where we both felt it was a more satisfying origin story), I'm not staying awake at night hoping they finally get it right.

My hatred (that's probably too harsh a word for a movie that doesn't even have a script) for this film has nothing to do with the cast. In fact, I like everyone in the cast (although my love for Melissa McCarthy is quickly falling as she approaches the Adam Sandler zone). I really like that they didn't go the obvious route, instead casting two relative unknowns in the SNL duo. I think my biggest issue is that it's happening too soon. This isn't Peter Jackson remaking King Kong (which I loved). Enough time has passed for it to be worthy of a remake. This movie is strictly about one thing - cash. There's no other way to spin it other than Sony has a valuable property that it wants to take to the bank.

All this reboot/remake talk has me thinking. Do you think there should be a time limit to them? What should be the proper grace period before a film is allowed to be rebooted? I think 30 years is too short, especially if the original movie is still amazing. I think a movie should have at least a 50 year shelf life before Hollywood is allowed to restart from scratch. I could be convinced otherwise.

Adam
I don't know that I agree with you that it's too soon. It's been 25 years since the last Ghostbusters film (and yes I am an ardent defender of the inferior but still very fun Ghostbusters II). I think even the casual fan doesn't revisit these films as much as the two of us have. And I'm sad to say most of my co-workers who are just a few years younger than me confessed to either having never seen the original film or having only seen it once years ago. The first movie is perfect and it is timeless and I would have a problem with the new film if it completely denied its existence or made no nod to the original cast of characters -- in fact I'm hoping that this movie is more of a direct sequel which somehow incorporates the iconography of the original films. I feel like the film's pedigree alone makes it worth giving a chance. If the reviews are bad or if the trailer looks terrible I will be the first to skip it. But -- for instance -- there is virtually no film (save for the new Star Wars and Bond movie) I am more excited about than Mad Max: Fury Road -- I love the original movies, don't think there is much more needed to say in terms of the subject matter, but the reboot looks so good I can't resist it.

Melissa McCarthy

Yes, the cynical "money grab" nature of all so-called reboots turns me off. As I write this there are rumors that George Lucas is shopping the rights to Indiana Jones so that the series can be re-started with Chris Pine in the lead. I love Pine, think he has many Harrison Ford-esque qualities, but for me there is only one Indiana Jones and that is Harrison Ford. So I am clearly not a convert when it comes to this type of thing. However, I do think that Wiig, Jones and company might bring something fresh and funny to the ghostbusting concept, not just because they are women but because their comic sensibility is just a little different than the originals. It's not that one is better or worse, but they're unique enough that I think the material could be enlivened if not improved upon.

That said, they are already talking about rebooting Spider-Man and Batman again, clearly that's insane.

Brian
I hear your point that a younger generation doesn't hold this film up to the same light as the two of us (if they've even seen it at all!). I know that 25 years seems like an eternity to most people. Hell, 25 minutes is probably too long for today's generation.  But for me, I can't get past the idea that it's a reboot. I seem to remember reading somewhere that this movie will be an origin story and not a direct sequel. I think I would be more on board with a passing of the baton to a different crew of Busters, and if that's the case, then maybe my mind will be changed. For now, I am firmly in the "not gonna see it" camp.

I believe the new Mad Max is more of a continuation than a reboot if I'm not mistaken. That's a series that I've missed entirely. I just saw the first Mad Max movie a few weeks ago and absolutely loved it. I need to continue with the rest of them before the new movie comes out. I think Fury Road benefits in having the original director/creative force behind it.

I guess I'll have to wait to pass final judgement until I know what type of movie Ghostbusters 3.0 will be. I agree that they can add their own flavor to the series, and if it's more of a sequel that acknowledges the previous films then I'd be more inclined to see it. For the time being, and until I read otherwise, I've got my cranky pants on and they're not coming off.

But you did get me to let my guard down a little bit!

BTW, I can't wait to get into another exchange once the Indiana Jones news becomes official.

Adam
I'm glad you're keeping an open mind and to my earlier point, whether it's a reboot or a sequel, I think this is the best product we could have hoped for at this point and I'm all for seeing a big budget comedy being centered around women.

Leslie Jones

I'll also say that yes my hope is also that this will be more of a "pass the baton" project than a total "wipe the slate clean" enterprise. And while I'm not expecting it to surpass the 1984 and 1989 films in my esteem, I will follow what clues we get about the production and hopefully they'll come up with something appropriately reverent while totally original as well. Sadly, this won't be the first or the last franchise that gets reconfigured by Hollywood. The industry is deathly afraid of starting something new and they know that there is so much brand recognition with this series that it's almost a guaranteed moneymaker.

Generally, I am not in the business of boycotting movies on principle. That said, I never saw and will never see Johnny Depp's version of Willy Wonka almost specifically because its director, Tim Burton, took shots at the perfect Gene Wilder original. I don't expect Paul Feig thinks he's going to top the original film and hoping he's looking to make more of an homage.

But we'll see. Either way thanks for debating with me. And yes let's stay tuned to the news on Indy.

Love for the ladies: My top 10 favorite films by female directors

Madonna in Desperately Seeking Susan

One positive thing to come out of the unforgivable snub of Ava DuVernay by the Oscars is that it brought renewed attention to how far behind Hollywood is in terms of recognizing female filmmakers and providing opportunities for them. Despite the film industry's reputation for being progressive, women are woefully underrepresented behind the camera.

When AFI periodically releases its list of the greatest films of all time, womens' names are pretty much nowhere to be seen and although directors like DuVernay and Kathryn Bigelow have made great strides in recent years it's embarrassing that filmmaking is still widely perceived as a man's game.

To pay homage to those women who are still fighting for a foothold in the business that I love, I wanted to make a list of my top 10 favorite movies directed by women. I didn't want there to be any repeats and I also wanted to exclude films that were co-directed with men, here is the list I came up with to date:

10) Paris Is Burning (1990) - This fascinating, funny and ultimately moving documentary about the LGBT "ball scene" is a total blast. Director Jennie Livingston does an excellent job of hanging back and just letting her fantastic gallery of subjects do what they do best -- talk, vogue and "throw shade." A glorious time capsule of a unique era in the greatest city in the world. The film also serves as a prescient look at the challenges that still plague many members of the trans population.

9) American Psycho (2000) - Director Mary Harron took on a Bret Easton Ellis book that was widely condemned as viciously misogynistic and found its hilarious dark comedy heart. Much of the film's acclaim was showered upon her leading man, Christian Bale, and this is one of his greatest roles, but Harron pulled off a very difficult adaptation of a novel many believed was unfilmmable. It turns out that a female perspective was just what this narrative needed.

Robert Loggia and Tom Hanks in Big

8) In a World... (2013) - Comic actress Lake Bell wrote, starred in and directed this indie gem that never got the recognition it deserved when it came out a couple years ago. First off, it has an incredibly fun and original premise -- a kind of romantic comedy set in the world of voiceover artists. Second, it's really a star-making performance for Bell, who has shown she can be both a sexy leading lady and a hilarious comedian without sacrificing her voice.

7) Big (1988) - For a brief period Penny Marshall was the most successful female director of all time, and after recently rewatching this sweet, whimsical, blockbuster comedy, which firmly established Tom Hanks as a major movie star, it's easy to see why. She took what was already a pretty hacky premise (little boy wakes up with a grown man's body) and infused it was with a lot of realism and pathos. I am also a big fan of her drama Awakenings. Although her work could be sentimental, it was also always strong.

6) Zero Dark Thirty (2012) - The politics of this film may be divisive but there's no denying its power. Kathrn Bigelow's exciting and brooding look at the hunt for Osama bin Laden is in my opinion superior to her Oscar winning The Hurt Locker. I think Jessica Chastain was robbed for the Best Actress award for her stellar work here in this thriller. Bigelow paid her dues directing action films that would normally be helmed by men and has developed a signature style all her own. One of the few female directors who has developed into a household name, and justly so.

5) Desperately Seeking Susan (1985) - This movie is now largely remembered as being Madonna's first big screen role, and she is terrific in it, but it's also a great twisted comedy in the vein of Charlie Kaufman's work. It's about mistaken identity and assumed roles, and it's also a wonderful time capsule of New York's mid-'80s art and punk scenes. Madonna has never been more charming, but this is definitely a showcase for her co-star, the great Rosanna Arquette. Kudos to director Susan Seidelman for getting iconic performances out of them both,

4) Wayne's World (1992) - Probably the greatest Saturday Night Live inspired movie of all time (although there's an argument to be made for The Blues Brothers), this loony comedy starring Mike Myers and Dana Carvey as wannabe TV stars of indeterminate age from Aurora, Illinois is one of the most quotable comedies ever and it works in part because its director Penelope Spheeris was truly steeped in the rock n' roll scene that the film is both a love letter to and a parody of. She reportedly clashed a bit with Myers on set but their collaboration produced the best film he ever made.

Jessica Chastain in Zero Dark Thirty

3) Selma (2014) - Having recently seen the underwhelming The Imitation Game, I am even more convinced that the Best Director nomination that film received should have gone to DuVernay. She pulled of an incredible feat, she made both an intimate character study and a rousing historical epic. She helped humanize Martin Luther King, Jr., helped make the voting rights battle of 1965 relevant again and also made a point to pay homage to the crucial role women played in the movement, a reality that has been sadly overlooked for decades. Even though Oscar blew this one, she will be a force for years to come.

2) Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982) - I frequently cite this raucous and raunchy comedy as my favorite high school movie of all time (although Heathers is climbing up the ranks for me). Some people prefer Amy Heckerling's other hit teen comedy Clueless, but that movie always felt artificial for me. This movie really nails the awkwardness and optimism of high school kids and with it's dream cast of eclectic characters it never feels like it's giving you an elitist or played out take on the experience of growing up. Another incredible time capsule of a specific time and place -- with one of the most famous sexual fantasy sequences ever caught on film.

1) Lost In Translation (2003) - Sophia Coppola has her share of detractors, as I'm sure does this film, but it's always held a special place in my heart as a Bill Murray fan. I saw this movie at a time in my life where I too felt adrift and isolated and its quiet but compelling central relationship between Murray and a never-better Scarlett Johansson still resonates with me. Murray scored his first, and so far only, richly deserved Oscar nomination for this iconic movie, but he owes much of his performance to Coppola who conceived this specifically for him and helped him show a side of his persona audiences had never seen before.

That all said, the irony is not lost on me that some of these films fail to pass the Bechdel test, objectify women and/or are focused on a male's perspective. And I need to broaden my scope, and see more films made by female filmmakers. Hopefully, as Hollywood continues to come to its senses I will have more to choose from in the coming years.

Sigh: 'American Sniper' steals thunder from 'Selma'

I should preface everything I'm about to write by saying I have yet to see American Sniper. I plan to -- but I've come to realize that some people feel very strongly that you can't weigh in on a movie until you've seen it. I will say this: I've heard mixed, but mostly good things. Despite my disapproval of his politics, I am a Clint Eastwood fan and admire the fact that he has proven to be commercially viable in his mid-80s.

His films are not effects-driven and are usually earnest in their attempts to tackle human themes and emotions. I haven't admired many of his recent films; I thought Gran Torino would have been a great send-off, but it appears that American Sniper is something of a late career comeback for him.

Still, I can't help feel that its success, at least in part, is at the expense of Selma. Instead of David Oyelowo, Bradley Cooper was nominated for Best Actor by the Academy Awards last week. And instead of the civil rights movement biopic Selma capitalizing on a wave of post-nomination buzz and acclaim over the MLK holiday weekend, it was American Sniper, which had a historically huge performance for not just January, but any month of the year,

The Clint Eastwood movie got an A+ from Cinemascore, which means people like it. Selma also got an A+ but seems to be sinking like a stone. It now appears that American Sniper is the "movie of the moment," earning free publicity because of its huge earnings and star turn from Cooper.

While it likely won't beat Boyhood for Best Picture, American Sniper is already on pace to be one of the highest grossing movies of the new year and has clearly been a triumph of marketing and timing.

Tom Wilkinson and David Oyelowo in Selma

I can't help but make comparisons. Eastwood is at least perceived as a red state filmmaker, and while his movie is clearly not some jingoistic Rambo fantasy it does appear to portray some measure of American heroism. Most importantly though, it is about an individual, not a conflict. Audiences aren't being asked to contemplate Afghanistan or Iraq -- why we went or should we have.

So, to a certain extent audiences can have a healthy distance from the the subject matter. Selma doesn't let audiences off the hook as easily which may account for why it is struggling at the box office. It is a small budget movie so it should turn a profit and I suspect it will have a much longer shelf life on DVD. But in the short term it faces a challenge that many black-themed history films face -- white audiences are by-and-large not willing to see it.

Black folks hear these excuses all the time -- "I know I should see Selma, but..."

Audiences have no problem sitting through white historic epics and even ethnic ones that have been whitewashed,but black-centered stories apparently make some filmgoers feel guilty or sad or somehow historically complicit, and that's not how they want to spend their hard earned money.

But hey, the fact is Bradley Cooper and Clint Eastwood are huge names and Ava DuVernay and David Oyelowo aren't -- yet. Those of us who loved Selma, who think it needs to be seen, should be working overtime to make sure the word is out that the most relevant movie of the year remains a biopic about a certain slain civil rights leader who died fighting for the acknowledgment of the basic humanity of people.

#OscarSoWhite: Why the 'Selma' snubs really hurt

Director Ava DuVernay & the film deserved better

"It's a white industry" - Chris Rock on Hollywood

Rock's words are really resonating with me today after a shocking rebuke of Ava DuVernay's excellent Martin Luther King/civil rights movement biopic Selma by the Academy Awards.

Despite stellar reviews, a timely narrative and Hollywood's reputation as a bastion of liberal politics, it appears that the predominately white body of Oscar voters couldn't get behind a black man's story directed and largely written by a black woman, and in 2015, that's just sad.

I had planned to write a typical analysis of the Oscar nominees today, who I thought was overlooked (Josh Brolin for Inherent Vice) or who I was happy to see make the cut (Steve Carell for Foxcatcher), but I never imagined that Selma would be so disrespected, and as far as I'm concerned that totally overshadows everything else.

For the second time in the last five years there wasn't a single person of color nominated in any of the four major acting categories. And Ava DuVernay, who would have made history as the first black woman (and only fifth woman overall) to be nominated as best director, was also left out of the race.

First, let me address those of you who say 'why should we care?' every Oscar season. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't mean everything. Great films are snubbed by the Academy Awards all the time, as are great actors and directors. That said, the Oscars are Hollywood's most prestigious honor and therefore they represent an acknowledgment of skill and talent. They may not get it right every time, but they can translate to big grosses and a prolonged career. They matter in the industry and in a business that has always been an uphill battle for minorities, they're even more important.

Second, there is another elephant in the room -- it's not just African-Americans being left on the sidelines, it's Latinos, Asians, Native Americans and more -- who are virtually invisible in the white-dominated world of films.

Win or lose, Selma is great

The thing is I loved most of the films nominated this year. Boyhood, Birdman, and most of the other nominees are more than worthy and they are also made by and featuring almost exclusively white people. If Selma truly wasn't worthy -- like The Butler a couple years ago -- I wouldn't complain, but it should have been nominated because it actually was one of the best films of the year.

There is all sorts of speculation today about what went wrong. Some blame screeners sent out too late to Oscar voters by the film's studio, Paramount. Others think it was the "controversy" over whether the film is factually accurate or not. But look at the sheer paucity of black nominees over the 80-plus years of Oscars, and look how even fewer films about black history or lives draw notice. Twelve Years a Slave, last year's winner, was the first film ever with a predominately black cast to win best picture, and coupled with Slumdog Millionaire, it was one of only two movies with a predominately non-white cast to win.

At this point, the only thing that can help this worthy, important film is audiences themselves. Will they ignore the Oscar snub and view this film on its own terms and merit? Stranger things have happened and there's a case to be made that the adverse publicity the film has received will only raise awareness about it. Whether Selma wins the two awards it is nominated for doesn't matter to me, as long as people see it.

Sorry haters, 'Inherent Vice' was everything I wanted it to be

Despite some very strong reviews, Inherent Vice (a drug-fueled detective story based on a best-selling Thomas Pynchon novel) has been struggling with some bad buzz. 

People find its labyrinthine plot too confounding to appreciate and its nearly 3-hour length too indulgent. I understand these criticisms, but I nevertheless loved this movie. So much in fact that I went ahead and revised my top 10 list for 2014 to put this sprawling, hard-to-classify film in my top five. 

Its director, Paul Thomas Anderson, is one of my favorite filmmakers working today but I was worried he had begun to go astray with his last film, the fascinating but also inaccessible, The Master. Prior to that flawed film I've loved every movie Anderson has made, and a recent revisit of Boogie Nights reaffirmed my awe for his talent.

Joaquin Phoenix and Josh Brolin in Inherent Vice

The trailer for Inherent Vice has had me psyched for months, but then many people whose opinions I respect said they left the film scratching their heads, or in some cases outright hating it. I can only say that I surrendered to this movie's charms from its gorgeous opening frames, and I had a ball going on its strange twisted journey.

The storyline, while purposely confusing at times, didn't alienate me and the movie was so funny, sexy, and unpredictable I didn't really care if every thread of the plot made perfect sense to me.

Anderson is not afraid to take chances, to make an over-the-top movie that dares to be different. He doesn't talk down to his audience and he wants to challenge you, to listen, to retain information and to experience scenes at different paces and styles. His films are often impossible to categorize and he likes it that way (I suspect). There's a lot that I like about this film and I'm still digesting it so I will distill my defense of it to three quick points.

1) The cast was extraordinary - Anderson has assembled a dream cast, featuring actors who don't get enough mainstream exposure, like the great Eric Roberts and Benicio Del Toro. Josh Brolin nearly steals the show with an uproariously funny performance as a hippie-hating cop. And Joaquin Phoenix proved to me that when he allows his natural comic ability to shine through (as he did in Her) he is a compelling and unique leading man. His public stunts and self-importance had turned me off of him in the past, but as far as I'm concerned he's on a roll now.

2) The movie's look/feel - This film perfectly captures the early '70s-era California, or at least what I imagine it to be. Like the best period movies, it doesn't beat you over the head with decor and costumes but it has these great little touches that just plunge you into a very specific place and time. I am a hardcore East Coast partisan, anyone who knows me knows this about me, and yet this movie made me want to venture west. I loved its world of beautiful women and loose morals. And in my estimation this movie perfectly captures the odd transition from '60s-era social engagement to '70s-decadence.

3) It's deliriously funny - Almost all of Anderson's films have a great sense of humor, even if it's a dark one. Still, this is probably his most laugh-out-loud hilarious movie since his romantic fable Punch-Drunk Love. It's tonally all over the map, but it's never quite morose, and its sense of fun is cathartic. It milks the pothead conceit just enough -- not too much, not too little. It even manages to have a healthy sense of danger despite the relatively low stakes screenplay.

After a year of mostly safe, mediocre movies, it's fun to start the new one with something so wildly original and risky. I don't suspect Inherent Vice will win any major awards, or even get much of an audience, but I'm happy as hell it got made and that I got to see it. 

Why the debate over factual accuracy in 'Selma' is silly

Selma

Now that mainstream audiences are finally getting a look at Selma, hopefully a silly but raging debate over whether the film misrepresents history will fade away.

I was scheduled to speak about this topic on Janet Mock's new digital TV show So Popular this Friday, but unfortunately the tragic breaking news at France forced me to cancel.

So I thought I'd take an opportunity to say what I would have said on this blog.

As I've mentioned earlier, Selma is one of the best films of the past year. It's not a documentary and it's not pretending to be. Make no mistake about it -- every Hollywood movie about a historical subject or person fudges facts. I don't care if it's Lincoln or Argo or another would-be Oscar contender, The Imitation Game. Selma changes some things in terms of timing, and perhaps exaggerates some interactions and characters to create dramatic tension.

That said, most critics have acknowledged that the film -- which dramatizes Martin Luther King Jr.'s fight for voting rights in 1965 -- gets the major facts completely right. And civil rights icons, John Lewis and Andrew Young, who are both portrayed the film, have wholeheartedly backed it.

Still, a small minority of aides and experts associated with the late President Lyndon Johnson feel that the film unfairly casts LBJ as an antagonist to the civil rights movement and downplays his role in the passage of the Voting Rights Act.

Oprah Winfrey in Selma

First of all, Johnson was an incredibly complex and nuanced figure. This is a man who bitterly fought civil rights bills for his first twenty years in Congress only to become a great champion for the cause in the late 50s. He may not have authorized the FBI's illegal wiretaps on MLK, but he was an accessory after the fact, looking the other way while King's life was intruded.

Is this film entirely fair to him? I think so. Yes, he may be played as something of a calculating politician but in the end the movie is redemptive of LBJ. In the film's most powerful scenes he takes a definitive stand against segregationist George Wallace, saying he doesn't want to be associated with "the likes of you."

Plus the debate over LBJ diminishes the martyrs of the film -- who are the true heroes of Selma. This is film is about the people in the trenches who were able to rally the public consciousness and raise moral indignation. One of the best things about the film is that it makes plain and accessible what was at stake in the voting rights fight and how uphill the battle was for King and his followers.

The film also humanizes MLK in a way we've never seen before. A whole new generation of people will be more acquainted with his story, which is inspirational and more important now than ever, at a time when there are very real attempts to curtail the vote again, which appear to be specifically targeting communities of color.

Selma is a film that deserves to be seen on its own merits. Sometimes audiences are more savvy than they're often given credit -- no one is going to walk out of this film thinking LBJ is a bad guy. More importantly, they will walk out with a renewed appreciation for how far we've come as a society, considering the events of the movie take place just 50 years ago.

Flashback to 2005: My top 10 films from 10 years ago

Here we go again. I'm continuing my tradition of top tens by the decade.

In 2014, I looked back on the prior five decades, and now that it's 2015 I have a brand new batch of eras to feast on.

This past year was a decent, if not mind-blowing year at the movies and I guess the same could be said for 10 years ago.

Back in 2005, the polarizing Crash upset the critical darling Brokeback Mountain at the Academy Awards, and my favorite film of the year (which I will reveal shortly) wasn't even nominated.

It was the year George Clooney really established himself as a dramatic actor and as a director. It was also the year Christopher Nolan really broke though as a commercial, brand-name director. The late, great Philip Seymour Hoffman gave one of the greatest performances of his career and we saw the first signs of the resurgence of Mickey Rourke.

Without further ado, here are my top ten favorite movies from 2005:

10) Wedding Crashers - A mainstream romantic comedy disguised as an unapologetic frat-pack romp. Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson had terrific chemistry in this guilty pleasure and Will Ferrell contributed one of the greatest comic cameos of all time during the film's denouement. Frequent repeat showings of this movie have somewhat diluted its impact, but I still remember what a blast it was when I saw it in theaters back in 2005. I especially enjoy the first half of the film which just revels in the debauchery.

9) Munich - With the exception of one of the most awkwardly staged sex scenes of all time, director Steven Spielberg hardly makes any missteps with this dark, brooding thriller based on the real life revenge plot following the terrorist hostage crisis of the 1972 Olympic Games. Eric Bana and Daniel Craig turn in star-making performances in this underrated film, which does a great job of evoking a unique time and moment in our history. It's missing the sappiness that had frequently plagued Spielberg films.

Mickey Rourke in Sin City

8) Good Night and Good Luck - George Clooney's earnest exploration of broadcaster Edward R. Murrow's epic fight with red baiting Sen. Joseph McCarthy is a worthwhile history lesson. Clooney assembled a top-notch cast to dramatize the behind-the-scenes CBS drama, but his most brilliant broad stroke was casting Oscar nominee David Stratharin in the lead role. He has the perfect mixture of poise and steely resolve to enliven this important chapter in American life.

7) Batman Begins - The resurrection of the Batman franchise began here, and while I still prefer Tim Burton's take on the Dark Knight, it's hard to deny the power and originality of director Christopher Nolan's bruising, more realistic take on the Caped Crusader. The series reached greater heights with The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises, but this first effort came across as a fascinating crime epic and it was the first Batman film to almost totally center around Bruce Wayne.

6) Sin City - Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller crafted one of the coolest looking and most original comic book adaptations of all time with this episodic noir masterpiece. Mickey Rourke was the standout as the seemingly indestructible Marv, but the duo got great work from several other stars like Benicio del Toro and an appallingly creepy Elijah Wood. This film felt so fresh ten years ago and not unlike Batman Begins was a real return to superhero films with a tinge of darkness after too many spandex-centric cartoonish movies.

5) Kiss Kiss Bang Bang - Most film fans probably consider Iron Man to be Robert Downey Jr.'s coming out party as a bonafide movie star, but this under-seen gem could have been and should have been. This hilarious, twisted dark comedy thriller deserved to be a box office smash but never found and audience. Downey teams up with a never-better Val Kilmer in a caper film about a fugitive posing as an actor who gets drawn into a surreal murder plot. It's actually kind hard to explain but extremely entertaining to watch.

George Clooney in Syriana

4) Syriana - This incredibly complex and thought-provoking look at our relationship with the Middle East was both ahead of its time and unappreciated in its day. The film does not excuse terrorism but certainly puts it in context which was especially daring in the Bush era. The film also works as a thriller which helps its political agenda go down smooth.

3) Capote - Philip Seymour Hoffman's titular Oscar winning role was the culmination of all his previous work. Hoffman's speciality was his ability to eschew his vanity to really burrow into a character. He lost weight and seemed physically smaller in this iconic role and his fierce and funny performance is the engine that makes this thoughtful biopic work. The film does an excellent job of dramatizing the classic true crime novel In Cold Blood.

2) Broken Flowers - The culmination of Bill Murray's darker, dramatic period -- this quiet but effective Jim Jarmusch film really resonates after repeated viewings. Murray plays an aging Lothario who receives a letter informing him he has a son. After some prodding from his best friend (played by an amiable Jeffrey Wright), Murray goes on a soul searching road trip, reuniting with old flames and coming to realize something deeper abut himself. A masterpiece of minimalist acting by Murray.

1) A History of Violence - Savage and sexy, this brutally violent look at a hoodlum who tries to remake his life as a small town owner of a diner is just my kind of movie. Director David Cronenberg has a fascination with the flesh and he puts his preoccupations to good use in this impeccably acted mediation of the nature of violent men. Viggo Mortenson showed great new depths as an actor and Ed Harris played one of my favorite antagonists of the decade. A brilliant movie which deserves rediscovery.

'Life Itself' is a tribute to Roger Ebert and the human spirit

Roger Ebert

I've been a longtime fan of Roger Ebert and I was devastated when he passed away in 2013. He was a great, underrated writer and his life story -- told in the moving documentary Life Itself -- is a real triumph of the human spirit.

Despite his weight and less-than-matinee-idol looks he was a cocky guy, which made him something of a ladies' man before he settled down with his soulmate Chaz. He was someone who could appreciate the work of Russ Meyer (who he wrote films for) and Martin Scorsese. I didn't always agree with him (he didn't like Full Metal Jacket, for instance), but I respected his talent and his mind.

Film criticism is something of a dying art form these days. More people get their reviews from a taxicab in New York or in brief blurbs from Rotten Tomatoes, instead of lucid, thought-provoking prose from the likes of Pauline Kael.

Ebert's appeal was far more "everyman" than that of celebrated critic, but that doesn't make it any less worthwhile. There's a reason the man won a Pulitzer Prize -- he could really write, and write well. In Life Itself, another critic I admire, the New York Times' A.O. Scott, described Ebert as "the definitive mainstream movie critic," and I think that's fitting.

Siskel & Ebert

He was someone who not only reviewed the latest blockbusters, he championed independent films and up-and-coming filmmakers. Several directors owe their breakthroughs to Ebert, including the man behind Life Itself, documentarian Steve James (who made one of Ebert's favorite films Hoop Dreams).

Sure, the thumbs up thing was transgressive and simplistic but Ebert was anything but. And the most powerful thing about Life Itself is Ebert's passion for living and his big heart. His wife Chaz also emerges as a real hero and an example of the kind of life partner we all dream of having.

After losing Stuart Scott at the young age of 49 this week, and even Ebert's longtime sparring partner years ago at the age of 53, it's hard not to think of one's own mortality these days. As I write this I am only 32 years old, but I am often reminded that every day is a gift and life is meant for the living.

This sentiment could be construed as cheesy but when you see the life the Ebert lived you can only think of a line like that with awe.

'A Most Violent Year' is mostly a letdown

After an extended discussion with my girlfriend I've come to the conclusion that perhaps the best way to appreciate a film is to determine whether it accomplishes what the filmmaker intended for the movie to do.

It's impossible, for instance, to directly compare a subversive comedy like Birdman with a powerful drama like Selma. They are both masterpieces on their own terms and they both evoked the emotions I believed their makers were seeking from an audience.

A Most Violent Year is a very difficult film to classify -- it's neither great nor bad, although there is a tremendous amount to like about it.

Still, it fails to live up to its promise or premise and therefore I think it'll go down a noble failure, or at least a letdown.

I admired more than enjoyed the director J.C. Chandor's critically acclaimed first film Margin Call, a talky technical look at the economic meltdown from a few years back. But I thought his one-man adventure All Is Lost, starring Robert Redford, was a revelation. So I was excited to see his next foray into writing-directing. When I first saw trailers from A Most Violent Year I was almost certain it would make my top 10 list for the year. It featured a dream cast, it appeared to be a gangster film (my favorite genre) and it was set in a period and locale that fascinates me -- early 1980s New York.

Now that I have seen it I can admit that the movie does an excellent job of capturing the look of that era, and it has a lot of interesting acting in it -- but it's devoid of passion or heat. It's all set-up with virtually no pay-off and what conclusions there are aren't that compelling.

The film centers around an up-and-coming fuel-trucking company magnate who is trying to expand his business in a corrupt industry where his competitors may or may not be targeting him and his family with violent reprisal. This sounds like a set-up for a dynamite thriller but with the exception of a couple well executed jump scares, the film repeatedly diffuses the tension it creates.

Jessica Chastain in A Most Violent Year

My suspicion is that Chandor, despite his film's title, wasn't interested in making a conventional shoot-'em-up, which is fine. But as a pure character study the movie is lacking too. Isaac is a terrific actor and he is compelling in the lead role, but the character as written is very static. He is noble and earnest, seemingly sincere -- but then he also can seem emotionally stunted and cold at times.

He has no arc, he is pitched as a Michael Corleone-type, but that classic character would be a bore if he didn't eventually descend into darkness. Isaac's character almost does.

It doesn't help that his performance/character is contrasted repeatedly with Jessica Chastain's gleefully over-the-top performance as his crime-boss-daughter wife. From her accent to her nails to her revealing costumes, Chastain is a hoot (and a likely Oscar nominee in a weak year for women's roles) but she feels like she belongs in another movie. It's like she is appearing in a flashy DePalma film, while everyone else (including a great, but underused Albert Brooks) is acting like they're in a low-key, quiet film.

I was excited to see some sort of social commentary on the era in which the film takes place but instead the city barely serves as a backdrop to the inert story. It feels like this could have taken place in Philadelphia or Chicago, and as a New Yorker that seems like a wasted opportunity.

That said, A Most Violent Year has its interesting moments and I don't regret having seen it. I like that Isaac's character is an immigrant and his social climbing is intriguing, as is his complicated relationship with a DA investigating him (played beautifully by David Oyelowo). Chandor is definitely a smart director and I'm more than willing to write this one off as a minor disappointment.

A Most Violent Year isn't particularly violent or the most -- instead it feels like a very long first episode of what could have been a solid HBO series, not an epic cinematic experience.