Will the coronavirus kill the disaster movie (for the short term)?

Tonight I watched, for the first time, the wonderfully lame 1997 disaster movie Volcano. Not only was it quaint -- how far special effects have come, my friends -- but it also feels like a relic of a genre that may have a longer than usual moratorium -- the disaster movie.

After a long heyday in the 1970s, these poorly reviewed, star-studded spectacles had a big resurgence in the 1990s. None of the films were particularly good (sorry but even Independence Day is overrated) but they tended to make money hand over fist.

In the last few years these movies haven't come out as frequently but they still come out at a relatively steady clip (think San Andreas).

There's no question that 9/11 has colored films that revel in death and destruction, but now that covd-19 has claimed even more lives (60,000 in the US and counting) we all have a lot more familiarity with living through a disaster in real time.

The escapism that movies like Volcano offered, or tried to offer, were low stakes during a relatively peaceful time. Today, I am not sure how much of an appetite people will have to see people running out of burning buildings or narrowly evading a some meteorological event.

Of course, it's an open question when and if we're ever going to see a movie in a theater again. The big budget behemoths are meant to be enjoyed on a big screen with a big audience, and while I would never recommend this movie I do miss that experience -- the summer blockbuster on opening weekend.

As of this moment, the only major tentpole picture hanging in there on the schedule is Christopher Nolan's highly anticipated Tenet. It's not a disaster film -- it appears to be a sophisticated crime thriller with a focus on Nolan's favorite theme -- time. It's the kind of visually and thematically cool movies you can best appreciate in a large theater with a crowd, which of could be cathartic for folks as long as it's deemed safe.

But I find it hard to believe they'll be an appetite for films that portray large scale destruction and misery for a long time. Even the relatively tame carnage of the Marvel movies feels too bleak right now.

I could see audiences being hungry for some good old belly laughs, although there doesn't appear to be any major comedies on the horizon. In fact there's nothing but uncertainty with movies right now. The Oscars opened up to streaming only movies for this year only, but I don't know what prestige movies have been shot and are going to be ready to go at the end of this year.

In the meantime, I'm going to be just watching fun bad movies like Volcano with friends and keeping my fingers crossed that something great, that we can all enjoy, is going to be coming around the corner.

Why Halle Berry's 'Catwoman' might be the perfect covd movie

Halle Berry's Catwoman is one of those movies that seems like it should be from 30 years ago, when it's actually from the mid-2000s. It's so hopelessly inept that it would make many other 'bad' movies blush. It's so bad you feel embarrassed for everyone who was involved.

It's a fun movie to watch with friends during a time like this though, because it offers plenty to talk about (or rather talk over) and it's a piece of crap that benefits from a running commentary.

I think I'd half watched it before, but I had forgotten so many elements of it: the hilariously bad CGI (including many, many fake cats), the strange lore the film uses to justify its existence, Sharon Stone's surreal performance as the villain and the wackadoo camera work that is border-line seizure inducing.

When it dawns on you that Berry used what little capital she had from her Oscar-winning turn in Monster's Ball (a movie that gets more problematic with each passing year) to headline this long in development hell project, it's hard to remove your palm from your forehead.

The movie exposes all of her deficiencies as an actress. She just can't do subtlety. It's as if the director's one note to her was 'act like a cat, literally, all the time'. It's more of a sashay than a performance. Sure, she looks incredible, but you can say that about her in every movie she's ever been in (including Monster's Ball, in which she is supposed to look de-glammed). But there is now wit or substance behind a single one of her line readings.

There's a reason so few of her film roles resonate. She is a star, but she isn't a particularly resonant actress. When you stack her work up her against Michelle Pfeiffer and Anne Hathaway, the other two big screen Catwoman, there's no comparison. Those actresses hinted at the potential this anti-hero has -- and what's unfortunate is that a really interested, grounded movie could be made with this character (think Joker, with a jaded woman at its center instead of a lonely, delusional man), but instead the makers of this movie made something that should appeal to... no one?

CGI cats galore

It's plot revolves around a beauty product conspiracy. It's romance centers around an improbably stupid cop (played by a constantly grinning Benjamin Bratt) who keeps miraculously running into Berry in what appears to be a sprawling metropolis. The villain's 'superpower' is that he face is hard as marble...

Meanwhile, it's backstory involves some sort of strange mystic feline energy explained by Frances Conroy in a performance that is too silly for words.

And the less said about Alex Borstein's surreal performance as Berry's horny-as-hell best friend the better.

It's like a blueprint for how not to make this kind of movie. And thankfully in the years that followed Hollywood by and large smartened up about this genre. Sure there is still the occasional Suicide Squad, but these movies by-and-large tend to be more watchable than not. Miraculously, actors rarely make fools of themselves despite wearing these ludicrous costumes and more often than not fighting computer generated creatures.

Berry doesn't fare as well in part because her costume is more pornographic than comic book-y and the film's director (the single named Pitof) can't stage an action scene and insists on using a rubbery avatar in all the Catwoman acting like a cat scenes.

And yet, I got several belly laughs watching it simultaneously on Amazon with friends over Google Hangout (it's an appropriately cheap $1.99 on Amazon) and that's the best you can do right now in the hell we're all living in. If there was ever a time to fall in love with a horrible movie it's now. And you really can't go wrong with this one, which does everything wrong.

'Rise of Skywalker': The virtues of the new 'Star Wars' universe

How can you not love this guy?

I have a very different relationship with The Rise of Skywalker than most diehard Star Wars fans I know. I am very aware of its limitations and yet there are enough moments that land for me, that undeniably charming and/or moving that I just can't hate with the same fervor as a lot of people.

I find it absurd to suggest, as some actually have, that the film even ranks below some of the prequels in terms of quality. This kind of revisionist history will get you a lot of mentions on Twitter, and normally all opinions are subjective, but like c'mon...

The performances of the actors alone make that argument moot, but moreso the craftsmanship on display, to me, makes the case for why all of these new Star Wars offshoots have been leaps and bounds better than George Lucas' prequel trilogy.

Because I'm a completist, I bought the blu-ray for The Rise of Skywalker. Watching it for the third time, the thing that stuck out the most for me is how rushed it feels. Every third part of a trilogy is burdened with closing a lot of loose ends, which is why they are often the weakest entry. And we'll never know what this movie would have been had Carrie Fisher lived to fully realize her role.

I do feel grateful that this particular saga -- the Skywalker story -- has come to an end. It's a far more satisfying conclusion than I could have ever expected from Lucas and enough of a template has been established with these films (as well as spin-offs like The Mandolorian) that I feel confident in the future of this universe.

That's not to say there won't be (and haven't been missteps). People sometimes forget that Marvel has its share of clunkers, too. Still, I haven't seen any new Star Wars film or show that gave me nothing that I didn't really enjoy or find entertaining, which is again, more than I can say for the prequels.

Watching the blu ray special features in particular for The Rise of Skywalker gave me newfound respect for the film and its creators. The practical effects, the gorgeous fully rendered sets, the puppetry -- my God, the puppetry. There is some really incredible work in that movie that we sort of take for granted. We forget how flat and artificial the mostly CGI worlds of the prequels were.

There a lot of care has been put into every frame of that movie. Now, do I wish as much care could have been put into the script? Sure. And I am hopeful that the producers have learned their lesson. It's ok to let some time pass between these projects, especially now that the mortality of the original stars is less of a concern. Thanks to the coronavirus, I assume I will have to wait years to see the next chapters of The Mandalorian, and I like that I'll have that much anticipation for it.

Anyway, this will be my last word on a movie that far too many words have been spoken about. I don't see The Rise of Skywalker as some sort of infamous disaster. I think it's a deeply flawed movie that did many of the same things beloved Star Wars films did (Darth Vader killed your father...'from a certain point of view') but just a little clumsier than we all would have liked.

And, flaws and all, it was (and all of these new films have been) grounded in the emotional arcs of its characters. There was never a scene even remotely as affecting as Han Solo's spiritual reunion with his son Ben during the climax of Rise, and if the series can still produce moments like that, it'll all have been worth it.

'What if' when it comes to Tim Burton's version of Batman

Last night I revisited my favorite superhero movie of all time (and one of my favorite movies, period), Tim Burton's 1989 Batman. Not only did this movie set the template for the genre to this day, it established Michael Keaton as a serious leading man and cemented Burton's status as one of the most visionary directors of the era.

Keaton has had a resurgence in the past decade, Burton not so much. But they made some magic together.

Between Beetlejuice and Batman Returns, Keaton was Burton's best collaborator, before he began making every movie with Johnny Depp. The second Keaton Batman film is one I remember vividly seeing in theaters when I was 10 years old.

It scared me a little, but it thrilled me a lot. It was a huge hit, but not huge enough for the studio's purposes and it's mixed reception from the public didn't help either. Today, the darker, weirder sequel is hailed by some as the best (I still prefer the 1989 film, but love this one too). It's clear that Burton was using the capital he'd earned on the first film (and other hits like Edward Scissorhands) to inject more of his own sensibility into the material.

The plan had been for the Keaton-Burton team to return for a third film, but then everything fell apart. It was supposed to be called Batman Continues, and it would have featured Billy Dee Williams as Two Face, Robin Williams as the villain (most likely the Riddler), Marlon Wayans (!) as Robin, and Rene Russo as the love interest.

Apparently it was the studio, Warner Brothers, who shut that promising production down. They made Burton a producer, and brought in the infamous Joel Schumacher to lighten up the series. Keaton balked, famously turning down a $15 million pay day.

Having watched Batman Forever recently, I can safely say Keaton made the right decision. While nowhere near the debacle that Batman & Robin was, the first Schumacher film is still a bit of a chaotic mess. It's visually fantastic but careens from one over the top set piece to the next relying more on Jim Carrey's hijinks instead of investing in character and story.

Anyone who has seen Batman or Batman Returns can easily give you the backstory of Nicholson's Joker, DeVito's Penquin and Pfeiffer's Catwoman. Can anyone put Tommy Lee Jones' Two Face into any kind of context? Jones, normally a great actor, does little but cackle in Batman Forever, he feels very out of place and joyless in the role.

Billy Dee Williams was famously robbed of that role (which he had contractually signed on for back in 1989). Clearly Billy Dee wasn't the draw Tommy Lee was at the time, but I still think he would have brought a more interesting energy to a version of this movie directed by Burton. Especially since he, I believe, has always played good guys and his smooth persona would be a striking contrast with Carrey or better yet Williams' manic energy.

Speaking of which, I love Jim Carrey (most of the time), don't get me wrong-- and he has some genuinely funny moments in Batman Forever -- but as the movie grinds on and as he fully becomes The Riddler, he's more annoying than anything else. Producers clearly saw how memorable Nicholson's catchphrases were and so they stuff Carrey full of them. At a certain point he starts sounding like a bunch of trailer lines strung together.


Williams, might have brought a similar energy, but he has demonstrated in serious roles like he ones he played in Insomnia and One Hour Photo that he was capable of creating genuine menace. There is never a moment where The Riddler feels remotely threatening or formidable, he's like a gnat that Batman has to swat away.

I'm also disappointed that Burton was deprived of a proper trilogy. I am sure he would have hung it up after one more, clearly he was interested in being unshackled from the requirements of adapting an intellectual property like Batman. But I would have liked to have seen his vision fully realized in the way that Christopher Nolan was able to with his Christian Bale films.

Of course, I still cling to fantasies of Burton or someone bringing Keaton back to the franchise to play the aging Batman from the comic book series. He's still fit, is a fan favorite and more or less the appropriate age for it.

Meanwhile, I hope people will stop grouping Burton's work with Schumacher's. Burton made films, Schumacher made products. And I wish I could return them for something better.

Was Altman the best American filmmaker of the 70s?

Today, I've been watching one of my favorite '70s films, one of the great under-seen masterpieces -- 1973's The Long Goodbye. I owe it, but it is currently streaming on Amazon Prime and I strongly recommend it. It's an usual movie, but if you can get on its wavelength it emerges as one of the decade's best. A dark comedy which both satirizes its subjects and treats them deadly serious.

It got me thinking about 70s directors which goes hand-in-hand with the fact that the 1970s are my favorite movie decade by a country mile. So many legendary directors did their very best work that decade, and few were more prolific and perfect than Robert Altman.

He would go one to be active for several more decades but the '70s are what made him both a star and a legend. Still, he has some stiff competition for who was the decades best.

There are the upstarts Steven Spielberg and Martin Scorsese, who both made three very good to great films during the decade before stumbling and then going on the make even more great work for the next forty years.

Brian De Palma, I would argue deserves a look in this conversation. Keep in mind, I'm dealing strictly with America. I simply have not seen enough of Fellini or Bergman's output during this period to compare it fairly to these others.

I think Woody Allen came into his own as a filmmaker during the '70s, you can't dismiss him, but I feel that his early broader comedies don't hold up very well, and so I mostly admire his late 70s trio of masterpieces (caveats about their inherent creepiness aside): Annie Hall, Interiors and Manhattan. That's a pretty impressive slate that you would have to maybe put him in the top five.

Kubrick, how can I forget Kubrick?! Crazily enough, he only has two movies that decade -- of course they're both classics: A Clockwork Orange and Barry Lyndon. But that's just two movies. There are a few wunderkind talents who also have two-fers like Bogdonovich and Cimino. William Friedkin has three home runs, so does Bob Fosse, and so does Alan J. Pakula, whose paranoid thrillers still hold up.

Elliott Gould in The Long Goodbye

I think Peckipah had a fantastic decade but I think his work was so inconsistent at times that it's hard to pin him down. Sidney Lumet was more consistent, but less of a traditional auteur, hence him making both The Wiz, Dog Day Afternoon and Murder on the Orient Express. All wonderful movies, but also lacking a coherent vision.

But to me it comes down to Coppola v. Altman. Altman had more A+ movies: MASH, McCabe and Mrs. Miller, Images, The Long Goodbye, California Split, Nashville, 3 Women... I mean c'mon, and there are a few more I really like that I could have named here too.

What makes his run even more impressive is the fact that only one of those movies -- MASH -- was a big hit, and yet he still managed to regularly crank out iconoclastic, genre-bending greatness.

Still, Coppola only made four movies in the 1970s, and as far as I am concerned, they're all perfect. I don't know what he was smoking -- actually, let's be real, probably a lot of weed -- but The Godfather I & II, The Conversation and Apocalypse Now? Has there ever been a more impressive run? Maybe the streak P.T. Anderson is currently on (or arguably Quentin Tarantino). All films were nominated by Best Picture and Best Director. Two of them won Best Picture. I mean, bow down.

So for me it's neck and neck, and for now, I'd say it's Coppola by a nose.

'The Night of the Hunter' is a risky movie to re-make

Recently, it was reported that a remake of the classic 1955 thriller Night of the Hunter is in the works. Who knows when it'll ever get made amid all the covd-19 madness.

It's still hard to wrap my mind around the fact that the movie industry and theater chains are totally shut down for the foreseeable future.

Still, I'm intrigued. I am big fan of the original film and the riveting Davis Grubb novel on which it's based (and which the movie is surprisingly faithful to). The moody masterpiece was ahead of its time -- dark and foreboding -- with an iconic lead performance by Robert Mitchum as a sadistic preacher.

As a rule of thumb, it's almost always an enormous risk to re-make a good movie, let alone a beloved classic. While Night of the Hunter wasn't a hit upon its initial release, it grew in stature over the ensuing decades, becoming highly influential. Remember Radio Raheem's 'love vs hate' fists in Do the Right Thing? A direct homage to this movie.

That being said, perhaps a new version which wouldn't be as constricted by ratings and censorship might be interesting. After all, the story is essentially about a serial killer going after a woman and her young children in the hopes of uncovering some hidden, stolen money.

Casting is key -- that original film wouldn't work if you don't have the machismo of Mitchum at its center. But which modern actor can bring that type of heat?

When I heard this news about the reboot, there was only one actor who came to mind -- Ryan Gosling.

Here me out. No he's not quite the imposing physical presence Mitchum was (although he proved in Drive and Only God Forgives, he could be) but he is one of the few stars out there who can be both sexy, unpredictable and quietly menacing if he needs to be.

He's in a bit of a weird space career-wise. La La Land was an enormous success but also lead to an enormous backlash. He is brilliant in the under-appreciated Blade Runner 2049, but that movie was a box office disappointment. Same goes for First Man, another great film that didn't connect for some reason, even though its quite moving and a technical marvel.

A Night of the Hunter remake would be a great vehicle for him to reinvent himself. He's 39 now, and so some of that boyishness can be put behind him and since he isn't ubiquitous at the movies as some of his peers, it could feel like a comeback even if it isn't.

I could see Matthew McConaughey in the role too, come to think of it -- although somehow his casting feels maybe a little too on the nose?' A black actor in the role might be interesting, too. My wife floated Idris Elba, a great actor who has never really had a great big screen role. This could rectify that.

Besides casting the lead, I am very curious what the visual dynamic of the movie will be. The original is one of the great, gorgeous black & white films. Director Charles Laughton (an actor whose sole directing credit this was) used an evocative, dreamy atmosphere to really capture a child's perspective on the story. I'd be fascinated to see someone put a striking, signature stamp on the material.

For instance, Tim Burton just popped in there. The director has really been off his game for years -- but this would be the kind of macabre but adult film that might propel him back to his past greatness. Just steer clear of Johnny Depp!

'Under Siege' movies succeed in spite of Steven Seagal

Last night, for shits and giggles, my wife and I watched both Under Siege movies back-to-back, and I'm not going to lie, I had a great time. I find the appeal of these movies -- and really any Seagal movie -- fascinating, since the star has no charisma and little presence as a man of action.

Seagal's inflated ego and creepiness are the stuff of legend. For years he tried to pass himself off as the heir apparent to the likes of Bruce Lee even though he never appeared to be in very good shape and all of his 'fight scenes' were edited within an inch of their lives. In fact through two Under Siege movies I think I saw him fully throw a kick maybe twice?

In the second movie especially, he sort of lumbers around while everyone else in the movie hero worships him. His line deliveries are all in the same self satisfied whisper and he never has much of a human connection with anyone he's acting alongside.

Contrast this with the other A-list action stars of his heyday: Van-Damme was always an impressive physical specimen, Schwarzenegger was affably funny, Bruce Willis could be believably human and Stallone (my personal fave) could always elicit audience sympathy and usually played underdog status.

In the world of Under Siege, Seagal's character Casey Ryback -- super-soldier turned super-cook (a conceit the movies think is far funnier than it is) -- is a legend in his own time, a one man army who leaves both films with a single scratch on the cheek.

And putting all this aside, these movies (especially the first one) are quite fun in spite of him. The first film, which is easily his best and most successful, benefits enormously from two great bad guys -- Gary Busey and Tommy Lee Jones. They have great chemistry together as a naval officer and a ex military man turned mercenary who take over the ship Seagal's on for nefarious reasons.

Jones especially is a wildly entertaining firecracker in the movie. Watching this reminded me of what a wonderful actor he is and can be when he gets the right kind of material to chew on. Here, he's teamed with director Andrew Davis, who would team up with him again the following year to even great effect in The Fugitive.

Jones and Busey manage to raise Seagal's game a bit, and they are so formidable you are able to, for once, view Ryback as potentially outmatched. By the second film he's saddled with an irredeemably annoying Eric Bogosian (who was terrific in last year's Uncut Gems), so there threat just isn't there. But there is plenty of god awful special effects, dialogue and performances (a Katherine Heigel pops up as Seagal's niece) to keep you entertained.

All the hallmarks of the genre are here -- gratuitous nudity, excessive violence (who shoot someone five times when once will do?) and sheer stupidity. It's easy for me to watch movies like this with a lot of affection because this was the era of action films I came up with.

The stars didn't emote much, the movies were short and sweet (and usually meaningless). And right now, as we're all searching for joy and comfort, this really hit the spot for me.

'Gemini Man' and when an interesting premise is squandered

Will Smith's career is littered with missed opportunities. Bright was an infamous misfire with high production values. Hancock was like half a good, interesting movie before it went off the rails. He's excellent in I Am Legend until a disappointing last act diminishes the film.

I'm not weeping or worried for Will Smith, after all Bad Boys for Life is (to date) the biggest hit of the year, and it covd-19 continues to keep theaters closed it might remain at the top.

But, he can be a maddening movie star -- if for no other reason than his quality control radar seems to be seriously out of whack. A great example is last year's box office bomb Gemini Man. The film comes with an impressive pedigree -- it's directed by Ang Lee -- and on the surface appears to be an effects-driven thriller. But the finished product is a tonally wrong mess. In fact, it's shockingly inert considering what it could have become.

The film's major selling point was supposed to be its state of the art de-aging effects, which make it possible for Smith to play scenes opposite his younger self. In some ways, Smith seems like an ideal candidate for this kind of role. He still resembles his youthful self, and his career has stretched long enough that this could have been a meta opportunity for him to interrogate his star persona.

But instead, for some reason, Smith chooses to play both 'characters' as dour, largely humorless sad sacks -- strange, since his movie star appeal has always been his buoyancy and charm. There are plenty of actors who could effectively play scenes opposite themselves for high drama, but Smith just doesn't have the chops. So instead of being the tour de force he and Lee I imagine they want it to be, the movie winds up exposing Smith's limitations as an actor.

And as a pure action movie -- a few bravura scenes aside -- the movie falls short, too. Several major scenes are filmed in oppressive darkness, depriving them of the impact that they could have had. And the younger Smith character often looks like a rubbery cartoon in fight scenes -- although I do like the part where he tries to use a motorcycle as a weapon.

And the de-aging -- while mostly very impressive (especially in some of the close-ups) -- feels more like a gimmick. The Irishman proved that the technology could be deployed very effectively, as long as it's used to serve the story.

But the plot of Gemini Man is distressingly simplistic. Is there any character type more overplayed than the top notch assassin? I know what Lee and company are trying to do here -- make an earnest movie about someone who has lived a life they regret trying to prevent a younger version of himself from making the same mistakes -- interesting enough -- but Smith and the leaden script do nothing to fully establish what was so terrible about the life the elder Smith was leading.

Clearly, killing people for a living isn't a nice thing to do -- but Smith isn't convincing as someone who is conflicted about what they do. There's no danger about him as an actor -- at least not here -- he is a pretty unassailably 'good', so there's never really much moral conflict in him.

This preference for being 'likable' in a traditional sense is probably why he infamously turned down the role Django in Django Unchained. He reportedly wanted the romance in that movie beefed up, but I also suspect he needed to be more heroic in a mainstream sort of way.

To me, the best actors, not movie stars, don't have a lot of vanity and are willing to risk being flawed and a little unlikable. When Smith finds a role that really allows him to do that, I think he could be great. But Gemini Man was a step in the wrong direction.

Flashback 1990: My top 10 favorite movies from 30 years ago

Since the world is still spiraling out of control and there are literally no new movies to go see in theaters I thought I'd stick with my ongoing series of decade by decade favorite lists. I need to stress that it's favorite, not best of. These are the movies from any particular year I enjoy and revisit the most.

1990 was a solid year. It was the year Kevin Costner had his big triumph with Dances with Wolves, whereas GoodFellas -- a modest success at the time -- has easily endured as the year's most beloved, acclaimed film.

I want to make some honorable mentions: Awakenings, Jacob's Ladder, Q&A, Home Alone, Presumed Innocent, Edward Scissorhands -- just to name a few. But here are my top 10 faves from the year "U Can't Touch This" took the world by storm.

10. The Godfather Part III - This movie is a little unfairly derided because it pales in comparison to the original and Part II. Yes, the Sofia Coppola performance is subpar, but there is a lot to appreciate here. Al Pacino is excellent as an aging, sickly Michael Corleone, as is Andy Garcia as his hot-headed nephew. It's a gorgeously made epic that feels like an authentic Godfather movie is albeit a flawed one. Certainly not the disaster it's often made out to be.

9. King of New York - One of Christopher Walken's best (and creepiest) performances comes in this moody, violent gangster film directed by Abel Ferrara. His nearly all black crew is filled with a who's who of black characters actors (it's as if the cast of Spike Lee's School Daze moved straight from that production to this one). It's no surprise that this film has had a lot of influence on hip-hop it's cool as ice and oozing a specific brand of nihilistic cool.

8. The Hunt for Red October - The first and still the best Jack Ryan movie is an exciting, smart submarine thriller featuring a charismatic Sean Connery (improbably good as a Russian naval captain) and a fresh faced (and thin) Alec Baldwin as a CIA analyst turned action here. I can't speak to the movie's specific politics, but it's very well paced and holds up quite well. Part of director John McTiernan's brief but impressive peak, which also includes Predator and Die Hard.

7. Miller's Crossing - One of the most overlooked, great Coen brothers movies. Funny on the margins, but mostly a stone cold period gangster film. Beautifully photographed and staged with note perfect performances from actors like Gabriel Byrne, Albert Finney and especially John Turturro, whose sniveling, shifty performance is of one the best in the filmmaking duo's entire canon, If you can get on this movie's unusual wavelength, you won't be disappointed.

6. Dick Tracy - A fun candy colored cartoon (that's live action) which was a favorite of mine as a child. Warren Beatty headlines and directs an all-star cast that's mostly unrecognizable under heavy makeup plus a vamping Madonna as the femme fatale in this adaptation of the iconic comic strip. Disarmingly sweet and light hearted with Al Pacino having a ball as the villain in perhaps his funniest performance ever.

5. Wild at Heart - David Lynch's disturbing, violent and sexy road movie is one of his best. To call it 'heightened' would be an understatement, but there are images in this movie (like Diane Ladd's face covered in red lipstick) that I will never forget. Nicolas Cage and Laura Dern are incredible as a pair of young lovers on the run. And Willem Dafoe has ever been more unsettling than he is here as the venal Bobby Peru. Strange to be sure, but also sensational.

4. Misery - Proof that Rob Reiner was once an exceptional director, this Stephen King adaptation is truly scary and riveting from start to finish. He's aided tremendously by two incredible performances from Kathy Bates (who won the Oscar for her performance as deranged superfan Annie Wilkes) and James Caan who conveys a myriad of emotions even though he spends most of the movie strapped own to a bed. This is one of those movies that I can be up for watching anytime, anywhere.

3. Total Recall - Arnold Schwarzenegger's best non-Terminator role and quite possibly his best performance is in this inventive Philip K. Dick adaptation about a superspy with amnesia and an affinity for Mars. Despite its elaborate plot, its infinitely watchable, visually striking and hilarious thanks for director Paul Verhoeven's unconventional approach. It's simply a really fun movie that only seems to get better with age.

2. GoodFellas - For many, understandably, this film is viewed as the definitive gangster epic (which is why Scorsese may have made The Irishman as a counter point to this film's popularity). An immersive look at the world of the lower level guys angling to be 'made' -- Ray Liotta is excellent as the audience surrogate, DeNiro has remarkable presence as his mentor and Oscar winner Joe Pesci is sublime as a volatile and doomed gangster. So vivid and precise -- this is Scorsese using all his talents here to the best of his ability and the result is one of the most rewatchable masterpieces ever made.

1. The Grifters - GoodFellas may be the technically better film and this was close for me, but The Grifters has always been my personal favorite of this year. It's got it's one sexy and mysterious sparkle -- although it's set in the present it feels slightly out of time (like some Tarantino films). At its core its a three hander with Anjelica Huston, John Cusack and Annette Bening all bringing fireworks as a trio of hustlers whose lives collide in shocking ways. Funny, fierce and incredibly well acted. In fact Huston's performance here may be my favorite female performance of all time. Whew, that ending!

PAST TOP 10 FAVORITE LISTS
1974 #1 movie - The Godfather Part II
1975 #1 movie - Nashville
1976 #1 movie - Taxi Driver
1977 #1 movie - Star Wars
1978 #1 movie - The Deer Hunter
1979 #1 movie - The Jerk
1984 #1 movie - Ghostbusters
1985 #1 movie - Fletch
1986 #1 movie - Blue Velvet
1987 #1 movie - The Untouchables
1988 #1 movie - Coming to America
1989 #1 movie - Batman
1994 #1 movie - Pulp Fiction
1995 #1 movie - Heat
1996 #1 movie - Fargo
1997 #1 movie - Boogie Nights
1998 #1 movie - The Big Lebowski
1999 #1 movie - Eyes Wide Shut
2000 #1 movie - Nurse Betty
2004 #1 movie - Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
2005 #1 movie - A History of Violence
2006 #1 movie - Casino Royale
2007 #1 movie - There Will Be Blood
2008 #1 movie - The Wrestler
2009 #1 movie - Inglourious Basterds
2010 #1 movie - The Social Network

'Caddyshack' might just be my favorite comedy of all time

Caddyshack has always been a source of unmitigated joy for me. It's not a perfect movie -- the caddy characters' subplot focused on Michael O'Keefe and his sweetheart with a horrendous attempt at Irish has always been just so-so and it's more for a series of vignettes rather than actual movie.

But, the peak comedy stylings of Chevy Chase, Rodney Dangerfield, Ted Knight and Bill Murray are so delightful and hilarious that they more than make up for the movie's shortcomings.

The tragedy behind the scenes of this movie is that one of the genius creators behind it -- the legendary Doug Kenney -- died thinking the movie was a failure. It's true that the early reviews were hostile --I suspect moreso because the comedy was specifically aimed at the very generation of snooty older folks that comprised the critic community at the time.

But the movie clearly worked for the audience it was intended for --young men -- and it was a solid hit if not a blockbuster. Over the years it has endured to become one of the most beloved, quotable movies of all time. And while it may not be a touchstone for kids who grew up in the Judd Apatow era (whose improvisational films were clearly inspired by this one), but it'll always be one of my favorite movies.

I have always loved its larger than life characters  -- the suave iconoclastic Ty Webb (Chase), the coarse and colorful Al Czverik (Dangerfield), the obnoxious upper cruster Judge Smails (Knight) and the deranged groundskeeper Carl (Murray). And I have always been obsessed with its theme of slobs vs. snobs.

The film came out in 1980, the year Ronald Reagan would be elected president and usher in an age of conservatism where someone like the Smails character would actually be revered and romanticized.

Caddyshack is a rude, crude thumb in the eye of that form of the establishment and I'll always be here for it.

I've especially always be drawn to Chase's character. He is, not unlike the actor himself, to the manner born but he deliberately rebukes his richy rich background. He quotes Zen philosophy, he doesn't keep score when he plays golf and he puts down Smails deftly every chance he gets.

Chase, who is regularly and perhaps fairly pilloried for his bad behavior on set and bad career choices, shows so much of the unconventional leading man charisma and potential he had here that was unfortunately squandered by the end of the decade. But I will always value Caddyshack for at least crystalizing what made him such a unique talent.

The same goes for Dangerfield, who while not an actor, is simply a scene stealing star in this movie. He is wild eyed dervish shooting off one liners with abandon and invigorated by a back-slapping, party guy spirit that is infectious as hell. His final line in this movie -- the totally anachronistic "we're all gonna get laid" is one of my favorite 'what the hell' moments in movie history.

Ted Knight, who I have come to learn had begun a long battle with cancer at the start of filming this movie, is its lowkey MVP. He is so committed to being the comic foil for all the crazy characters who populate the fictional Bushwood country club that he ends up frequently being the funniest character himself. The best comedy is always played straight and Knight was a pro at that.

Finally, there's Bill Murray who was just at the beginning of his ascent. He would follow this movie with Stripes, Tootsie and Ghostbusters, a hot streak any actor would envy. His part here is almost entirely improvised and perfunctory but that doesn't make it any less inspired. He brings the same unpredictable, sly style here that made so many of this later performances so electric and he's sadly the only one left who has still got it. Chase is still alive, but ya know, barely.

During this terrible time, it's so important to grab onto the things that bring us joy -- and the people too, if possible. And for me Caddyshack is movie comfort food. It goes down easy. It always makes me laugh. And it meant something to me. Growing up, these were comedy Gods and for better or worse, I still worship them.