Film Review: Have Rocket, Will Travel

"Have Rocket, Will Travel" 

* 1\2 (out of ****)

The Three Stooges are lost in space in the sci-fi comedy "Have Rocket, Will Travel" (1959).

Between 1934 - 1959 Columbia Pictures released 190 Three Stooges comedy shorts, many regarded as masterpieces of physical comedy; "Men in Black" (1934), "Hoi Polloi" (1935) and "Disorder in the Court" (1936) among them. Syndicated for television in the late 50s, a new generation of children would discover the Stooges, to the disappointment of mother's everywhere.

With a resurgence of fame, the team capitalized by releasing six feature-length comedies between 1959 - 1965. The first released was "Have Rocket, Will Travel". Though borrowing its title from the popular television western, "Have Gun, Will Travel", the movie also capitalizes on the science fiction craze of the 1950s and the Space Race between the United States and the Soviet Union. The movie would also introduce the newest Stooge, Curly-Joe (comedian Joe DeRita), named so because of his rotund physique, similar to Curly Howard.

The rather basic set up involves the Stooges (Moe, Larry and Curly-Joe) playing a trio of inept janitors who accidentally launch into outer space, headed toward Venus.

After another failed rocket test (four in total) the National Space Foundation is considering closing down the laboratory of Dr. Ingrid Naarveg (Anna-Lisa), the first female scientist at the foundation. The problem is with the fuel the doctor is mixing. Meanwhile another scientist, Dr. Ted Benson (Robert Colbert) is in love with Ingrid and is disappointed she prioritizes science over love (examining this sexist undertone would have been far more interesting than anything seen on-screen).

Slightly out of step in movie like this, the Stooges aren't portrayed as the best friends of Benson and aren't interested in playing cupid, bringing Ingrid and Benson together. Instead the Stooges feel sorry for Ingrid after she is in jeopardy of being dismissed at the foundation. Being the experts that they are (they aren't) they decide to create their own fuel for the rocket. Discovered by their upset boss, Mr. Morse (Jerome Cowan), the Stooges hide in the rocket and before they know it, are on course for Venus. In another strange choice, Benson isn't that concerned about the Stooges and tells Ingrid she shouldn't be either but instead should focus on their love.

Once the Stooges land on Venus they encounter special effects worse than those seen in "One Million B.C." (1940) as a giant fire breathing tarantula chases them and they rescue a talking unicorn.

Besides these brief moments, the movie has nothing for the Stooges to do. Oddly, their first instinct after landing isn't to immediately head back for Earth. Instead they want to roam around the planet in the name of science and record their findings. For some reason this also includes the boys breaking out into song.

This leads to a meeting with an evil robot, that has destroyed the people that created it. It now rules the planet by itself but has grown lonely. The robot plans to create three more robots, in the image of the Stooges. These three evil robots are then instructed to kill the Stooges.

For a science fiction comedy there isn't much science fiction or comedy in "Have Rocket, Will Travel". There is nothing inventive about the movie. True, it is essentially a "B" movie but the lack of creativity behind it makes "Flash Gordon" (1936) and "Buck Rogers" (1939) look like "Star Wars" movies. Those movie serials also had "B" movie production values and like this movie, were meant to have a kid friendly appeal.

Ultimately the movie feels like exactly what is was; a rushed production (shooting lasted 13 days). Only being concerned with quickly releasing a Three Stooges product, the movie's writer, Raphael Hayes, couldn't concern himself with a coherent plot. The movie is an unnecessary, elongated Stooges' comedy short. Hayes spent the majority of his career writing  for television shows, none of which were comedies. One of his movie screenplays was nominated for an Academy Award, "One Potato, Two Potato" (1964), a story about an interracial marriage. The comedy in the movie must have been left to the Stooges to come up with.

In an example of how little plot there is, and a lack of comedy, the last nine minutes of the movie completely changes course and turns into one of those Stooge comedies where they mix with high society. They even borrow / steal a gag directly from "Hoi Polloi", as Curly-Joe has a spring stuck to the back of his pants. This serves absolutely no purpose. It is just meant to expand the running time. Could it be it was meant to re-enforce Curly-Joe is the new Curly Howard?

With a running time of 76 minutes, the movie is probably 40 minutes too long. The Stooges accomplished just as much in their science-fiction comedy shorts; "Space Ship Sappy" (1957) and "Outer Space Jitters" (1957) both with Joe Besser as the third stooge, and neither particularly good.

Going back to the sexist, a woman shouldn't concerned herself with a career but with a man, story-line, nothing about Ingrid and Benson seem believable as a couple. Nothing Ingrid does suggest she is in love with Benson. Why couldn't the Benson character have been a supportive friend or boyfriend? Better yet, eliminate the character! The whole idea of Ingrid wanting a career instead of love could have been its own movie. You can't explore the dynamics of this scenario in a Three Stooges comedy.

With only an Ingrid character, she could solely focus on a way to rescue the Stooges. This would allow the character to prove her worth as a scientist and impress the foundation. As the movie stands now, there is no plan discussed to rescue the boys. Ingrid seems to have followed Benson's suggestion to forget about them. With friends like these, who need enemies? It makes Ingrid and Benson two unlikable characters.

At this point I should confess I am not, nor have I ever been, much of a Three Stooges fan. My mother was one those that didn't like me watching them. Because of that, I never really warmed up to their comedy. As a child I preferred the comedy of  Laurel & Hardy, the Marx Brothers, Abbott & Costello (whom the Stooges would recycle gags from) and Bob Hope and Bing Crosby. Even though the Stooges were on TV fairly often, I would only watch them when my mother wasn't around or with my father.

Despite that confession, I can still appreciate when the Stooges do something funny. So while I didn't have high expectations for "Have Rocket, Will Travel", the movie was actually more disappointing than I thought it would be. I have seen the other Stooge comedies from this period; "The Three Stooges Meet Hercules" (1962), "Snow White and the Three Stooges" (1961) and "The Outlaws Is Coming" (1965), so I knew what to expect but this fails miserably.

Even though the Stooges are much older, and naturally have slowed down their comedy, a mishap like this is partly due to the people behind the camera. The movie was directed by David Lowell Rich, who like Hayes spent the majority of his career in television. Neither one of these people show any inkling of understanding comedy. Understandably neither worked on the other Stooges' movies. Incredibly however, Rich and Hayes collaborated again on "Hey Boy! Hey Girl!" (1959), a Louis Prima / Keely Smith vehicle.

When filming their comedy shorts, the Stooges had talented writers and directors working with them; Ray McCarey (Leo's brother), Felix Adler, Clyde Bruckman and Del Lord. That is no longer the case in these feature-length comedies. Plus, the Stooges' style of comedy seems better suited for two-reelers.

Movies like "Have Rocket, Will Travel" are curiosity pieces. These movies shouldn't serve as introductions into the comedy world of the Three Stooges. You watch stuff like this, and their cartoon series, after you've seen all of their Columbia shorts. The one thing this movie accomplishes is, it makes "Abbott & Costello Go To Mars" (1953) look good.

In the end, a movie like this leads me to say, Have Stooges, Won't Laugh!

Film Review: Life Stinks

"Life Stinks"
** 1\2 (out of ****)

Things are rotten for Mel Brooks in "Life Stinks" (1991).

"Life Stinks" begins with a shot of a limousine driving. We don't immediately see who is being driven inside the limo but we do hear a business report being listened to on the radio. The reporter states the country is going through a recession. Unemployment claims have increased while the price of gold is up. At this moment the limo drives over a puddle and splashes nearby homeless people. The opening credits begin with the movie's title, Life Stinks.

It didn't take much, but Brooks and his gang of writers (Rudy De Luca and Steve Haberman) instantly set up central conflicts and the mentality of the characters. It is a world where the rich get richer (the price of gold is up) and the poor get poorer (unemployment rises). The rich have no regard for the poor (the splashed homeless people) and the poor feel their lives stink. Its message never goes out of fashion and feels eerily timely. Today, Wall Street has had steady gains while Labor Statistics reveal unemployment rates near 15% (14.7%). The highest unemployment rate since the Great Depression.

"Life Stinks" isn't one of Brooks' movie parodies although its premise - a wealthy man gives up his resources to live among the homeless - recalls Preston Sturges' classic "Sullivan's Travels" (1941). In Sturges' comedy a movie director (Joel McCrea) wants to become a serious artist and stop directing musical-comedies. His next movie will be about human suffering. However, in order understand the plight of the poor he must live among them. In "Life Stinks" a wealthy real estate developer, Goddard Bolt (Brooks) bets a rival developer, Vance Crasswell (Jeffrey Tambor) he can survive the mean streets of L.A. for thirty days in exchange for a slum district each man owns a percentage of and has plans to rebuild.

This type of material doesn't naturally lend itself to comedy, especially Brooks' wild, vulgar humor. But "Life Stinks" tries to find a balance between comedy and heartfelt sentiment. As difficult as it is to believe, Mel Brooks  kind of wants to direct a "message movie" - a commentary on poverty in America. This from a man who once directed a movie where a horse gets punched in the face.

To solidify Goddard Bolt's contempt for the poor, Brooks presents him in the most unsympathetic terms. He literally walks all over the poor when he steps on the hand of a worker waxing a floor. When his lawyers inform him 6,000 acres of a Brazilian rain forest would need to be cut down for one of his developments, Bolt doesn't bat an eye. He jokes that the natives won't want to live there anymore because of a lack of shade. When told a development in Florida would require tearing down a nursing home, Bolt suggests doing it at night, to avoid bad press.

And so it goes. The poor are merely a nuisance to the rich. They are an easily disposable obstacle interfering with their business deals. As Bolt shows off an urban scale model of a new development area, he flicks one of the figures representing the homeless into a trash bin.

Seemingly contrasting Goddard Bolt's heartless businessman veneer, Vance Crasswell is a man who understands the working class because he came from nothing. Bolt says he did too. His father left him with only five million - nothing! (kind of sounds like Donald Trump, perhaps an inspiration for the character.) But beneath the Columbo-ish homespun simplicity, Crasswell is just as deceitful (maybe more so) as Bolt. It is Crasswell's idea to bet Bolt he can't last on his own living homeless.

Once Bolt accepts the bet and is left to his own devices we reach the crux of Brooks' story. What makes the poor, poor? Are they ignorant or just plain lazy? "Life Stinks" argues neither is true. They are victims of circumstance. They have ingenuity but lack resources and a social network. Their fathers' didn't leave them with a five million dollar head start. That is the only advantage the rich have. If it were truly an even playing field where would Donald Trump, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet be? Where would their first meal come from? How would they find shelter from the rain?

Goddard Bolt may have been a billionaire but he struggles to make a dollar in the slums. Knowing about stocks and real estate won't help him survive. He dances for money. Nothing. He attempts to clean car windshields. Nothing. He seeks shelter in a church but it is closed. He sleeps under cardboard and is urinated on. 

In a way "Life Stinks" hints at a nature vs nurture argument  ("Trading Places" (1983) anyone?). The homeless aren't homeless because they want to be but can adapted to their environment and can survive. A rich man placed in this same environment has a difficult time adjusting. They have went through life with a silver spoon in their mouth and aren't unaware of the harsh realities of living poor. Playing the stock market doesn't make you a survivor.

Brooks however creates a 1930s Hollywood movie version of poverty. The destitute characters in "Life Stinks" are a kind of happy-go-lucky community. Bolt makes friends with the man who urinated on him, Sailor  (Howard Morris, Brooks' old friend from his Sid Caesar days), Fumes  (Teddy Wilson) and a potential love interest, crazy bag lady Molly  (Lesley Ann Warren).

"Life Stinks" may have been set in 1991 America but its heart is in 1930s Depression-era Hollywood. Brooks, born in 1926, was too young to really know of the horrors of the 30s. He lived in poverty but like most people, probably didn't realize he was poor. The movies of the era may have shaped his view on the issue more than his reality. As is typical in a Brooks movie, there is a song and dance routine, this time to Cole Porter's "Easy to Love" between Bolt and Molly. It hits at the problem with "Life Stinks". It is a romanticize version of poverty. Characters find time to dance. They aren't in any real danger.

For a movie that wants to champion the downtrodden, "Life Stinks" doesn't really have very much to say on the issue. Brooks is sympathetic towards the poor but how does society overcome the stigma of poverty? Bolt may now know of their struggles but once he goes back to his old life, what will he do? Besides Bolt, there is never a moment when characters show kindness to the poor and begin to see them as real people. Because of that the movie lacks the poignancy of Charlie Chaplin's (the only other comedian I can think of that has masterfully dealt with this subject matter).  

At best, the movie makes half-measured gestures and goes on auto-pilot. The movie lacks depth and doesn't have a strong voice. Brooks & Company are never able to find big laughs. Over his career Brooks has gained a reputation as one of the funniest men in Hollywood. Nothing in "Life Stinks" scores high on the Brooks laugh-a-meter. I smiled, on the inside, watching the movie but nothing here is memorable. It very well may have been Brooks' intention not to make a laugh riot but he has no insight. The movie never becomes a stinging critique of the capitalist system. 

One of the funnier moments in the movie comes near the end. Bolt, by now suffering a nervous breakdown, encounters a delusional man (Rudy De Luca) who believes he is J. Paul Getty. Bolt and the man get into a Three Stooges style confrontation arguing who was richer. It comments on the ego of the rich. The mansions, the yachts, the vacations, what is it all for? It is all a game of one-upmanship. The confrontation serves as a kind of mirror to Bolt and Crasswell. Life is just a game between them, signified by the very nature of their bet. They have their own battle of one-upmanship. Crasswell wants to be just as rich as Bolt. That is about as hard hitting as "Life Stinks" gets.

The movie has a negative reputation which proceeds it. Regarded as one of Brooks' worst, people usually joke "Life Stinks...and so does the movie". Yet, it has endured and acquired a kind of cult status. I know more people that have seen this movie than some of Brooks' better comedies. Mention the title to people and they will know what you are talking about.

Not known for social commentary, Brooks would appear to be the wrong choice for a movie such as this but Brooks actually made a better movie about class distinction and the poor. His second directorial effort, "The Twelve Chairs" (1970) was based on a piece of Russian literature, set 10 years after the 1917 Russian Revolution. Brooks hits his targets and is able to find humor in the quest of its two main characters searching for a hidden fortune. There are even those that cheer the movie as Brooks' funniest. It is proof positive that Mel Brooks could have been a very good director. Brooks should have used his own movie as an inspiration instead of Sturges'.

"Life Stinks" isn't necessarily a bad movie. I admire the commentary it attempts to tell. Its heart is in the right place but doesn't do justice to the issue. What is in the future for its characters? I guess all they can do is "Hope For The Best, Expect The Worst"!

Film Review: Star Wars - The Rise of Skywalker

"The Rise of Skywalker"
*** (out of ****)

Is The Force with the latest "Star Wars" adventure, "The Rise of Skywalker" (2019)?

"The Rise of Skywalker" is a "Star Wars" adventure for today's woke millennial generation. It is a story marred in meaningless, leftist gender identity politics highlighting women in roles of leadership, societal inclusion of African-Americans (displaying their heroism) and teaching us the importance of (I think I am going to puke) feelings.

Yet, despite this bombardment of political signaling, there are times I enjoy "The Rise of Skywalker" even more than the previous two adventures - "The Force Awakens" (2015) and "The Last Jedi" (2017). While one half of the movie is social conditioning, the other half is basking in nostalgia. Being the old sentimental fool I am it was the nostalgia I responded to most.

Basking in nostalgia is something the movie's director, J.J. Abrams has been harshly criticized for by some movie fans. In addition to this movie, Abrams has also directed "The Force Awakens", "Star Trek" (2009) and "Super 8" (2011) his nostalgic tribute to Steven Spielberg (who was one of the movie's producers). Some feel Abrams uses nostalgia to shield poor storytelling and to elicit emotions within us that his stories can't earn on their own. Maybe they have a point.

Now before some readers leap to the conclusion that I am a rabid right-wing Trump-supporting conservative, I assure them I am not. I actually take great offense to a former reality television host in a position of leadership in our government. But I cannot blind myself to the messaging of a movie."The Rise of Skywalker" is one more example of liberal identity politics masquerading as solutions to larger social and economic issues.

For example, women demand equal pay for equal work but what can our poor helpless legislative body do about it? They can only pass the laws which have been written by the lobbyist of giant corporations. So instead of any meaningful change lets put Harriet Tubman on a twenty dollar bill. The media and various female political groups will champion the gesture (which is all it is) as a step forward and will chant "progress"! What a significant moment in the representation of women. Hooray! "They" will feed you just enough crumbs to keep you content and distracted by the illusion of change.

And so because we live in a #MeToo world, nearly had a female president (who was thwarted by sexism - not her weak policy positions or poor campaigning), demand equal pay for equal work and have an over sexualized media objectifying women, lets have a female led "Star Wars" movie and chant "girl power". What a significant moment in the representation of women! Those other issues will take care of themselves in a long but reasonable amount of time. Remember, change is only possible in incremental stages!

This third trilogy (are we supposed to group "Star Wars" movies in installment of trilogies?) revolves around Rey (Daisy Ridley), a young woman whom the force is strong with. In "The Rise of Skywalker", as an attempt to build up her greatness, it is said every Jedi before Rey is inside of her. This results in a nostalgic voice-over of previous characters.

Heavily burrowing elements from the "Luke Skywalker Trilogy", Rey will learn uncomfortable truths about her past and her identity. Can she rise to the occasion? Meanwhile, dealing with his own dual identity crisis, Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) must decide which side he will land on in the battle between good versus evil. It too results in nostalgic references to the first trilogy.

In the now famous opening scrolls (isn't like a hit of adrenaline when we see it appear on-screen with the music playing behind it?) we learn Emperor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) is still alive. He holds sway over Kylo Ren, whom he wants to influence Rey to join the dark side. Kylo Ren and the Emperor are aware of Rey's true identity, practically stealing a moment from "The Empire Strike Back" (1980).

It is suppose to lend itself to a moral game of cat and mouse between Kylo Ren and Rey. Kylo Ren desperately hunts Rey down but is able to "Force bond" (long distance virtual telepathy) with her, luring her to the dark side with promises they will rule together. Is it Rey's destiny? She is tempted to take Kylo Ren's hand. She has even had vision of joining the dark side. Can Rey fight off these temptations and exercise her free will?

These moral questions aren't very captivating here but not out of place in a "Star Wars" movie, which has always had a religious undertone to it. It is somewhat fitting however that one of the screenwriters is Chris Terrio, who I was impressed with back when he directed "Heights" (2005). He also wrote "Batman v Superman" (2016) and "Justice League" (2017). Both of those movies tried inserting morality to the legend of superheroes.

The flip side of Rey's predicament is Kylo Ren. Can Kylo come back from the dark side? Once on the side of good he fell to the temptation of evil. Can he be redeemed? Bare in mind the title of the movie is "The Rise of Skywalker". Kylo Ren is the only character, between the two, with Skywalker blood. He is the son of Princess Leia (Luke's sister) and Han Solo (Harrison Ford). Is the title a reference to him as well?

The political woke signaling and nostalgia create a deliberate clash at the center of  "The Rise of Skywalker" symbolizing "old" vs "new". For the "Star Wars" franchise it means creating a path for new characters to emerge as  heroes while fading the original characters from the "Luke Skywalker Trilogy" into the dustbin of history.

The nostalgia comes in various forms, from the return of Lando Calrissen (Billy Dee  Williams), to the presence of Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia Organa (Fisher died in 2016. The entire performance consist of archival footage.), shots of the Death Star, shots of Luke Skywalker's home from "A New Hope" (1977), the appearance of the Ewoks, Darth Vader's destroyed mask and cameos by Harrison Ford and Mark Hamill.

However the politics the movie tries to enforce becomes overwhelming. Some of the social criticism of George Lucas' "A New Hope" was its lack of ethnic and racial diversity in the cast and the fact it seemed like females are not capable of acquiring the "Force". And so adjustments had to be made to quell these complaints. In "The Empire Strikes Back" we get the first  African-American character, Lando Calrissen. In the Anakin Skywalker prequel trilogy the cast of characters were more diverse. And now, finally, a woman is a strong Jedi warrior.

"The Force Awakens" also created an additional African-American character for the franchise, Finn (John Boyega), a stormtrooper turned good. His appearance also brought us the first sight of blood in a "Star Wars" movie, something many people made a very big deal about.

"The Rise of Skywalker" creates a matriarchal society (to liberals delight!) as Princess Leia reigns supreme. Women may only make up five percent of Fortune 500 CEOs (a real statistic) but by gum we have Princess Leia! After Leia's guidance and wisdom, Rey is the resistance's best hope to stop the First Order (congruently this last Democratic Primary season saw a record number of women vying for the party's nomination to lead the resistance).

A new  African-American character is added to the "Star Wars" universe, Jannah (Naomi Ackie), another stormtrooper turned good. She leads an army of ex-stormtroopers that have rebelled (from what I could tell, all women). Why? Because of the power of feelings. They felt what they were doing was wrong and changed their ways. By the end of the movie it is even suggested a new series may be built around her. Can you imagine a black, female Jedi! Would that not be token liberal heaven? Meanwhile the college graduation rate for black females is behind that of white and Asian women.

At the end of the day women save us and restore order. There is nothing wrong with creating movies that have strong female characters. Nor is there anything wrong with creating strong African-American characters. That is not my complaint. I am the guy that says movies are a reflection of our world. What I am complaining about is the pandering, the shallow guise of social awareness. It is overwhelming political correctness that creates a kind of liberal utopia. Not to leave anyone out, there is even a moment when two female characters kiss. It is all a far cry from the homage to 1930s & 40s movie serials ("Buck Rogers" and "Flash Gordon") that "Star Wars" originally intended to be.

I understand it is difficult to create social change. There are forces at work fighting against it. But do we honestly feel the best way to enact these changes is through the movies? Are we saying art dictates society? If that is true, are we not than using movies as social propaganda? Why can't our elected leaders actually take leadership positions and demand change? Is it because voters fall for the political pandering of token gestures? Voters seem to accept and defend the "incremental change" argument.

If "The Rise of Skywalker" wouldn't hammer us with liberal social conditioning it could have been a very fun movie.

Best Of The Decade: 2010s

Lets all go to the movies!

You don't hear people say that any more, do you? People that keep track of movie theater attendance report the numbers have been on a decline. The year 2014 saw the worst attendance since 1995 according to this article, and in 2017, attendance hit a 25 year low. Surprisingly, 2018 saw a decade's long best. You can guess which direction the numbers are going in 2020 (we are doing this year over again, right?).

"Experts" say the decline is due to streaming services (I say laziness and a generation that has forgotten how to interact with one another). Netflix, Amazon Prime, HBO GO, ROKU, APPLE TV etc. People want to watch movies from their homes and on their phones. Heck, they don't even want to leave their homes to go grocery shopping! Technology and the Internet have been the greatest cause for the systematic decline of social interaction. Nothing good has come of it.

What will happen to the movies? Will movie theaters still exist? I'm not being a drama queen or overly dramatic, but how we watch movies has changed over the years. Once upon a time people watched movies in beautiful, lavish movie palaces and drive-ins. Now we watch them in shopping malls. With COVID-19 destroying our lives as we know it, will movie theaters shut down for good? Now we have no choice but to stream movies. Is this the future? Variety reported AMC Theaters might file for bankruptcy (click here) although shareholders later refuted the story.

This all leads me to reminisce about the best movies of the past decade!  Some wisenheimer will say it's not a new decade, that the decade doesn't begin until 2021. You are correct! Congratulations!

Many critics compiled their lists of their favorite movies made between 2010 - 2019, to commemorate the beginning of the 2020s. It wasn't an easy task for me. Unlike when I made my list of the best movies of the 2000s - I was able to instantly pick ten movies. I am not a braggadocios person. You will never read me highly praise myself, but the list I made was the best you will find! My list included "Muholland Dr." (2001), "Match Point" (2005), "Traffic" (2000), "Moulin  Rouge!" (2001) and "The Pianist" (2002). These movies stood with me. I was not able to get them out of my mind. I talked about them with friends. There was a true consensus these movies were meaningful. Each of them were celebrated upon their release and showered with critical and commercial acclaim, scooping up various awards and nominations.

I can't however say I really feel the same way about the movies of the past decade. Sure, some movies stood out and lingered in my head. But, I couldn't really think of ten individual titles worth celebrating. Instead, movements or blocks of movies entered my mind. For example, there has been a rejuvenation in horror movies. Over the last ten years so many great ones have been released. In particular, I am a great admirer of the "Conjuring Universe". So, do I simply choose "The Conjuring" (2012) to represent the entire resurgence in horror? I can't leave off the other titles! But, I can't have horror movies dominate the list.

So much has happened in our country over the past ten years. America went from having the first African-American president to the first former reality television host. We went from a Harvard Law graduate and former U.S. Senator, to thinking so little of our country and the role of presidency, that historically speaking, the most unqualified person was elected. The first time ever the occupant in the White House did not have prior legislative or military experience. A man that doesn't know how the legislative process works. One that can't articulate ideas or policy positions ("I am going to repeal and replace Obamacare and replace it with something terrific". WTF?)

And in the time between Barack Obama and Chancellor Trump, so much in our movies have changed and served as a reflection of our society. The two biggest social / political events that have found their way into our movies included the economic collapse brought on by George W. Bush and deregulation policies championed by Republicans (and again by Trump) in 2008 and Bush's War on Terror and the Iraq invasion. Think of how many movies have been made dealing with these two topics; "Zero Dark Thirty" (2012), "Redacted" (2007), "Fahrenheit 9/11" (2004), "The Big Short" (2015), "Inside Job" (2010), "W." (2008) and  "Too Big to Fail" (2011) just to name a few.

I previously commented on how angry our movies have become when I made my list of the best movies of 2019. That has been because of our politics which have not served the needs of the people. If you think that is me spewing my political beliefs, explain all the social unrest. Why are people angry at their government? Because of the color of the curtains in the White House? This decade saw violent protests. From the rise of the TEA Party in 2010 to the Charlottesville protest in 2017. With cable news hosts yelling at guests, to Trump egging on violence during his rallies. It is all around us and in our movies.

Each year when I would make a top ten list I would try to find a common theme among the movies and the year in general. In 2019 I noted it was anger. In my top ten list for 2010 I commented the theme was connecting. For the top ten films of 2011  it was death, longing and lost. Rather fittingly, in 2012, it was about moving forward. The films of 2015 were anger as well. You could see Bernie Sanders and Trump coming along. When will the anger end? When will society and the movies reach their tipping point? When will "The Purge" (2013) become reality?

The decade also gave us our sad goodbyes and a shift in filmmaking. The masters of the craft are leaving us and a new breed is moving in. There was a time when a best movies list would feature titles directed by Martin Scorsese, Woody Allen, Robert Altman, Stanley Kubrick, Ingmar Bergman, Federico Fellini, Akira Kurosawa and Francois Truffaut. Many of these great men have died. My lists now are comprised of young filmmakers. Sometimes after one successful movie they are not heard of again. The death that hit me the hardest was Greek director, Theo Angelopoulos (pictured left), a filmmaker I had often referred to as the master of imagery. He died in 2012 from a car accident. Sadly, his name never meant much to the American art-house crowd, but his movies have had a profound affect on me.

Then there was Claude Chabrol (1930-2010). Once called "the French Hitchcock", Chabrol directed what historians cite as the first film of the French New Wave moment, "Le Beau Serge" (1958). Many of those lovely French radicals of the New Wave movement have left us too including Jacques Rivette (1928-2016) and Alain Resnais (1922-2014). There were the great filmmakers from Eastern Europe: Andrzej Wajda (1926-2016) put Poland on the cinematic map; the great Miklos Jancso (1921-2014), one of the leading filmmakers of the exciting Hungarian New Wave of the 1960s & 70s (whom I wrote a tribute about in the Hungarian newspaper the Budapest Times); and the Czech New Wave's Milos Foreman (1932-2018). Do yourself a favor and watch his  "The Fireman's Ball" (1967). The oldest living filmmaker, Manoel de Oliveira (1908-2015), died at 106. He was Portugal's greatest director. Italy lost one of her great filmmakers, Bernardo Bertolucci (1941-2018). No filmmaker has been able to combine sex and politics quite like him. And finally, the man that introduced me to Iranian cinema, Abbas Kiarostami (1940-2016). A brilliant but critically divisive filmmaker. I don't know if (but surely hope not) the magic of "The Wind Will Carry Us" (2000) or "Close-Up" (1990) will ever wear off me.

With those men gone, the young American and international filmmakers dominating the decade were Alex Ross Perry, "The Color Wheel" (2011), "Listen Up Philip" (2014) and "Queen of Earth" (2015); Trey Edward Shults, "Waves" (2019), "Krisha" (2016) and "It Comes At Night" (2017); and Jeremy Saulnier: "Blue Ruin" (2014) and "Green Room" (2016). None of these films have made my list but pay attention to these filmmakers. They are the future. On the international scene, we have the Palestinian filmmaker Hany Abu-Assad, "Omar" (2014) and "The Idol" (2016); Turkish filmmaker, Nuri Bilge Ceylan, maybe the next master of imagery with titles like "Once Upon A Time In Anatolia" (2012), "Winter Sleep" (2014) and "Wild Pear Tree" (2019); and Germany's Christian Petzold with "Transit" (2019), "Phoenix" (2015) and "Barbara" (2012). These are the international filmmakers to celebrate. I'm sure my next decade's list will include all of their films.

For the best movies of this decade I had to try something different. More often than not, I will only list one individual film title, but there will be instances when I include a group of movies that share a similar genre or are connected in some other way (subject matter). I believe all of the movies referenced are in some way socially significant and of course, entertaining!

Here are my favorite movies of the decade!

1. I, DANIEL BLAKE (2017; Dir. Ken Loach) - The financial bailout of 2008. Occupy Wall Street. Bernie Sanders. Jeremy Corbyn. The 1%. The Fight for 15. Income Inequality.

In a period of time that has seen so much social unrest consume us how could I not choose "I, Daniel Blake"? This British movie directed by that old liberal lion, Ken Loach, won the Palme d'Or at the 2016 Cannes Film Festival (no Oscar nominations however). The story, revolving around the struggles of the working class and how the system takes advantage of them, actually caused a social movement in Britain. Oddly enough, it was ignored by American sheep (movie critics). Practically none of them put it on the top ten list when it was released. I called it the best movie of 2017! I haven't come across one list to include it among the best of the decade. Is the movie's message so powerful that it scared the establishment?

Loach has another movie out this year, "Sorry We Missed You" (2020), a harsh commentary on the gig economy and the ways these companies exploit workers. It too is not being pushed by the sheep.

2. THE BIG SHORT (2015; Dir. Adam McKay) - The disastrous consequences of the financial bailout are still with us (we will wait and see what happens with this new COVID-19 handout to the corporations). "The Big Short", which I called the best movie of 2015, tries to put names and faces to the most significant moment of our recent history.

McKay made a career directing Will Ferrell comedies: "Anchorman" (2004), "Step Brothers" (2008) and "Anchorman 2" (2013). "The Big Short" was his attempt at "respectability". A more serious endeavor meant to humor and inform us. The bet paid off, with the movie earning five Academy Award nominations. McKay tried this technique again in "Vice" (2018). The results were a bit mixed.

3. MIDNIGHT IN PARIS (2011; Dir. Woody Allen) - Although Woody Allen is now a victim of today's token liberalism, this 2011 film was one of Allen's highest grossing movies in decades. For a while, going to see a Woody Allen movie became the thing to do.

A bitter-sweet story revolving around the universal truth that things were better in the good ol' days. For Allen's hero in "Midnight in Paris", that time was Paris in the 1920's. Through the magic of movies, the lead character is able to transport himself back to that era and mingle with his favorite literary heroes.

Allen won an Academy Award for his screenplay. It was also the first time I placed a Woody Allen film at the top of one of my year end best lists. A truly unforgettable film that touches me.

4. THE WOLF OF WALL STREET (2013; Dir. Martin Scorsese) - Like "The Big Short", this Scorsese gem served as a commentary on the financial bailout. The subject matter however was Jordan Belfort, a stock market manipulator from the 1990's.

Though criticized as too vulgar, I found it fresh and exciting. Scorsese combined his storytelling techniques from "GoodFellas" (1990) with Oliver Stone's "Wall Street" (1987).

At its center was an amazing performance from Leonardo DiCaprio, for which he was nominated for an Academy Award. Scorsese earned his seventh nomination for directing.

5. INCEPTION (2010; Dir. Christopher Nolan) - The brainteaser of 2010 and one of the year's most talked about movies.

DiCaprio (again) stars as a man that can enter our dreams and affect our thoughts. Talk about the battle between fantasy vs reality! The special effects and gimmick story-line distracted many from what was essentially a story about a man trying to connect with his father.

One of Nolan's best. Nominated for eight Academy Awards, it won four.

6. AMERICAN SNIPER (2014; Dir. Clint Eastwood) - Clint Eastwood's socially and politically divisive war picture was based on real-life NAVY SEAL sniper Chris Kyle's memoir. The political left hated the movie because Eastwood did not take the opportunity to criticize the Iraq war. Combined with that, others said Kyle made ugly statements in his memoir.

None of this bothered me as I felt the criticism was misguided. I placed the movie in the number two spot in my year end list and wrote, "not since Stanley Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket" (1987) have I seen a movie which shows the dehumanization of war as compellingly."

7. DOCUMENTARIES - INSIDE JOB (2010; Dir. Charles Ferguson) / CITIZENFOUR (2014; Dir. Laura Poitras) / THE LOOK OF SILENCE (2015; Dir. Joshua Oppenheimer) / FAHRENHEIT 11/9 (2018; Dir. Michael Moore) - Along with cable news, documentaries have become a political weapon of choice. The definition of documentaries has changed drastically over the years. Once identified with National Geographic or PBS, documentaries have now become polarizing political essays.

The decade featured so many great documentaries that I honestly couldn't settle on one to be declared "the best". Instead these four are representative of the political issues that have plagued this country over the last 10 years: the financial bailout (Inside Job), government surveillance (Citizenfour), political revisionist history (The Look of Silence), and the whole rotten political system as a whole (Fahrenheit 11/9).

"Inside Job" - Directed by Charles Ferguson, is the academic version of "The Big Short". It explained what collateralized debt obligations (CDO) and sub-prime mortgages are and provided details on exactly how the financial system is rigged. Ferguson was even able to interview major figures to get them to defend their actions and the system as a whole.

"Citizenfour" - Scarier than any piece of science fiction, Laura Poitras' documentary features former NSA employee Edward Snowden, as he explains the current magnitude of massive government surveillance (right now, someone from the government knows you are reading this) while the U.S. government chases after him.

"The Look of Silence" - A sequel to Joshua Oppenheimer's genre defying "The Act of Killing" (2012), both documentaries are about the Indonesian mass killings of 1965 - 1966, a politically motivated genocide aimed at killing all communists. It was later revealed the U.S. knew what was going on and supported these actions.

"Fahrenheit 11/9" - Michael Moore looks at the making of a president (pay attention to the credit sequence) and how America has fallen so low to elect a former reality TV host. Moore examines how the government, in conjunction with the media, has let the country down.

8. THE CONJURING UNIVERSE / HORROR - THE CONJURING (2013; Dir. James Wan) / THE BABADOOK (2014; Dir. Jennifer Kent) / LIGHTS OUT (2016;  Dir. David F. Sandberg) - For me, the Golden Age of horror movies was with the classic Universal movies made in the 1930s featuring Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster, the Werewolf and the Mummy. However, one could make the case that we have entered a new golden age of horror. Has there been a time when horror movies have been as easily accessible and as good? I've put more horror movies on my top ten lists this decade than any before. All three of these movies made my top ten lists.

"The Conjuring" - Was this the movie that started the resurgence in horror movies? Maybe. This James Wan movie was a massive box office hit in 2013 and gave way to an entire universe of movies. It was reminiscent of the classics from the 1970s. 

"The Babadook" - When reviewing this Australian movie directed by Jennifer Kent, I wrote "The Babadook works on a psychological level and tries to be about more than its scares. It dares to tackle some larger issues." That is what the great horror movies do. "The Babadook" was actually about the trauma of motherhood and a metaphor for the idea of "feeding the beast".

"Lights Out" - The directorial debut of David F. Sandberg, whom I immediately called a great new talent, directed the horror movie of 2016! Essentially, it is a variation on our fears of the dark.

Sandberg has gone on to direct "Annabelle: Creation" (2017), another addition to the "Conjuring Universe", and a movie I placed on my year end top ten list. He switched gears in 2019 and directed the DC comic book adaptation of "Shazam!".

9. INTERNATIONAL CINEMA - CERTIFIED COPY (2011; Dir. Abbas Kiarostami) / WALESA: MAN OF HOPE (2013; Dir. Andrzej Wajda) / LIKE SOMEONE IN LOVE (2013; Dir. Abbas Kiarostami) / CHILD'S POSE (2014; Dir. Calin Peter Netzer ) - A decade that gave us so many great international films also provides me a last chance to celebrate Andrzej Wajda and Abbas Kiarostami.

I have noticed that the last few years have seen a decline in great international films. There was a time I wanted to avoid having ten English language dramas on my year end movie lists and would try to mix it up with international films (at least three). That has become increasingly difficult for me lately, but in the first part of the decade the masters were still alive and made it a much easier feat.

"Certified Copy" - The first non-Iranian film Kiarostami directed was also one of his most widely celebrated, earning a Palme d'Or nomination at Cannes, and Juliette Binoche winning the best actress award for her engaging performance.

In my review I wrote "Certified Copy" (2010) is another example of filmmaker Abbas Kiarostami's genius. "Here is a delicate film which balances fact and fiction, reality and fantasy in a meditative, poetic masterful way."

"Walesa: Man of Hope" - Unfortunately this Andrzej Wajda masterpiece never found distribution in the U.S. I saw it at the Chicago International Film Festival and called it the best movie at the festival.

Telling the story of Lech Walesa, a union activist that became Poland's president (1990 - 1995). It was the movie Wajda was born to direct.

"Like Someone in Love" - Another Kiarostami masterpiece and another of his non-Iranian films (it was made in Japan). Like "Certified Copy" this is a movie about identity and relationships and asks us to question the definition of "relationships".

"Child's Pose" - A damning commentary on the divide between the Haves and the Have Nots. Directed by Calin Peter Netzer, "Child's Pose" was a continuation in the great rejuvenation of Romanian cinema.

A child is killed in a car accident. The driver comes from a wealthy family while the child came from a poor one. Will justice be served? Can the wealthy get away with murder?

The film is forgotten but I recognized its greatness immediately and placed it on my top ten list of 2014.


10. HUNGARIAN CINEMA - THE TURIN HORSE (2012; Dir. Bela Tarr) / THE NOTEBOOK (2014; Dir. Janos Szasz) / WHITE GOD (2015; Dir. Kornel Mundruczo) - Why differentiate between international and Hungarian? Hungarian cinema has long been neglected in the U.S., lacking distribution. Something changed in the last decade as more and more Hungarian movies were released: "Sunset" (2019), "1945" (2018), "On Body & Soul" (2017) and the Academy Award winner, "Son of Saul" (2015), the first Hungarian film to win the best foreign film Oscar since Istvan Szabo's "Mephisto" (1981).

"The Turin Horse" - Master Bela Tarr's final film before retiring was his greatest achievement since "Satantango" (1994). I called it a fitting conclusion to his career. A bleak look at the meaningless nature of our lives, as we serve the roles designed for us.

"The Notebook" - Janos Szasz's study on the correlation between our environment and violence was set during WW2 in the Hungarian countryside. Two young brothers lose themselves in their quest for survival, culminating in a bleak but powerful message.

"White God" - Using dogs to symbolize the working class and the downtrodden, Kornel Mundruczo's social commentary (fittingly dedicated to Miklos Jancso) tells the story of what happens when the poor revolt against their oppressors.

Released in the U.S. in 2015, the movie foreshadowed the mass movement led by Bernie Sanders, while also warning of the rise of right-wing groups in Europe.