Paying my respects to Robert Redford's essential roles

Robert Redford

Following a critically acclaimed turn in All Is Lost and a very commercially successful villainous role in the blockbuster Captain America: The Winter Solider, Hollywood legend Robert Redford is enjoying something akin to a career renaissance as he approaches the age of 80.

He's been revered for his creation of the Sundance Film Festival, which has become a safe space for generations of burgeoning independent filmmakers, and he is also gets kudos for being the industry's golden boy leading man heartthrob of the 1970s. And on a personal note he gave the commencement address at my graduation ceremony at Bard College in 2004.

What is often overlooked is that besides being an accomplished filmmaker (his Ordinary People won best picture in 1980) he is also a terrific actor, who has done consistently strong work for six decades now.

As I did with his famous co-star Paul Newman, I wanted to look back on my favorite performances of his, in an attempt to put his considerable achievements in context.

The Chase (1966): Although he later became the most sought after leading man in Hollywood, most of his early films, like this ahead-of-its-time character study of a southern town awash in corruption and bigotry, were flops. Redford plays an escaped convict on the lam. He holds his own in a film dominated by star Marlon Brando and shows flashes of the charisma that made him an icon.

Downhill Racer (1969): A rare glimpse of the darker side of Redford's range is this fascinating, experimental film which takes a no-holds-barred look at the world of athletics (in this case Olympic level skiing) and the sometimes narcissistic athletes that inhabit it. As the film progresses Redford's character get progressively less likable which adds a wonderful ambiguity to the finale.

Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid (1969): This was the film that made Redford a household name and established his classic big screen partnership with Newman. Their chemistry can't be invented, they are the most roguish and handsome cowboys in movie history. Interestingly, Redford largely plays the reserved, monosyllabic character here -- but his appeal comes across.

The Candidate (1972): One of Redford's most fascinating early roles takes a prescient look at how our political process has become more and more about marketing and media. He plays a liberal idealist recruited to essentially lose a race respectably. But when his character starts to capture the voting public's imagination, the money people rush in to make sure he doesn't become too much of a change agent. A film that still holds up today.

Redford with his Best Director Oscar

The Sting (1973): The biggest hit of Redford's early career and the one time he was ever recognized by the Academy Awards for his acting. He's teamed up with Newman again, but this time he is the real protagonist of this highly influential caper film. Every heist movie since owes a debt to this film and it's given real heft thanks to Redford's physical and earnest performance in it.

Three Days of the Condor (1975): The kind of taut, paranoid thriller that became some of a calling card for Redford in his career. He plays an unwitting CIA analyst who is drawn into a murderous plot and forced to pick up a gun. I'm actually shocked that Hollywood has never remade this film; it has a rapid fire pace and a killer ending.

All the President's Men (1976): Quite possibly the best film of Redford's career and one of his greatest all around success stories. Against most studio's judgement, he saw the commercial and storytelling value in bringing Washington Post reporters Carl Berstein and Bob Woodward's investigation into the Watergate break-in and cover-up to the big screen. It now stands as one of the all-time great journalism movies.

The Natural (1984): After 1980, Redford took a surprisingly long self-imposed break from acting. This heroic baseball movie was his triumphant return. The movie works in part because it is shamelessly hokey and understands the allure of the Redford mystique. It's plot doesn't make a ton of sense but it makes up for any shortcomings with some truly magical, awe-inspiring moments.

Legal Eagles (1986): A largely forgotten little romantic comedy, this film isn't going to make many top 10 lists (it was originally intended for Bill Murray, oddly enough) but it's a pleasant '80s diversion and it provides ample evidence that Redford had a knack for light laughs. He is lovable enough that you forgive him for romancing two leading ladies (Darryl Hannah and Debra Winger) at the same time.

Sneakers (1992): One of my personal favorites ever since I was kid, this all-star film about quirky schemers who break in and out of elaborate locales is a lot of fun and criminally underrated. The movie was a modest hit, but I think it deserved to be a big one. The actors elevate the material and there are some truly great suspenseful sequences throughout.

The Horse Whisperer (1998): Some may snicker at this film as a weepie romantic drama, but Redford (directing himself for the first time) brings real grit and gravitas to the material. The romance element may be too chaste for modern tastes, but I think it's a touching little story told on an epic scale, with beautiful use of its rustic locations.

All Is Lost (2013): For a little over a decade, Redford appeared to be falling off a bit. He was no longer a significant draw at the box office and he seemed to be struggling to find the right material to match his talents. Then out of nowhere came this blast of cinematic originality. Redford holds the screen alone and gives a nearly wordless performance for the ages. It's mind blowing that he didn't get nominated for this stunning, emotional turn. Still, it reminded a whole new audience of what a great actor he is.

'Goodnight Mommy': More evidence of a horror movie renaissance

Even though I am fan of the horror genre I find that very few "scary" movies are very good. Some people use the barometer "did it scare me?" -- I don't -- I'm more interested in whether a horror film is actually cinematically strong.

There have been plenty of very good films that creeped me out but didn't exactly give me nightmares. And, of course, there is also a lot of junk out there.

There are the gimmicky ghost stories, the gruesome slasher films, the torture porn and most nauseating recently -- the possession retreads -- none of whom come close to the impact of the 1973 original The Exorcist.

And yet in the past year I have seen three horror films I would unabashedly call masterpieces. Yes, they all scared me, but more importantly -- like the best films in the genre -- they made me think, were open to interpretation and could be enjoyed on multiple levels on repeat viewings.

It Follows, The Babadook and now Goodnight Mommy all suggest that we may be on the cusp of a golden age of horror films, which would be nice since there have been very few original movies in the world of terror cinema in the last few years.

Goodnight Mommy, an Austrian film which is currently in theaters, has a dynamite trailer that brilliantly manipulates your expectations when you enter the film. It's a very dark and disturbing film, without really a single traditional "scare" in it. I'm not even entirely sure it's a horror film, although horrible, unsettling things happen in it.

Both It Follows and The Babadook deal with supernatural entities, but wisely keep them largely unseen. The genius of these movies -- as well as my all-time favorite horror film The Shining -- is that the terror is within the mind. It's less about what you see than what you can imagine.

The Babadook

Each film has virtuoso filmmaking -- they are beautifully shot, staged and acted, which shouldn't be remarkable, but stands out in a genre that has become infamous for either wooden or hackneyed acting.

These are also films that are not preoccupied with gore. Although Goodnight Mommy has its share of grisly moments, they serve the story and never feel like exploitation for exploitation's sake.

What is unique about scary movies is that when they work they can be effective in a way that is entirely singular. It's already a somewhat inherently spooky experience sitting in a darkened theaters with a bunch of strangers. And when a film really takes hold of you with its pacing and purposefulness, as these three films do, you find yourself totally surrendering to the world up on the big screen.

All three of these films don't go for typical jump scares that you can see coming from a mile away. Instead they are all about throwing you off their scent. I never saw where any of these films were going and that rollercoaster ride was both terrifying and exhilarating.

I don't want to spoil these films, and to say that their plots twist is really an understatement. I will say this, each of them would be a decent start for someone who thinks they are averse to horror in general.

They are not relentlessly horrifying or disgusting. But they do create a general discomfort and unease that really shook me after I left the theater.

After watching Goodnight Mommy, I found myself just saying over and over again -- "that was just unsettling." and in the weirdest way, that can sometimes be a very gratifying feeling. Movies, at their best should keep us from being complacent and unless they're a light comedy, I don't want to just be amused for a couple hours. I want something I can feast on.

And these three stellar films are delicious.

Are the 'Star Wars' prequels the worst movies of all time?

Revenge of the Sith

I am a fan of great bad movies. Films like Showgirls and The Room are in a class by themselves. And these films have a certain charm because the filmmakers were earnestly trying to make something great and just failed miserably. George Lucas' Star Wars prequels constitute a very different kind of colossal failure. They are the results of thousands of craftspeople and man hours to be sure, but they are also some of the most cynical and soulless movies ever produced.

I used to try to convince myself that Revenge of the Sith was a good film and that Attack of the Clones at least had a few dazzling moments, but after repeatedly watching the brilliantly subversive online reviews of "Mr. Plinkett", I have begun to think that all three films, especially the reviled Phantom Menace are cinematic atrocities of the highest order.

And I say this as an enormous, unabashed fan of the original Star Wars trilogy (who is cautiously optimistic about the J.J. Abrams film coming this December, which aims to continue the saga). Those films, all three of them, are cohesive, emotionally-fulfilling and funny. I would go so far as to argue that they rank among (if not at the top) of the greatest cinematic trilogies of all time.

So what went so horribly wrong? Documentaries like The People vs. George Lucas and Mr. Plinkett's YouTube reviews explain the prequels' deficiencies at great length and excruciating detail. I will add my voice to the chorus, and will make the point that what makes the films so galling is that they could have been great, and yet so many poor decisions were made during the filmmaking process that we are now stuck with them. That is, of course, unless somebody at Disney or whichever studio owns the rights decides to remake them -- which I actually hope they do, because these three films can only be improved upon.

Anakin Skywalker evolution into Darth Vader could have been compelling, it was a story that Star Wars fans wanted to see, but for reasons that can largely be attributed to greed, Lucas put an emphasis on "stuff" instead of substance.

Now, we're stuck with three films that not only pilfer (in some cases full scenes) what we loved from the originals, it almost deliberately detracts from their magic and originality.

Essentially these films rank among the worst for me because they were a vehicle to sell merchandise. And yes, while most modern commercial movie-making has similar goals, there has been at least enough creative spark in products like the Avengers films to suggest that the people behind the camera wanted to actually tell stories as opposed to just make money.

The last film of the prequel trilogy came out 10 years ago, which I guess it what motivated me to look back on these disappointments now.

Again, I used to defend these movies, out of affection for the Star Wars universe, but also because as a fan you almost wanted to will yourself to like them, because they were the only Star Wars game in town.

The trailers always looked phenomenal and you'd get excited for a moment of cinematic bliss, like when Yoda lifted Luke's X-wing out of the swamp in Dagobah in Empire Strikes Back (still one of my favorite moments in movies). And yet, even as I write that I can barely recall a single memorable moment from any of the prequels.

The two moments that come to mind as even remotely noteworthy are Yoda fighting with a lightsaber, which really was gimmicky in retrospect and the scene where Anakin is burned alive and transitions to become Vader (which, I will admit, was pretty cool). Everything else is a talky, poorly acted blur.

Speaking of a blur -- the visual effects which overwhelm all three of these movies, don't even look good now. They are the worst kind of rubbery CGI. Entire sets for the most part were shot on soundstages with blue screens, so no one appears to be really interacting with the space they're in or the people they're talking to.

The worst part of it all is -- that each one of them was an enormous hit. In fact, the worst one of them all -- the inert and culturally tone deaf Phantom Menace -- still ranks among the most financially successful films of all time. So Lucas won and we, the fans, lost.

Still, nothing can diminish the impact of the original trilogy, in fact the prequels only enhanced how great the storytelling, characters and action was in those movies.

And I may get duped again. The Force Awakens has a similar vibe to the prequels in some ways. A title that invites more derision than excitement and a trailer that is eye popping but short on actual story. Yet, my love for this universe is so strong I am willing to take a chance on it.

I just hope the force is with me.

Johnny Depp makes a great comeback in 'Black Mass'

Johnny Depp in Black Mass

Johnny Depp used to be one of Hollywood's most interesting leading men. He never played conventional roles and didn't let his good looks define him.

But then relatively late in his career what had previously been unthinkable happened -- he became a bankable A-list star.

Suddenly, he started cranking out low-risk, family-friendly fare. And his once enticing quirkiness became increasingly stale and gimmicky with each subsequent release.

After the moribund recent "comedy" Mordecai came and went from theaters with a resounding thud earlier this year, I thought perhaps we'd seen this once great actor's total flameout.

But then came Black Mass, the new gangster film featuring a barely recognizable Depp as the infamous Boston crime lord "Whitey" Bulger. The movie surrounding Depp doesn't exactly break new ground, but it is wildly entertaining and mostly thanks to a top-notch performance by its star.

Depp says totally reinvigorated here. Perhaps the heavy make-up liberated him. He looks positively reptilian in this film. And instead of presenting an over-the-top caricature of a monster, he plays all sorts of nuances and shades of an admittedly troubled man. You walk away wanting to know more about the real Bulger which is a tribute to Depp's acting more than the film's power -- I suspect the accuracy police are already hard at work debunking it, but I digress.

The gangster genre has been good to Depp. First with Donnie Brasco and then more recently with Michael Mann's underrated John Dillinger epic Public Enemies. The violence and sexual aggressiveness of these films contrasts nicely with Depp's occasionally soft and even effeminate off-screen persona.

In these types of films he effectively plays against type, unleashing a ferociousness that is buried in his more elfin roles, and it's a sight to behold. And although he is the best thing about Black Mass, he's not the only terrific part in it.

It's a fascinating story that at times seems to stretch believability a fair amount but the real center of the film is Joel Edgerton in a loose and amusing performance as an FBI agent who's a little too close to the hoods who are informing for him. After The Gift, this is another home run for Edgerton, who's rapidly emerging as one of the most intriguing new leading men in movies.

But this movie stands as proof that Depp isn't ready to cede his stature to a new generation of up-and-coming male stars. He still has some gas left in the tank. I'm sad to see he plans to make more Pirates movies in the near future. For me, the first was charming and more than enough.

He should stick to films like Black Mass which provides a real showcase for his unique and unpredictable talent.

Why Spike Lee's 'Malcolm X' remains a masterpiece

Delroy Lindo and Denzel Washington in Malcolm X

Last night I had the pleasure of watching Spike Lee's epic 1992 biopic Malcolm X (starring a riveting Denzel Washington) with three people who've never seen it before.

It's one of my favorite films, so I was already very much in the tank for it but seeing it through three new viewers eyes was certainly revealing.

For a film now over 20 years old it holds up remarkably well. Despite having a small budget, Lee works wonders with costume, setting and music. And then there's Denzel Washington's performance. Although this film came relatively early in his Hollywood career, it's the work all his future performances will likely be measured against. It's a true tour de force.

At nearly 4 hours, it's fair to the say the movie is tab overlong. Some sequences could have been pruned a little. And yet, as a whole, it's a remarkable portrait of the evolution of an imperfect man.

Malcolm X

Seeing this radical movie now, it's impressive to me that Warner Brothers financed it and allowed it to be distributed to national audiences in its current form. It begins with incendiary footage from the Rodney King beating, it does not shy away from the more extreme rhetoric Malcolm briefly espoused (the complete separation of the races), and it does not feature a single good liberal white character to symbolically redeem the rest.

At the center of it all is Washington, who holds the screen for almost the entire running time of the film, giving us a myriad of emotions and shadings of a character.

Through subtle shifts in his appearance and vocal inflection he communicates so much gravitas and charisma. His failure to win the Best Actor Oscar (he lost to an overdue Al Pacino for Scent of a Woman) is one of the great Academy Awards injustices of all time.

The film is also, is some ways, one of Lee's most accessible films. He used Lawrence of Arabia as a blueprint and it shows, particularly when the film's canvas opens up to include Malcolm's late-life pilgrimage to Mecca.

Some radical critics have griped that Lee sought to make Malcolm safe for a middle class bourgeois audience, but then why would the director dedicate over a third of the film (maybe too much) to his youth as an unrepentant hoodlum.

The point is that everyone could never be pleased with a film about someone as mercurial as Malcolm X, but for an attempt to encapsulate such an influential life, this is clearly a noble effort.

Lee was attempting something which had never really been done. An epic all-American film about a largely black subject and protagonist. He takes an even bigger risk by telling the story non-linearly, which is normally a disaster for these types of movies, and pulls it off.

At this coming Academy Awards, Lee will receive an honorary award that he richly deserves. He's been around so long (and his work has fallen off so much) that it's sometimes easy to take him for granted. But like Sidney Poitier was once the only game in town in terms of A-list black actors, Lee more or less occupied the same role as a prominent black filmmaker for years.

If he hadn't made work that was both profound and profitable, the state of black film could have been stuck in the stone ages. And if he never made another great film after Malcolm X (and for the record, he did), his legacy as an icon would be secure.

'Grandma' features Oscar-worthy work from legendary Lily Tomlin

Lily Tomlin in Grandma

The new comedy-drama Grandma accomplishes several impressive feats. It does a better job of any narrative movie I've seen (including the somewhat overrated Obvious Child) of looking at the subject of abortion, it presents a road movie that doesn't lapse into cliche and it reminds audiences once again of what a remarkable talent Lily Tomlin is.

Tomlin has always been terrific but she hasn't appeared in a ton of films. Her unconventional looks and personality must have given Hollywood fits, but her wit and skill have never been in question.

She scored an Oscar nomination for her first major role, the ensemble masterpiece Nashville. She was the standout in a remarkable Robert Altman cast. She went on to give well-received performances in films like 9 to 5, All of Me, Short Cuts and I Heart Huckabees.

But Grandma feels like a career-capper in the best way. It's the kind of showy, hilarious role that aging male actors always get but women of Tomlin's era rarely do. At 76, she hasn't lost a comedic step. In the film she plays a gruff, but honest lesbian writer, whose best work is far behind her.

Her granddaughter seeks her help to procure an abortion leading to a brief odyssey that will bring them closer together and reveal more about the Tomlin's character's past. It's a short and sweet film, not even 90 minutes long, but it feels totally authentic and believable from start to finish.

The supporting cast is excellent, but this is totally Tomlin's film from start to finish.

There is nothing predictable about her, and from scene-to-scene it's awe-inspiring how many shades she plays. This could have been a totally self-satisfied indie movie where Tomlin plays a sassy granny, but there's more depth to the movie than that.

The abortion plotline is neither overplayed or underplayed. It's presented very plausibly and unlike so many recent films, it really examines a lot of facets of the procedure and doesn't trivialize them. That said, the movie also isn't a political film, at least not overtly so.

It's a film about character -- both in the literal and figurative sense. We all wish we had a cool relative like the Tomlin character, someone no-nonsense who has your back no matter what. And even though she comes across as deeply flawed she's never not likable, which is a tribute to Tomlin.

This woman is a national treasure and one of our greatest comic actresses. Hopefully Oscar won't forget her when the Best Actress nominations come out, because she richly deserves one.

Stop speculating about the next James Bond!

Idris Elba

Don't get it twisted. I love Idris Elba. And like most reasonable people I was offended by new 007 author Anthony Horowitz's assertion that the black British actor is "too street," to play James Bond. And for the record, I was also turned off by Horowitz's dissing Skyfall too.

That said, I am also sick and tired of all the premature speculation over who the next 007 should be.

Here's the thing, I am a Bond fanatic (as my epic marathon-viewing of all the 007 films in order can attest) and in my humble opinion, we are in the midst of the entire franchise's high point.

Skyfall was the most commercially and critically successful Bond film of all time. Daniel Craig has been masterful in the role and after this fall's Spectre he's contractually committed to one more outing (although he has hinted that this new film may be his last).

I have no doubt that Craig will move on at some point. He's nearly 50 years old and has been tied down to playing the British secret agent for nearly ten years. Still, he's been a fan favorite and a nice change of pace from his well-coiffed, but quip-happy predecessor.

Why the rush to establish a new 007? In addition to Elba, the rumor mill has been swirling around Tom Hardy (who already has a franchise in Mad Max), Michael Fassbender, Hugh Jackman and a handful of other unknowns. And yet if Craig does go on to fulfill his contract, we might not have a new Bond until at least 2020, which is why I find the whole preoccupation with his replacement rather puzzling.

On the Elba matter I have a few thoughts. He is already in his mid 40s so his window for assuming the role is closing rapidly. I had, in the past, resisted the notion of a black James Bond. I'm African-American, so I can assure you prejudice was not my motivation. I guess I just liked the idea of some continuity with the character.

Daniel Craig in Skyfall

But here's the thing. The Daniel Craig era basically rebooted everything. It's as if the Connery-Moore-Dalton-Brosnan years never happened. And Skyfall, my favorite 007 movie of all time, showed a willingness to kill off major characters and take some real narrative chances. So if the producers wanted to change Bond's racial identity there are interesting ways to do it.

For instance, at the end of Craig's fifth outing as Bond, his version of the character could die and another agent, perhaps played by Elba, could assume his position and moniker. Perhaps the James Bond identity is just that, a nice suit passed from agent to agent that they can use for cloak and dagger purposes. This would appease purists who have a hard time seeing the character as non-white, and also please a legion of fans who think Elba would make the most natural choice for the next 007.

People forget how controversial a choice Craig initially was. Back then the whole uproar was over the fact that he was blonde and supposedly not good looking enough. Those critics look pretty foolish now. Back in 2006, when Craig took on the role, the name most often rumored to be right for the part was actor Clive Owen. Again, nothing against Clive Owen, but it's hard to imagine anyone other than Daniel Craig playing Bond over the last few years. He was the right 007 for the moment.

And perhaps Idris Elba is the right Bond for the future. But really, what's the rush?

Why 'Eyes Wide Shut' has stood the test of time

Nicole Kidman in Eyes Wide Shut

I can think of few recent movies that have been redeemed through time and distance more than Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut. Despite a handful of rave reviews when it was initially released, the movie was ridiculed and reviled by most audiences, many of whom were inexplicably expecting a more explicit and accessible thriller.

What they instead got was a darkly funny and prescient meditation on the preoccupation with infidelity.

Like most Kubrick projects, it was development for years. Kubrick even considered casting comedic actor Steve Martin in the lead at one point (he was a huge fan of The Jerk) which speaks volumes about the inherent humor the director saw in the material.

It's definitely not a traditional genre picture, but then again none of Kubrick's films were, And like nearly all of his films, its reputation has improved dramatically over time as if audiences finally caught up with what he was doing.

A Clockwork Orange was initially viewed as an orgy of senseless violence, but more adept viewers now understand the film as a work of pitch black satire. Believe it or not, The Shining was dismissed by some critics when it first came out as not scary enough, whereas today the movie is routinely name-checked as perhaps the most unsettling horror film of all time.

When Eyes Wide Shut first came out in 1999 there was anticipation of X-rated antics from Hollywood's hottest couple. And while Kidman shows lots of skin and the couple does engage in some chaste cavorting, sex is not the primary preoccupation of this film.

It's hard to sell audiences on a film fascinated with the mind, but then again that's ultimately what 2001 and most of Kubrick's work was about. He was an unapologetically cerebral filmmaker that almost never chooses the easy narrative route.

Some may quibble about the quality of his work, but few can knock the craftsmanship. And the visual details of Eyes Wide Shut, like all of his classic films, stick with you long after the movie is finished.

Take, for instance, the infamous orgy scene. Now that it's been restored to its uncensored glory on DVD (the film released in theaters was compromised to get an R-rating) it's an unsettling and surreal experience. The costumes, the heightened dialogue, the whole ominous feel of it still hasn't quite been matched since.

While films like Fifty Shades of Grey make unconventional sexuality look laughable, Eyes Wide Shut is actually interested in making you think and indulging your fantasies.

Of course, there will always be those that see this film as lesser Kubrick. Tom Cruise is polarizing to say the least, the script's circuitous language (characters often repeat every question they're asked) and the film's piano-plinking score can be tiresome. But I still like this movie more every time I see it, because its bursting with ideas, because it raises real questions and because it's damn sexy too.

Black Panthers 'Vanguard' documentary is relevant and revealing

The Black Panthers; Vanguard of a Revolution

The lack of literature, cinema and ephemera dedicated to the Black Panthers is truly astounding considering the social and political impact they had for almost a decade. It's a testament to how incisive and dangerous they were.

It is within this vacuum that Stanley Nelson's compelling documentary, The Black Panthers: Vanguard of a Revolution, arrives in theaters in select cities over the course of this month.

It's a moving and memorable tribute to an ambitious organization that unfortunately collapsed under the weight of infighting and oppression at the hands of a hostile federal government.

Coming on the heels of the equally powerful Listen to Me Marlon, it's an important film for young people to see, because at the very least it provides context for something that a lot of people have heard of and maybe are vaguely familiar with -- but little else.

As with any film on a topic as polarizing as the Panthers, there will be detractors with this film. It paints the organization's founder, Huey Newton, in a very unflattering light. There are several prominent figures in the movement (like Bobby Seale) who declined to participate. And the film focuses on 1966 to 1973, so there are certain aspects of the Panthers' history that are not explored in great detail.

Still, this was a film several years in the making and it shows. This is definitely a warts-and-all documentary, which looks at what was both inspiring and infuriating about the Panthers.

The Black Panthers: Vanguard of a Revolution

Yes, some of their goals were improbable and occasionally their methods were unorthodox, but one walks away from this film with a sense that America needed the Panthers, whether they realized it or not.

This documentary is also yet another example of how there are so many stories of non-white American culture that need to be told and inexplicably haven't been. We've seen countless films romanticizing white America's role in excursions both abroad or at home, while the history of communities of color has been largely relegated to the sidelines.

It's easier to sell a film like this because it's commercial prospects are minimal and there's not the same risk there is in mounting a production with sets, actors and international distribution. But as Straight Outta Compton proved, audiences of color are hungry to see their stories on screen.

Sure, there was an attempt to bring the Panthers' story to screen once in the mid-'90s, via Mario Van Peebles, but the time is ripe for a revisit of this material. In the meantime, see The Black Panthers: Vanguard of a Revolution if and when you can, it's a movie of this moment in the very best way.

The top 10 fall/winter movies I can't wait to see

Now that it's September, what has become increasingly well know as the "good movie season" is about to begin.

Michael B. Jordan in Creed

Sadly, the major studios have been increasingly unwilling to release Oscar-caliber movies until the last 2-to-3 months of the year, forcing us to sit through mindless blockbusters the rest of the year.

It's unfathomable to some people that Silence of the Lambs came out in February of 1991 or that a prestige movie like Saving Private Ryan competed with traditional action films in the thick of the summer of 1998.

That said, I think it's been a very strong year for movies so far, with a couple of titles (Mad Max: Fury Road and It Follows), that I wouldn't be surprised to see in my final top 10 list). And there are some very exciting titles still on the horizon. This is one of those years where the genre pictures of the winter are way more interesting to me than the summer fare.

There are still so many films that I haven't seen trailers for yet or have enough buzz to make a judgment, but as of right now -- these are the top 10 movies I am marking my calendar for.

Honorable mention: Miles Ahead - I have literally only seen a photo of actor-director Don Cheadle as Davis and I'm very intrigued. This has been a passion project of his for years and I'm so excited to see how he brings his jazz icon onto the big screen and introduces him to a new audience. I am an enormous Miles fan and he is a challenging subject for a film. As Straight Outta Compton proved, you can make entertaining biopics that can transcend their core audience. Waiting and seeing on this one.

10) Spotlight - A dream cast (Michael Keaton, Mark Ruffalo, to name a few) anchor this real life story of Boston reporters who brought national attention to the child molestation by Catholic priests that was covered up for decades. It should be a stirring and fascinating film if the trailer is any indication and since the story is not something I am not overly familiar with, there's sure to be some surprises too.

9) Rock the Kasbah - Bill Murray looks like he's returning to vintage pure comedy form in the trailer for this one and I couldn't be more excited about that. I've been a big fan of his more dramatic late career turns, but have also wanted to see a glimpse of the old wild and crazy Murray. His character in this movie seems a little more grounded, a rock manager stranded in the Middle East.

8) Truth - This drama about the downfall of Dan Rather should provide Robert Redford with another one of his great late career roles. He has long been one of my favorite movie stars, and after All Is Lost he's finally starting to get some of critical appreciation he always deserved. If he nails this performance he should be a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination. As a journalist still one really intrigues me and its a genre Redford's done wonders with before (see All the President's Men).

7) The Revenant - I was never a big fan of director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu until Birdman, and now I can't wait to see what he does next. This new film, which boasts a trailer that was appropriately mysterious but exciting, was shot in all natural light lending it an intense and gorgeous immediacy. It stars two of the best leading men acting today -- Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Hardy -- and already gets points for originality in my book. Could be a major player in the Oscars if it's legit.

6) Sisters - It's not a golden age for American comedies by any means, but the trailer for this one had me laughing hard out loud in a way I haven't since perhaps Bridesmaids. This one boasts a similar pedigree and party atmosphere. We already know Tina Fey and Amy Poehler have amazing chemistry together and it's nice to see them swapping comedic personas a bit and playing against type. Sisters should be a lot of fun and hopefully will avoid Trainwreck's unfortunate moralizing.

5) Black Mass - I thought I was done with Johnny Depp and then I saw this incredible looking trailer for this Boston-based crime epic. The movie could turn out to be terrible, but it looks like a real transformative performance for an actor I used to really admire, but who recently seemed content to crank out cheesy pirate movies every couple years. I'm intrigued to see him play one of the only full-blown villains of his career (the feared gangster Whitey Bulger).

The Force Awakens

4) Creed - This project has had me really excited for a long time. I thought Rocky Balboa was a fitting finale for the beloved boxing character, but when I learned that rising star Ryan Coogler and actor Michael B. Jordan were taking over the reigns of the franchise. And Sylvester Stallone is widely ceding the spotlight. He's finally playing his age and it could be the comeback dramatic performance of his career.

3) The Hateful Eight - Quentin Tarantino doesn't make movies often, but when he does they are always unforgettable. This does feel like the first time he's retreating to totally familiar territory -- another western on the heels of Django Unchained, but that was my favorite movie he ever made -- and with a cast like this (Samuel L. Jackson, Kurt Russell, Jennifer Jason Leigh and Bruce Dern) I can't complain. Perhaps he'll finally get the Oscar love that has eluded all but his screenplays.

2) Star Wars: The Force Awakens - You'd think after nearly a decade of dreadful prequels all of the magic of Star Wars would have evaporated by now, but J.J. Abrams' old school approach has me believing again. I can't wait to see the original cast reassemble one more time (although I am still really bummed about the omission of Billy Dee Williams). The use of real sets, practical effects and the emphasis on story really comes across in the little footage we've seen. This could be a real game-changer.

1) Spectre - Hands down the movie I'm most psyched about this year. Skyfall is not just my favorite Bond movie all time -- it is one of my favorite movies period. It'll be an incredibly tough act to follow both critically and commercially but this new film wisely seems to be building off of that film's DNA. It's yet another look deeper into the background of Bond, a character we don't truly know after over 50 years in the movies. Daniel Craig has been owning this role for nearly a decade now and I expect great things.