Movie Bloggers Roundtable

BANNER

The Movie Bloggers Roundtable is a new feature where I join up with four esteemed movie bloggers and we share our thoughts on a certain subject. Everyone on the panel will share their thoughts and feelings on the topic of the day and then we share them with you. The panel may change from post to post and hopefully we will get a wide range of opinions and perspectives.

Today’s roundtable discussion is a simple one but also one that I find very intriguing. Both Wes Anderson and Paul Thomas Anderson have movies due out in 2014. Both have received praise for their very unique styles of storytelling. So today we are going to focus on these two top-tier filmmakers. Joining this roundtable is Charles from Cinematic Film Blog, Caitlin from Heart of Cinema, Josh from J.James Reviews, and Nostra from MyFilmviews. Now I can easily say that I LOVE THESE BLOGGERS and if you haven’t been frequenting their sites you should. So this week’s question is a simple one:

Paul Thomas Anderson or Wes Anderson?

ANDERSONS

Keith (Keith & the Movies)

There were many things that drew me to asking the question. For me, both Wes Anderson and Paul Thomas Anderson are clearly and unquestionably talented filmmakers. They each know their craft and whenever their names are attached to a project it deserves attention. That being said, the two couldn’t have more different styles. PT Anderson takes a more salty, unflinching, and sometimes downright dirty approach to storytelling. Many of his films combine a rawness and eloquence – a combination that would otherwise seem impossible. Characters play a big role in a PT Anderson film and while I don’t always care for them, he has a way of making them compelling. Unfortunately for me not all of PTA’s pictures work in every regard. Take his highly praised “The Master”. It is a film featuring three entrancing performances but the story itself sputters under the director’s indulgence. I see that in other PTA films as well.

Then there is Wes Anderson, a gutsy filmmaker with a dedication to his unique style that could be perceived as overindulgent itself. Personally I find Wes Anderson’s style and method of storytelling to not only be unique but refreshing. He is a rare filmmaker who can actually make funny movies, something that has become a rarity these days. But there are always reocurring themes, some of them fairly dark, that Wes Anderson is able to poetically meld with his offbeat humor. Then there is his visual style which shows itself in odd period designs, a fascinating color palette, and careful attention to detail. All of these things come together to form truly satisfying cinematic experiences that I look forward to each time they hit the big screen.

So Paul Thomas or Wes? The funny thing is my favorite movie from either of their filmographies is unquestionably the brilliant “There Will Be Blood”. But when it comes to the films they have made and their individual cinematic styles the choice for me is an easy one. Wes Anderson makes me laugh, he makes me think, and he always makes me love being a movie fan. He may never direct a $800 million summer blockbuster but that is fine with me. He makes movies that I care about and I’m always wondering what he has in store for us next.

Charles (Cinematic)

Over the past two decades, few directors have created the impact in the movie world as the two Andersons (Paul Thomas and Wes). Both Andersons emerged in the mid-90s with big dreams set on filmmaking. Paul Thomas Anderson had gone to New York University to leave only after a few days after finding disgust with his film professors, deciding it was best to learn by himself. Wes attended the University of Texas where he met Owen Wilson, who co-wrote and starred in many of Wes’ projects. Paul and Wes’ first theatrical releases (Hard Eight and Bottle Rocket) came out around the same time (1996, though Hard Eight debuted at Cannes that year and entered screens in 1997). While neither picture was a box office hit, they helped launch both directors to greater funding for their sophomore projects. Paul Thomas Anderson’s follow-up to Hard Eight, Boogie Nights, a Martin Scorsese-Robert Altman-ish look at the adult film industry back in the 70s and 80s, brought the director to the film spotlight, with comparisons being made to GoodFellas and Short Cuts. Wes Anderson’s second picture, Rushmore, a coming of age story based on Wes’ and Wilson’s high school experiences, took a quirky look at teenage adolescence and became the template for the director’s future projects.

Since then, the two Andersons are certainly among the most influential people in contemporary cinema. Their style is so unique and just about impossible to imitate (how many filmmakers could make a picture in the same vein as There Will Be Blood or Moonrise Kingdom). While neither Anderson has received wide mainstream acceptance, both have proven themselves to be master directors.

While I’m a big fan of Wes Anderson and love the wildly idiosyncratic worlds he constructs, Paul Thomas Anderson would get my vote as the best filmmaker working today. Paul hasn’t made a single movie short of greatness and ambition. Even if you don’t like the unexpected climax of Magnolia or the dream-like pace of The Master, there’s no denial that Paul Thomas Anderson has put a hell lot of effort into his work. Wes has always been consistent as well and I will defend him to the edge (even The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, which I think is criminally underrated), but his movies don’t quite stir me up emotionally as Paul Thomas Anderson’s work.

Caitlin (Heart of Cinema)

Wes Anderson vs Paul Thomas Anderson seems like such a hard choice because of their completely different approaches to film-making. I love Wes Anderson’s style and aesthetic approach to his films – the use of colour/props/scenery/costume is all unique and instantly recognisable. On the other hand, Paul Thomas Anderson is clearly far less eccentric, more concerned with drama and strong characters (particularly in The Master and There Will Be Blood). I appreciate both styles and part of me thinks it is an impossible task to separate the two simply because of how different they are.
If I had to pick just one though, I think I would go with Wes – just because I can’t really think of anyone with a style like his whereas PTA could probably be compared in more ways to other directors. Wes is so distinctive and fun and I don’t think he lets the style overtake the substance with his films. There is always a good story and good cast behind the colour and eccentricity. Plus, I adore The Royal Tenenbaums and will never forget watching it for the first time!

Josh (J.James Reviews)

Wes Anderson or Paul Thomas Anderson? When Keith first asked the question, I had an immediate reaction: “Wes, obviously. No one would select Paul Thomas.” Then, while trying to explain my answer, I compared the two directors’ filmographies. While I haven’t yet seen Wes’ newly released The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014) or PTA’s There Will be Blood (2007), I have seen the rest of their movies. I initially thought to argue that Wes’ best and worst are better than Paul Thomas’. Except I can’t honestly do so. While The Royal Tenenbaums (2001) and Moonrise Kingdom (2012) are truly terrific, so are Boogie Nights (1997) and Punch Drunk Love (2002). Plus, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004) is probably a little worse than Magnolia (1999), though neither movie is bad, per se. Nor can I argue that Wes gets better performances from actors, or that he’s artistically superior. Both directors generate note-perfect performances from their cast. Just as both always use their medium deftly, to further their story and help cement intended emotion.
In other words, both Andersons are remarkable filmmakers whose films I always appreciate and often adore. Still, I prefer Wes. Why? It must be personal preference. In the end, I simply enjoy Wes’ quirkiness, humor and wit more than I enjoy Paul Thomas’ psychological acuity, nuanced characters and observational style. I cannot fairly say one is better than the other, but I can argue that one of them entertains me more. It mightn’t be the best reason, but it is the only one I have.

Nostra (MyFilmviews)

Answering the question which director I’d prefer is a difficult one, but not for the reason you might think. The reason why is a simple one: a couple of years ago I wasn’t a fan of either of these directors. Sure I enjoyed PT Anderson’s Magnolia (which I still plan on rewatching), but I never was as mesmerized by Boogie Nights as others had been. His Punch-Drunk Love (2002) I did not finish watching and although I have seen both his latest two movies, There Will Be Blood and The Master I will have to admit that I was not crazy about them. They are both beautiful movies to look at, but their stories are of the type you would mainly see in older movies. They remind me strongly of something Lawrence of Arabia, wanting to present something epic with a pacing we are not used to anymore. Although others might look forward to seeing his next movie Inherent Vice I will eventually will be checking it out, but won’t be in a rush to do so.
Then there is Wes Anderson. Except for Bottle Rocket I have seen all his feature films, but the movies he became big with were not the movies I got anything out of. Rushmore bored me, The Royal Tenenbaums and The Life Aquatica with Steve Zissou were simply too weird for me. It is with The Darjeeling Limited I slowly started enjoying his work and I feel that he has grown as a director in his career by making his movies more accessible. Although weird, Fantastic Mr. Fox, was a great movie. When I saw Moonrise Kingdom at a festival for the first time I realized that he is now a movie maker whose work I really appreciate. You will be able to recognize his style instantly: The way the camera moves, the use of color, constructed sets, symmetry. With the Grand Budapest Hotel it seems that all those elements came together perfectly and to me that movie is already one of my favorites this year.
So PT Anderson or Wes Anderson? I guess the answer is clear. Especially with his later work I think Wes Anderson makes movies I get a lot more enjoyment out of and in the end that is why I watch movies. Of course there is a time and place for watching the type of movies PT Anderson makes, but if you would put me in an empty cinema and force me to watch a movie from either director I would not have to think for very long.

So what is the consensus?

4 of 5 chose Wes Anderson over Paul Thomas Anderson

FOX DANCE

I want to thank Charles, Caitlin, Josh, and Nostra for participating in this second Movie Bloggers Roundtable. You have heard our thoughts, now we want to hear yours. Do you like the feature? More importantly, which of these two fantastic filmmakers do you prefer and why? I’m a bit surprised at the outcome. How about you? Please share your thoughts in the comments section below.

REVIEW: “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid”

BUTCH POSTER

After its release in 1969 “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid” made a lot of money and garnered a lot of critical praise. It’s been called the ultimate buddy movie and some give it credit for reinventing the Western genre for a new generation. It received a total of seven Academy Award nominations, winning four of the golden statues and it has been lauded by many as a bonafide classic. But over the years there have been a few critics who have looked at the film through a more critical lens. Could it be that “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid” hasn’t aged well or are there some legitimate issues that have always been there?

For me “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid” is a terribly uneven film in several ways. It features several great and truly memorable moments but it also has stretches of redundancy which grinds things to a halt. Then there are lines of dialogue that are crisp and snappy but others that are glaringly lame or simply don’t feel like they belong in a western of its time. This movie rides a tonal roller coaster which made it feel a bit scattered and difficult to take seriously.

Butch1

Paul Newman was a megastar at the time and he was intended to be the centerpiece playing Butch Cassidy. This annoyed Steve McQueen who was set to play Sundance. After a disagreement over who got top billing, McQueen said adios which opened the door for a young Robert Redford. This turned out to be Redford’s star-making role and his performance was the standout. Newman is obviously a fine actor but surprisingly I didn’t see the usual charisma he brings to a role. Newman certainly has his moments but I feel he could have offered more especially considering the substantial investment in him.

Things certainly start off on a high note. We get a great scene showing Sundance being accused of cheating at a card game (a scene which features Sam Elliot’s big screen debut). There’s also a fun bit where Butch and Sundance return to their gang’s hideout and face a small mutiny (In the movie they were called The Hole in the Wall Gang because Cassidy’s real gang name The Wild Bunch was the title of the Sam Peckinpah film also due out that year). After squelching the uprising, the gang takes to holding up trains. The first robbery goes well but after botching their second attempt in a hysterical sequence, Butch and Sundance find themselves being pursued by an über-posse put together by a wealthy railroad tycoon.

Up to this point everything is popping. The movie sets itself up well and with the exception of the well-known bicycle scene filmed to B.J. Thomas’ “Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head” (which I feel is overly long and oddly out of place), it’s impossible not to be taken in by the story. But then the movie hits a wall. We get a long, drawn out series of shots features the pair on the run from the posse of all posses. We see them riding across the Badlands, running up rocky cliffs, and then stopping to see if they have lost their pursuers. With a near mystical-like presence, the posse is always in the distance. We go through this cycle several times before finally moving in a new direction.

Butch2

Realizing the severity of their wanted status, Butch and Sundance round-up Etta (played by Katharine Ross), a young lady with an unusual relationship with the boys, and the three head to Bolivia. Once there the story follows almost the same blueprint as the first half – some really funny moments, some memorable scenes, and a dull stretch. And that is what makes “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid” such a hard film to score. It has those times where it’s an absolute blast. It has its funny moments and the chemistry between Newman and Redford shines at certain points. Conrad Hall’s Oscar-winning cinematography is outstanding and it’s hard not to be smitten by the look of the film as a whole.

Unfortunately it’s hard for me to overlook the inconsistencies found in “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid”. There are some obvious missteps which make me question how this film can be considered an all-time classic. But it certainly isn’t a terrible movie and I definitely recommend seeing it. Redford’s star launched from this flick and it still made a significant mark on movie history. It’s just not a movie that will find its way into my pantheon of all-time favorites.

VERDICT – 3 STARS

5 Phenomenal Movies from 1987

PHENOM 5

As a kid of the 80’s I have enjoyed these looks back at that wonderful decade. I grew up watching a lot of films during those years and they provided us with some true classics. Some 80’s movies have aged really well while others haven’t. Then there are those that actually have gotten better. So now we are up to 1987, a year that brought a ton of fun genre films and some of my personal favorites. As always, since we are looking at a full year of movies I wouldn’t call this the definitive list. But there’s no denying that these five films from 1987 are absolutely phenomenal.

#5 – “Wall Street”

I’ve never been the biggest Oliver Stone fan but his 1987 gem “Wall Street” is still a movie that I can turn on at any time and watch. A lot of it has to do with Michael Douglas’ Oscar-winning performance as the classic character Gordon Gekko. Douglas dominates every scene he is in and his Gekko character is as mesmerizing as he is devious. Charlie Sheen is great as Bud Fox, a young broker who quickly learns that shortcuts and trampling over others may get you some quick money but there are always consequences. The movie also boasts a fine supporting cast including Martin Sheen, Hal Holbrook, James Spader, and the great Terence Stamp. I love “Wall Street”.

#4 – “The Untouchables”

In 1987 Brian De Palma gave us the crime thriller “The Untouchables”. Kevin Costner, who also starred in another 1987 favorite of mine “No Way Out”, plays Elliot Ness and the film is loosely based on the real Ness’ pursuit of Al Capone in gangland Chicago. Costner is solid and he is surrounded by a strong cast including Andy Garcia as a young trainee who is chosen for Ness’ task force and Robert DeNiro who is a lot of fun as Al Capone. But there is no one better than Sean Connery who plays a seasoned and honest Irish cop who not only helps Ness in his pursuit of Capone but mentors him as well. Connery deservedly won the Academy Award for the performance. The movie looks great, is filled with gritty period action, and moves at a sizzling pace. It’s a film that is still fun to watch.

#3- “The Lost Boys”

Talk about a different take on vampire movies. “The Lost Boys” was a great mix of horror and comedy and was by far the best movie from ‘the two Coreys’. Corey Haim plays Sam. He moves to Santa Carla, California along with his mother Lucy (Dianne Wiest) and his older brother Michael (Jason Patric) to live with his grandpa. The problem is Santa Carla has a serious vampire problem. Michael gets involved with four local teen bikers led by David (wonderfully played by Keifer Sutherland) who turn out to be, you guessed it, vampires. What makes the movie work so well is that it never takes itself too seriously. While it certainly has horror elements it’s also genuinely funny especially after we’re introduced to the Frog brothers, comic book store owners by day, vampire hunters by night. A wonderful cast, some creepy moments, and some great laughs.

#2 – “Predator”

Look, I make no apologies for being a fan of the cheesy, over-the-top, action genre that was big during the 80’s. But John McTiernan’s “Predator” was different on many levels. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s special forces team are sent into the dangerous Central American jungles to find out what has happened to a missing chopper. The movie follows some of the typical but fun formulas of the action genre but things change dramatically when an alien hunter shows up. Schwarzenegger, who was never accused of being a strong actor, is actually quite good here. The special effects are fantastic and the film features one of the single greatest military action sequences in movie history. Throw in Alan Silvestri’s unforgettable score and you have what I think is one of the best action movies of the 80’s.

#1 – “Raising Arizona”

With all of the quirky movies that Joel and Ethen Coen have given us since 1987, none show their wacky sense of humor better than “Raising Arizona”. This hysterical film centers on a habitual convenient store robber (Nicolas Cage) and his police officer wife (Holly Hunter) who come up with a hair-brained plan to take a baby from a wealthy couple who just had quints. Cage is simply perfect for the role and unlike most of his recent work, he really sells his character. The Coen’s unique brand of comedy is stamped all over this picture from the region specific humor to the hilarious array of side characters that pop up along the way. Also add in some incredibly funny work from John Goodman, William Forsythe, Sam McMurray, Frances McDormand, and Trey Wilson. “Raising Arizona” is still as funny today as it was when I first saw it. This brilliantly written and masterfully directed picture was only the Coen’s second film but it clearly revealed that the brothers would be a fantastic creative force for a long time. That’s shown to be true.

There they are – five phenomenal films from 1987. Now I have several others I could add to this list right now – movies I truly love and that have stuck with me over the years. What about you? What would be your favorite films of 1987?

REVIEW: “The Grand Budapest Hotel”

Budapest Poster

When Wes Anderson releases a movie it’s almost like an event for me. I’m such a fan of his work and I enjoy each visit I make to his unique and eccentric world. Finally his latest film “The Grand Budapest Hotel” made its way to my area. After a grueling wait the film finally cured my impatience but did it meet my ridiculously high expectations? I’ve come to expect so much from Anderson’s movies and my lofty expectations seem almost unfair. And perhaps those same expectations contributed to my somewhat cold and indifferent reaction to this film.

“The Grand Budapest Hotel” features so many signature trademarks of other Wes Anderson films. We get the quirky period design, an assortment of offbeat characters, a host of stylistic visual flourishes, and a level of expected absurdity. All of those things are present here and they all work to the film’s advantage. These are some of the fingerprints I want to see all over a Wes Anderson movie. But there were other signatures that injects his movies with their own personality and vibrancy that I found missing in this film.

Budapest3

The story is told in a fractured style but the vast majority of it takes place within a fictitious Eastern European country during 1932. We are introduced to Monsieur Gustave H. (Ralph Fiennes), the concierge of The Grand Budapest Hotel during its glory days of luxury and prominence. Gustave is meticulous in his running of the hotel and his love for extravagance is only outdone by his adoration for strong cologne and for his elderly clientele. The story becomes a murder mystery after one of his close acquaintances Madame D (Tilda Swinton) is found dead and Gustave becomes the key suspect. It also becomes a heist film and of course a comedy.

The film is also loaded with a massive number of side characters. Some are like Fiennes and new to Wes Anderson’s world while others are old faithful stalwarts who find their way into nearly every one of his movies. Toni Revolori plays a young lobby boy named Zero who becomes Gustave’s protégé and faithful sidekick. Adrien Brody plays Dmitri, the son of the murdered Madame D. Willem Dafoe plays a grunting snaggletoothed hitman. I could go on and on listing small characters who service the story (some better than others). They are all sprinkled onto stylistic canvases that include an alpine village, a prison, and of course The Grand Budapest itself. There is truly an artistry to the entire visual presentation and all of that worked for me.

But what was it about the film that at first held me at arm’s length? Why didn’t I have the same wonderful experience as I usually have with Wes Anderson pictures during a first viewing? First off I just didn’t find it as funny as I had hoped. Certainly there were moments where I laughed but as a whole the dry humor wasn’t that effective. Even the crowd I watched with had their giggles held to a minimum. This film was also coarse and crasser than most of Anderson’s other pictures. Much of it is played for laughs but I found it to be distracting and it felt as though Anderson, normally known for his creative freedom, was really stretching.

Budapest2

Another missing component for me was the deeper emotional thread that every Anderson film has had. For example in “The Royal Tenenbaums” you have the destructive results that a father’s behavior has had on his family. In “The Darjeeling Limited” you have three separated brothers each carrying the baggage of their father’s death. “Moonrise Kingdom” features two kids with no stable adult presence in their lives. They find their refuge by running away together. The same thing applies to “Rushmore” and “The Fantastic Mr. Fox”. Anderson has always had a knack for presenting a deeper and more piercing subject and effectively surrounding it with humor. Every sense of that is vague and almost absent from this entire film. He does tinker with a few themes via the impending war that lingers in the background, the desires for the nostalgic “better days”, etc. But none of these stood out to me at all.

This is the first screenplay that Anderson has written by himself. Does that play into the things I found lacking? I don’t know, perhaps. Anderson is also often accused of going overboard with his eccentric style. I’ve never found any merit to that accusation but this is the first film where there just might be. Could that be linked to Anderson’s solo screenplay? Again, I don’t know. What I do know is that there were parts of this film that really worked and after a second viewing I definitely began to appreciate the film more. At first “The Grand Budapest Hotel” didn’t fully work for me. It definitely comes more into focus the more times you see it.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

THE GREATEST SERIES: The 10 Greatest Actors of All-Time

Best Actor

Tackling a definitive list like this is something I’ve generally avoided in the past, but for a while I’ve felt drawn to this project. For several weeks I’ve went back and forth, adding and removing, considering and reconsidering, all for the purpose of putting together a list of who I think are the 10 greatest actors of all time. This is the first installment of a series I’m simply calling “The Greatest”. I hope you enjoy it and take time to share you’re thoughts below.

There are some brilliant actors who are favorites of mine but who don’t yet have the body of work to be considered a member of THE GREATEST. I’m talking about actors such as Tom Hardy, Guy Pearce, Jean Dujardin, Mads Mikkelsen, Michael Fassbender, and Tom Hiddleston. I love the guys and with a few more great performances under their belts they could join this list. But for now let’s get started by listing #11 – #20:

#20 – Spencer Tracy
#19 – Clint Eastwood
#18 – Leonardo DiCaprio
#17 – Joseph Cotten
#16 – Gregory Peck
#15 – Sidney Poitier
#14 – Gary Cooper
#13 – Al Pacino
#12 – Tom Hanks
#11 – Russell Crowe

Now let me introduce my 10 Greatest Film Actors of All Time:

#10 – Henry Fonda

FONDAIt may surprise some people to know that Henry Fonda’s acting was only truly considered great after his death in 1982. Personally I’ve always thought he was an incredible actor and his wide body of work spoke for itself. He had a sharp and unique style that often saw him playing similar roles throughout his long career. But regardless of the film or the decade, Fonda always gave an incredible performance and he was never above branching out into new areas. Fonda’s name is attached to some movies that are forever favorites of mine including “12 Angry Men” and “The Grapes of Wrath”. But he also shined in war films and westerns. In fact, he stunned the world with his villainous turn in Sergio Leone’s “Once Upon a Time in the West” (my all-time favorite western). Fonda had tremendous acting chops and he is truly one of the greatest.

#9 – Robert De Niro

BOBBYWhen you speak of someone possessing a natural acting gift Robert De Niro should automatically come to mind. Few actors are able to make things look as easy and fluid as De Niro. His career took off in 1972 and 1973 when he showed his top-notch abilities in “The Godfather II” and in “Mean Streets”, his first of many fine collaborations with director Martin Scorsese. De Niro would go on to make one beloved movie after another including “Taxi Driver”, “Raging Bull”, “The Deer Hunter”, “The Untouchables”, “Cape Fear”, “Heat” and that just scratches the surface. Unfortunately his filmography has soured recently due to a number of poor choices, but we are still seeing glimpses of what made him such an amazing actor. It is his natural talent, unabashed spunk, and huge charisma and there are very few that can do what he has done on screen.

#8 – Paul Newman

MEWMANHe may have the most recognizable pair of blue eyes in movie history, but he is also one of the greatest actors to ever grace the big screen. Paul Newman caught people’s attention very early on. In no time he was earning critical acclaim and numerous awards. In fact, while he only won one Academy Award, he received eight other acting Oscar nominations. One of my favorite Newman performances came early in his career with “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof”. But what set Newman apart from so many other actors was the high quality work he did at an older age. He would earn five of his Oscar nominations after 1980. I never recall seeing Newman struggle with a role. Sure he was a cool and good-looking fellow, but he was also a tremendous actor who always picked good roles and then knocked them out of the park.

#7 – Marlon Brando

BRANDOTalk about a wacky film career that mirrored an equally wacky personal life. Marlon Brando played his share of weird characters in bad films, but he is also credited with bringing an entirely new and realistic acting style to the movies. A great example of that came in 1951. “A Streetcar Named Desire” was only his second film but the stirring contrast between his performance and anything else at the time was clear. It introduced method acting to audiences and it was a signature of Brando’s style. He would earn Oscar nominations each of the next four years finally winning for his brilliant performance in “On the Waterfront”. The 60’s weren’t kind to him but he would win another Oscar for his iconic work in “The Godfather”. Brando was unique but he was also highly influential and his contributions to the art of acting can still be felt today.

#6 – Denzel Washington

DENZELIt took longer than it should have, but a few years ago I finally came around to understanding just how great of an actor Denzel Washington truly is. From his earliest roles he never lacked charisma. I has it in gallons. But it was in 1989 that the immensity of his talents first grabbed the most attention. His supporting work in “Glory” showed off an intensity and screen presence that would become a staple for years to come. He won his first Academy Award for the role. He would win another Oscar in 2001’s “Training Day”. He has been nominated a total of nine times. And I love his film choices which range from powerful biopics to dystopian thrillers. From action movies to intense family dramas. And out of almost 50 films he has made only one sequel. And the best part is that he is still going strong. He has three films in the works including a Coen Brothers vision of Macbeth. But no matter the film, I’ll see anything with Denzel Washington’s name attached.

#5 – Harold Lloyd

Harold LloydWhenever the silent movie era is talked about the wonderful comedians Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton are always mentioned. I adore those two film greats but I was always more drawn to the work of Harold Lloyd. Lloyd was a comic genius who was able to attract audiences with his addictive personality and amazing physical comedy. He made seven talkies but he will always be remembered for his silent features and shorts. His loveable and awkward characters with their nerdy black glasses and unbridled spunk were always able to evoke laughs while offering a surprisingly high amount of character development. Harold Lloyd was an amazing physical comedian and his daring side led him to do most of his own stunts. But he was much more than that. He was an artist and a master of the silent movie era.

#4 – Cary Grant

GRANTIf any actor had the complete package it was Cary Grant. He was suave, debonaire, and he had Hollywood good looks. He had an amazing sense for comedy and comedic timing. He could sweep audiences off their feet as a romantic leading man. He could handle all the curveballs thrown at him by mystery mastermind directors like Alfred Hitchcock. Grant had no weaknesses and his performances were always sharp and perfectly in tune with what the film needed. Watching him on screen was like a master class in acting. He completely understood his craft which explains why he was such a success. He was a huge box office draw and filmmakers loved to work with him. Unfortunately the Academy never seemed to get it. Cary Grant never won an acting Oscar which remains one of the most criminal mistakes in Oscar history.

#3 – Daniel Day-Lewis

DAY LEWISI never cease to be amazed by the work of Daniel Day-Lewis. I believe he is the premiere actor of our time – an actor who draws out every detail of his characters both physically and emotionally. It could be said that no actor puts more into their performance, both in preparation and delivery, than Day-Lewis. He is known for becoming his characters in order to perfectly understand them. For me he is the truest example of an acting artist. He has only twenty movies to his credit but within that filmography lies some of the greatest performances in film history. His work as Daniel Plainview in “There Will Be Blood” remains one of my favorite performances of all-time. Day-Lewis is the only man to have won three Best Actor Oscars and quite honestly he could have deservedly won more. He is tremendous in everything he does and he elevates each movie he is in.

#2 – James Stewart

STEWARTHow can anyone not love Jimmy Stewart? This incredible actor became known for his down-to-earth, everyday guy portrayals that truly resonated with audiences throughout his long and prominent career. There was never anything staged or false about Stewart. His performances always felt natural and authentic and he worked numerous times with some of film’s best directors including Alfred Hitchcock, Frank Capra, and Henry Koster. He not only starred in but he was the key ingredient to some of the biggest movie classics ever made. “It’s a Wonderful Life”, “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”, “Rear Window”, “Vertigo”, and “The Philadelphia Story” are just a few of the great pictures led by this fabulous actor. He loved making movies and his movies are a huge reason why I love them as well. He is undoubtedly one of the greatest.

#1 – Humphrey Bogart

BogartPerhaps there is a touch of favoritism here, but I truly believe that Humphrey Bogart is the greatest actor of all time. Bogie didn’t have the advantages that some actors did. He didn’t have leading man bravado or signature good looks. He brought a personality to his characters which led to typecasting early in his career but eventually to strong personas that bucked the common leading man trends of the time. Bogie was extremely honest in his performances and every bit of his commitment showed itself in his characters. He led some of the greatest movies in history including “The African Queen”, “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre”, “The Maltese Falcon”, and what I consider my favorite movie ever made “Casablanca”. Humphrey Bogart died too soon, but he left behind an impeccable movie legacy. Whether it was his early gangster pictures and studio-pushed projects or his unforgettable classics that have stood the test of time, Bogie always shined and he was an actor in its truest sense.

5 Phenomenal Kevin Costner Films

This coming weekend will bring the release of Kevin Costner’s third (yes I said third) film of 2014. I’m a huge fan of Costner and I can say it’s great to see him back after a lengthy hiatus. So in light of his return I thought it would be cool to spotlight this great actor in this week’s Phenomenal 5. Now the wonderful movies that didn’t make this list are a testament to the fantastic career he has had. Considering that I wouldn’t call this the definitive list. Still I have no trouble calling these five Kevin Costner films absolutely phenomenal.

#5 – “Open Range”

In 2003 Costner headed back to the old west alongside Robert Duvall in “Open Range”. Costner also hopped back into the director’s chair and reminded us of what an incredible cinematic eye he has. The story revolves around free grazing cattlemen who run into an Irish land hoarder who doesn’t want them anywhere around. A violent wild west clash explodes between the two groups ending in one of the best western shootouts ever put on screen. Costner is fabulous both in front and behind the camera which is the main reason the movie works so well.

#4 – “Field of Dreams”

FIELD

Kevin Costner has always had a heart for baseball movies. He made several throughout his career but for me his best is also the quintessential baseball film. “Field of Dreams” works for a variety of reasons. It captures everything that makes baseball so special to me. It also pricks my heart by telling a moving family story with a father as its centerpiece. And what a great cast. But Costner leads the way and he doesn’t miss a best. There is so much heart in this film and it’s one of those that I never get tired of watching.

#3 – “No Way Out”

No Way Out

If you look at Costner’s great filmography “No Way Out” is one that may get lost among the bigger titles and bigger hits. But I absolutely love the film and it is one of the best thrillers to come out of the 80’s. Costner plays a U.S Navy Lieutenant who gets caught up in a web of scandal, corruption, and espionage. There is a great supporting cast featuring Gene Hackman, Sean Young, and Will Patton but it’s Costner who ratchets up the nervousness and intrigue. It’s impossible not to get caught up in the story and it will keep you on edge right up to its big surprise finale.

#2 – “The Untouchables”

Untouchables

In many ways this is a nostalgic and sentimental choice but I can’t help myself. I love Brian De Palma’s “The Untouchables”. The film gives a very cinematic version of Agent Eliot Ness (Costner) and his Prohibition Era mission to bring gangster Al Capone (Robert De Niro) to justice. The movie takes a ton of liberties with the characters and the actual accounts but in terms of pure cinema it is hard to beat what De Palma gives us. Costner is perfectly cast and alongside the great Sean Connery he gives this story such vivid life.

#1 – “Dances with Wolves”

DANCES

Many critics have viewed “Dances with Wolves” as a good movie but undeserving of the Oscar accolades it received. I have to disagree. I think the film is beautiful, captivating, and epic. Costner directed and starred in the film which won seven Oscars including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Cinematography, and Best Original Score. There is no doubt that “Dances with Wolves” tinkers with historical fact for dramatic effect but it also tells a moving story and challenges many perceptions. But most importantly it is a great overall movie and despite the naysayers Costner pulled off a grand achievement.

So there are my five phenomenal movies from Kevin Costner. I automatically know a few that will be brought up (and should be) in the comments section below. I can’t wait to hear them and other Costner movies that may have made your list.