I feel it necessary to start off this review by stating that I am an atheist. I choose not to have any religion in my life. But I’d also like to state that I can fully enjoy a religious themed movie. The Passion of the Christ was a good movie. But The Nativity Story just simply is not.

The Nativity Story is one of the most familiar stories in the Western world, and is routinely told at this time of year. It’s the story of Jesus’ birth. And this film from director Catherine Hardwicke (Lords of Dogtown, Thirteen) covers his immaculate conception to his humble birth. Following the arranged marriage of Joseph (Oscar Isaac) and Mary (Keisha Castle-Hughes, The Whale Rider), Mary is visited by The Angel Gabriel (Alexander Siddig, Star Trek: Deep Space 9), telling her that she will carry and give birth to the son of God. She flees Nazareth for a brief period to gather her thoughts, staying with her cousin Elizabeth (Shohreh Agdashloo, 24) who is also miraculously pregnant. Mary returns noticeably pregnant, and is at first an outcast, but after Gabriel visits Joseph, he becomes a believer to. King Herod (Ciarán Hinds, Munich) orders every man to return to the town of their birth for a census, forcing Joseph to lead a very pregnant Mary back to the town of Bethlehem. They arrive just in time for her to go into labor, and are only able to find a manger to stay in. Jesus is born, everybody is happy. The end.

It’s the same old thing we’re drilled with time and time again, every December, with TV specials and recreations on the Discovery Channel. And that’s exactly what this feels like. I’m sure if I flip to TLC later tonight I would find “The Story of Mary” playing. It has only a slightly better production value than those made for TV movies, but only slightly better. But the whole production was very bland and mechanical, like they didn’t even try with it. It’s as if she, the producers and writer Mike Rich (Finding Forrester, The Rookie) felt that the story was good enough as is, so there would be no need to do anything special to it, which is where this film fails. I’m not implying there should have been a car chase or a fight scene, just jazz it up a bit. Make me care about Jesus. Do something new.

The cast was walking through that. I didn’t get the feeling that they really even cared about it. That it was just a paycheck for them. The only actor that impressed me was Isaac. It’s sort of a breakout performance for this Guatemalan actor who is relatively unknown in the States. His was the most impressive and engaging in the film. He really captures your attention and emotion and holds it throughout. When the focus shifts to Mary at Elizabeth’s house, you want to go back to Joseph.

The most insulting part of the production is the three wise men. They’re used as comedic relief, as almost every scene they’re in (the exception being the manger scene) features jokes and “witty” banter. I fail to see why this film needed moments of levity. It’s ok to be serious. Especially with Jesus. You don’t mess with Jesus.

What it all comes down to is, was this film necessary? I think this film begs that question. It wants to have significance, but it doesn’t offer anything that you can’t get with a church sermon or a PBS special.

1.5 Stars

Modern science fiction has been greatly influenced by George Lucas. It’s become this big grand production of epic proportions. New age auteur Darren Aronofsky (Pi, Requiem for a Dream) has dared to scale back the genre, falling more in tune with Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Oddity, making The Fountain, starring Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz one of the more intriguing sci-fi films in recent years.

The base story of The Fountain is about Tommy and Izzy Creo (Jackman and Weisz, respectively). Tommy is a contemporary research scientist trying to figure out the cure for cancer, which his wife Izzy has. He believes he has found it in an ancient Central American tree. Meanwhile Izzy is finishing her novel set in 1500 Spain about Queen Isabel, who sends Conquistador Tomas on a mission to find the tree of life in New Spain (Central America). The third portion of the story is set in 2500, where Tommy has lived for the past 500 and is waiting for the tree to enter a nebula and be destroyed.

I could spend the entire review trying to explain the plot, but it’s too intricate to do so. Jackman is still trying to prove his worth and talent as an actor to the general film going public, and after this and The Prestige from earlier this year, I don’t think he has anything left to prove. He’s a very capable actor, and his scenes as present day Tommy were some of the most touching I’ve ever seen in a sci-fi film. Weisz continues to push herself as an actress, taking on challenging or different roles than what she could take, and thus stretching her dramatic range, making her that much more appealing as an actress.

Aronofsky is of the new generation of filmmaking, the millennial generation. Where Kevin Smith, Quentin Tarantino and David Fincher led the pack in the 90’s, Aronofsky is in the company of Christopher Nolan and Richard Kelly on the front lines of 21^st century filmmaking. He retools a genre that’s become known for being bombastic, goofy and out there. He evokes drama and emotion from the genre and it’s simply moving. I can’t wait to see more of his work

The primary reason Aronofsky is so engaging as a filmmaker is his visual style. It’s not enough for him to present a beautiful and wondrous tale; he does so in a beautiful and wondrous way. The scenes set in the future take place in space in this sort of, bubble. The tree and some of the surrounding earth is floating in a bubble towards the nebula that was believed by the Mayans to be the afterlife. It’s one of the most beautiful effects created. The Queens palace in the 1500 set scenes is just as stunning. The room was lit by an amazing series of suspended candles, and it provides some of the most aesthetically pleasing visuals I’ve seen all year.

Aronofsky’s gift for making an intriguing web of a film is a curse upon his talent that sometimes he gets so far into his own world that he forgets that the audience isn’t inside his head with him. The futuristic scenes aren’t made clear in their narrative intentions till about halfway through the film, confounding the audience to their impact on the story. But it’s a treat to look at, so you almost don’t even mind.

It’s a welcome step outside the generic mainstream, which I can only assume is Aronofsky’s intention.

4.5 Stars

Eerily released almost 43 years to the day after John F. Kennedy was assassinated, Bobby is about the people present at the Ambassador hotel at the time of the assassination of JFK’s younger brother, Robert F. Kennedy.

The film tells somewhat interconnected stories of roughly 20 people who were at RFK campaign headquarters on the day of the California primary, including an aging singer (Demi Moore), two elderly doormen (Anthony Hopkins and Harry Belafonte) who have seen literally everything, a young couple trying to stay out of the war (Elijah Wood and Lindsay Lohan), and various hotel workers dealing with daily stresses compounded by the political event (William H. Macy, Christian Slater and Freddy Rodriguez).

To tell you all the stars who were in this movie would be to take up all the space that’s afforded to me. There’s so many, it’s easier to tell you who gave the best performances. Moore was engaging, Rodriguez was heartbreaking, Hopkins was amusing and Shia LaBeouf was just great as the young campaign worker worried about going to war. And the acid trip scenes were just amusing. In a movie littered with acting giants and stalwarts, the two standouts were a couple of relatively unknown kids in LaBeouf and Rodriguez. I see great things for both of them in the years to come.

One thing that I never thought I’d say, in all my years as a film fan and then critic, is could an Oscar nomination be on the horizon for Bobby director Emilio Estevez? This is Coach Bombay (The Mighty Ducks) having written and directed one of the best films of the year. It’s still taking me some time to wrap my head around that. But he did a fantastic job. He faltered with the pacing. It was scattered, and trying to corral the stories of 22 major characters is a lofty endeavor. I commend him for trying, but it was ultimately too much and got out of control, he was barely able to bring it back in for the closing.

Leaving that looseness aside, where the film succeeds, where Estevez succeeds, is in the presentation the film. He presents it in such a manner that really captures the spirit of the era, of Bobby Kennedy. He and his exquisitely talented cast put us back in an era of hope, an era of faith in our political leaders. RFK had come along at the right point in history. His brother was assassinated just five years prior, Martin Luther King Jr. just three months prior and he was seen as the hope of the nation by his supporters.

The tone of the country was mixed at that time. There was distrust going on. New Orleans District Attorney William Garrison was just starting his investigations into the JFK assassination. Dr. King and Malcolm X were dead, the country was in the midst of the Vietnam War. It was a nation of turmoil. And RFK was the hope. If anyone could have made the nation great, it was him.

It seems to be perfect timing on Estevez’s part to release this at this time in history. There are plenty of parallels between the time period of the movie and now. Country in turmoil, in the middle of a popular war, and there is possibly a candidate out there that could be considered the hope of the nation. A lot of people are looking at Barack Obama as a new kind of politician, to bring about change, and that he could be the next president.

In that capacity, capturing the late 60’s and relating it to present day, Bobby succeeds. That accomplishment alone overshadows the organizational pitfalls.

4.5 Stars

Casino Royale is gritty, visceral, bloody, violent throwback to the stripped down James Bond flicks of the 60’s, a great diversion from the CG and gadget heavy films of the 90’s and 2000’s.

Casino Royale is about the start of James Bond’s (Daniel Craig) career. From the time he gets promoted to a 00 agent (license to kill) and his first major assignment, Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) who helps finance various terrorist organizations around the world. His investigation takes him to Madagascar, the Bahamas and finally to Italy to compete against Le Chiffre in a high stakes ($10 million buy in) poker game in order to take down Le Chiffre’s business, with the help of fellow M16 agent Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini), British Treasury agent Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) and CIA agent Felix Leiter (Jeffrey Wright).

The writers (Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Paul Haggis) and director (veteran Bond director Martin Campbell) had this idea that in order to compete for super-spy supremacy in the modern world of Jason Bourne and Jack Bauer, who have their brains, their brawn, and little else to go on, a CG flick with more futuristic gadgets than Batman wouldn’t fly, and opted for a stripped down, no-nonsense film. Early on in the film, the free-style walking/movement technique known as Parkour is heavily used in a very long but very intense chase scene between Bond and an African bomb maker (who is played by one of the creators of Parkour). The most high tech gadget Bond is given throughout the whole film is the portable defibrillator in his glove compartment.

Obviously, when discussing a new Bond flick that features a new actor portraying the world’s most famous spy, discussion of his performance is a top priority. Everyone wants to know how he’ll do. And there has been no greater scrutiny of a casting decision than that of Craig for Bond. Craig (Layer Cake, Munich) comes in at a very close second to Sean Connery for best Bond. He’s got the swagger. The charismatic, cocky, “I’m the baddest mother” in the room swagger. But since he’s playing a younger, less experienced Bond, he also has an intensity and naivety to his performance that makes it much more than just another Bond, it propels him to a high plane. You actually take note of Craig’s talent for acting, not just his talent for portraying Bond.

Craig’s supporting cast is just wonderful. The beautiful and talented French actress Green (The Dreamers, Kingdom of Heaven) is a mesmerizing Bond girl. Mikkelsen is one of the best villains we’ve seen since Christopher Walken in A View to a Kill. Wright, Giannini and Dame Judi Dench round out the stellar cast that help Craig slip into Bond’s tuxedo with ease.

But however impressive this film may have been, it was still a rookie film. It felt like a rookie film. Craig played Bond to the best of his abilities at the time, but he’s still trying to gather his full bearings. His second film will be simply amazing. He’ll be more comfortable with the character. And the film just didn’t feel the same without the beloved Q branch.

I would have accepted this film as just a straight spy film. It didn’t need the James Bond brand. And there are times when it doesn’t feel like a Bond film. Because when you think of Bond, you think beautiful women, fantastical gadgets, and vodka martinis, shaken not stirred. Giving Bond depth, emotion and multiple layers sends the franchise in a whole new direction. Only time will tell if that works for the cocky ladies man.

4 Stars

Stranger Than Fiction

3 Stars

I always welcome the notion of a career comedian steps out of his element and turns to drama. It’s done well for the likes of Jim Carrey in “The Truman Show”, Robin Williams in “Good Will Hunting” and Jamie Foxx in “Ray”. We’re able to add Will Ferrell to that list, who takes a break from his usual goofy, over-the-top shtick to take on a toned down and more serious role in Marc Forster’s (“Finding Neverland”) new film “Strange Than Fiction.”

Ferrell plays Harold Crick, a lonely IRS agent who lives a simple and menial life until he starts hearing a woman’s voice narrating his life. He decides it’s not schizophrenia, as the voice isn’t communicating to him, it’s just talking about him and what he does, and seeks out help from a literature professor (Dustin Hoffman) to help him figure out what the narrator means by “imminent death.” After the pseudo-soul searching he’s forced into, he changes his life so as to live it to it’s fullest before his death.

It’s a comedy of sorts. There are plenty of jokes in Zach Helm’s script to keep it light, but it’s still a somber piece that keeps the audience hooked by having us trying to figure out the end just as much as Crick is. And through the scenes involving Emma Thompson’s writer character Kay Eiffel, you become entrenched with the life and outcome of Crick.

Ferrell is of course the star, and he is able to prove to audiences that he is more than a “frat-pack” goofball. His emotional and subdued performance is gold and I can only hope that he does more dramatic work in the future.

I have yet to come across a performance of Hoffman’s that I don’t like. Sure some are better than others, but I’ve enjoyed them all. This is one of his average ones, and certainly won’t be one that will be spoken of at an Academy Awards or AFI tribute to him, but seeing a good actor work isn’t something that should be passed up. Maggie Gyllenhaal is still doing a balancing act between independent features and major studio productions. Here she plays the love interest of Crick, and while I don’t dislike her as an actor, she has yet to do a major studio film where she’s really good. She handles the smaller, edgier fair much better and until she finds a stronger voice, should stick to those for a while.

And that’s pretty much how the whole film goes. There is no wow factor to it. Hoffman, Thompson, Queen Latifah and Gyllenhaal, all competent, capable actors give middling performances in an intriguing film, but goes the route of the Hollywood happy ending, rather than the shockingly depressing ending. There’s almost a wink and a nod to the movie in relation to Eiffel’s book in a scene between Hoffman and Thompson. It’s ok but not great. And Thompson says she’s comfortable with ok, and explains her rationale behind it. It seems like the writer, director, actors and producers settled on ok, rather than trying for great. It works as an ok film. But that’s ultimately all it is, Ferrell’s award caliber performance aside.

Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan

4.5 Stars

“Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan” not only has one of the longest titles recent cinematic history, but it’s also one of the funniest and most offensive films I’ve seen. And I love it.

Borat Sagdiyev (Sacha Baron Cohen) is Kazakhstan’s top television reporter, and he’s sent to America with a film crew to learn about American culture, and bring his findings back to his beloved homeland, with the hopes of bringing Kazakhstan into modern cultural relevancy. He is naïve in the way of American manners, decency and political correctness, saying or doing whatever comes to mind, and has clearly never heard the phrase “when in Rome.” The people he interacts with are either offended by what he does or oddly accepting. It’s like when adults interact with a three year old who does something wrong. They turn their heads and say “oh, isn’t that precious.” But Borat isn’t content with that; he has to take it to the point of offensiveness.

The hilarity is that the joke is on us. He isn’t making fun of Kazakhstan, as they’re government believes (they event went so far as to taking out a four page ad in the New York Times denouncing the film). He is making fun of American ignorance. He goads people into saying things on camera that makes them look stupid or bigoted. In the South, at a rodeo, he gets one of the riders to admit that America should to make homosexuality punishable by death. In New Mexico, he hitches a ride with some fraternity boys from California, and gets them to say that everyone should have slaves, and women are beneath men.

He doesn’t trick them by asking them leading questions. These are candid conversations with the subjects. It could be construed as a trick, since it is Cohen in character, but I would hardly feel any sympathy for the subjects, as they were being honest in their bigotry. That and laughing at the clueless is just good old fashioned fun.

Cohen has proven himself to be one of the finest comedic actors of our time in just about everything he does. His devotion to his craft is unrivaled. He never broke character when he was doing his television show, “Da Ali G Show.” In the movie he never breaks character. In the weeks and months leading up to the premiere of the film, he would only appear in character, in order to keep the illusion and the joke going. He really makes his subjects, and at times the audience, believe that he is, in fact, a Kazakh journalist.

I’d have to say the best moment of staying in character was the fight in the hotel Borat had with the producer Azamat Bagatov (Ken Davitian). They take it from the room, down the hall, into the elevator, through the lobby and crash a Mortgage Bankers conference in a ballroom, never breaking character. It is pure dedication, and I have never laughed so hard in my life.

The mockumentary gets bogged down by an actual (and very thin) plot. Originally the documentary Borat was shooting was to stay only in New York City. But he falls in love with Pamela Anderson after seeing an episode of “Baywatch” and decides he has to travel to California to marry her. It’s an obvious “deus ex machina” that sets the action in motion, but is totally unnecessary. The Pamela Anderson meeting wasn’t really that funny when compared to the rest of the film, and the cross country travel could have been easily explained another way.

But silly plotlines aside, it’s one of the smartest and most intriguing comedies in a long time. I really can’t remember a movie where I laughed this hard, at least not since 2003’s “Bad Santa.”

The Santa Clause 3

1 Star

I refuse to acknowledge the sequel rule. The rule that states all sequels are inherently inferior to their predecessors. There have been plenty of sequels out there that have far surpassed the original that just prove the theory wrong. But then there are films that completely prove that theory right. “The Santa Clause” was a perfectly nice movie when it came out 12 years ago. “The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause” was just terrible, and almost a disservice to the memory of the original.

Santa (Tim Allen) has to deal with life as a newlywed with a baby due right around Christmas time (his obvious busiest time of the year), and his wife, Carol (Elizabeth Mitchell) yearning for familial company that isn’t an elf. Santa decides to invite Carol’s parents (Alan Arkin and Ann-Margret) up to the North Pole to keep her company. This poses the problem of hiding the fact that he’s Santa for the duration of the stay. And did I mention that an ornery Jack Frost (Martin Short) is trying to take over Christmas for financial gain?

The cast is fortunately able to work with what they’re given (which isn’t much). I’m always entertained by the underrated Allen. Mitchell is experiencing a thrust in popularity lately, mostly due to her impressive role on the new season of “Lost”, but she’s always been somewhat of a hidden gem of a character actor, and is finally getting some recognition. Arkin, in my opinion, was the real joy of this film. He’s always funny, and a treat to watch on film. He’s got this old school comedic timing that’s reminiscent of Sid Caesar, and it’s interesting to see how that plays off the younger comedic generation comedic in Allen, and then further down to the younger performers playing the elves.

But cast performances aside, I’m not entirely sure what is more insulting to me as a viewer. Is it the poor writing on a pure mechanical level or is it the fact that it hypocritically scolds us in a “holier than thou” manner while being completely unoriginal, and doing so poorly at it? If I look at it on the pure mechanical level, it is technically two full stories. One stretches the course of the entire film, and the other is awkwardly implanted in the middle. In the pure mechanical sense of narrative writing, it should have been broken into two separate films.

The first one being the annoying plotline of Jack Frost trying to steal Christmas away from Santa. It sounds like a rejected Rankin/Bass special from the 1970’s. The all too sweet and simple dialogue seems to downplay the talent (however immense or minute) of the adult actors onscreen, and makes it somewhat painful to endure as an audience member.

The second plotline was borrowed directly from “It’s A Wonderful Life”. Replace “I wish I’d never been born” with “I wish I’d never been Santa Clause” and you’ve got it. The only problem is that Santa/Scott isn’t trying to learn a lesson. There’s no lesson to be learned or taught. And this cycles back to this film as a whole being an insult to the viewers. It tells the audience that the spirit of Christmas is what’s important, not the monetary or material gain. But if a third and unnecessary “Santa Clause” film isn’t a desperate grab at the pocketbooks of parents, I’m not entirely sure what is.

There are a plethora of really good holiday films out there for everyone to enjoy. They’re better, and they have a better message. In the next two months you’ll be inundated with holiday programming on television and in the video stores. Find something other than this. There’s even another Christmas movie coming out in two weeks. You’ll do better with that. “The Santa Clause 3” is just a mess of a film.

The Prestige

4.5 Stars

Very rarely does a film tell you exactly what’s going to happen within the first five minutes. And it’s one in a billion that the movie still keeps you on the edge of your seat right up until you say “Oh my god” at the end. Such is the new thriller “The Prestige”.

Brothers Jonathan and Christopher Nolan (writer and director, respectively) team up again for the first time since 2000’s “Memento” to adapt Christopher Priest’s novel about two magicians in the late nineteenth century, dueling for supremacy. Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman) and Alfred Borden (Christian Bale) start their careers as audience plants for an aging magician. After the untimely death of Angier’s wife, which he blames Borden for, the two separate and challenge each other for best entertainer in London. As they progress the challenge further and further, it begins to get dangerous for the two men, both sustaining sever injuries.

Angier has greater means at his disposal, enlisting the help of his manager Cutter (Michael Caine), assistant Olivia (Scarlett Johnasson) and famed physicist/engineer Nikola Tesla (David Bowie). But Borden is craftier; having the most magnificent trick that Angier just can’t figure out.

Nolan is one of the most intriguing directors of this generation. His films unfold in a way that’s conducive to the actual plot of the movie. “Memento” was told backwards, so we had the same feeling of being lost as the main character. In “The Prestige”, Caine explains the structure in the form of a magic act. First act is the pledge, the set up the exposition, as with any story. The turn is where we see that there’s something more to the story than meets the eye. And the titular prestige, that’s the payoff, the wow factor. And it’s an amazing payoff. They tell you to expect the unexpected, but you’re still fascinated and glued to your seat.

The film is presented in a very dark and sinister manner, which accentuates the escalating duel between the magic men. It’s the same tone Nolan brought to the resuscitated “Batman” franchise.

It’s a supremely talented cast that Nolan was able to put together, everyone at the top of their game. Jackman is the real stand-out, breaking away from his action persona he’s carved for himself and taking on a demanding dramatic role that showcases his true talent. Bale continues his impressive streak as one of the top actors of this generation. He has this intense screen presence that very few others have and is just mystifying. You could see it in “American Psycho” and “Batman Begins”, his performance is what really made those films, and helps propel this one. But I can’t forget the scene stealer in Bowie. He plays the role of Tesla very dark and restrained, giving him this air of creepiness.

I can’t wait to see what the sibling auteurs do with future projects (including a “Batman Begins” sequel), but if their tried and true track record holds, we’re in for a cinematic treat.

The Departed

5 Stars

Martin Scorsese’s new crime drama “The Departed” cements the Irish mob’s takeover of the crime entertainment monopoly from the Italian mafia. With Jack Nicholson at his best since 1992 and Matt Damon and Leonardo DiCaprio giving the performances of their careers, it’s hard to deny the sheer power exuded on screen by these three fine actors.

Frank Costello (Nicholson) is Boston’s top crime boss. The Special Investigations Unit of the Massachusetts State Police in Boston has been assigned to take him down. Billy Costigan (DiCaprio) is sent deep undercover to gather all the information he can on Costello and his organization. The only people who know of his true identity are his two supervisors. Costello meanwhile has planted a mole, Colin Sullivan (Damon), inside the SIU to keep him one step ahead of the law. But being so entrenched in the lies and deception is beginning to take its toll on the two young men.

This is Scorsese’s best film since 1990’s “Goodfellas”. There’s always been a brutality to his films, and in his nearly 40 year career as a director, it doesn’t get any more violent than his saga of two undercover agents on the opposite sides of the law. What’s even more intriguing about all the violence and bloodshed is that quite a bit of it isn’t shown on camera. Costello walks out from the backroom of a bar drenched in blood, obviously having just done some serious dirty work. It keeps the air of mystery about Costello going around. You don’t know what he did, but you know it was big, bad and dirty.

Noted Russian author and playwright Anton Chekov once said that if they see a gun onstage in the first act, the audience will expect it to go off by the third. This emphasizes an attention to detail that Scorsese utilizes to make everything in his entire world, the one he created for his movie, to be expertly planned out. From the café Costigan fights the mafia in to the FBI guy sitting in on the SIU meeting. Everything means something. It makes for a much more engrossing, multi-layered film.

I could go on and on about Jack Nicholson. But come on, it’s Jack Nicholson. How do you think he did? The three people that really warrant the most praise are younger actors Damon, DiCaprio and Vera Farmiga, who plays the love interest of both Costigan and Sullivan. They steal the spotlight from consummate and seasoned veterans Nicholson, Martin Sheen and Alec Baldwin. Pay particularly close attention to DiCaprio. He’s fully shed that pin-up boyish look from the late 90’s and has this brooding, angsty maturity as Costigan that brings his tortured character to life.

One could argue that this just adds to the deterioration of American society. That it’s a glorification of violence and crime. With criminals being seen as idols to be worshipped while cops should be seen as oppressors. But looking at the cadre of violent and crime worshipping movies that have come out in the past 20 years, this one would hardly register. It’s the most entertaining film of the year, and one the best. It’s definitely one to watch come awards season.

When I chose the films to be in the all time Top Five horror film list, I really had to think about which films are both cinematically good, and which ones left an impression on the on the art of the genre. There were plenty others I could have chosen, both modern and classic, but I feel these were the ones that really defined the genre as a whole, and their respective sub-genres. They don’t get much better than these five.

1) Night of the Living Dead (1968)

George A. Romero marked the start of his 40 year long zombie legacy with a film about survival and sheer terror. The cultural significance of “Night of the Living Dead” far out shadows anything any other film could do. The casting of Jones, an African American, in the role of Ben, the hero, sparked a controversy like no other, as a black hero for a cast of (primarily female) whites was unheard of at the time. It’s unrelenting in the scares department and the lasting impact it made on the horror genre is undeniable.

2) Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens (a Symphony of Horrors) (1922)

It’s amazing that the film has survived to this day, as every copy was ordered destroyed by Bram Stoker’s estate, as “Dracula” had yet to fall into public domain, and “Nosferatu” violated copyright laws. Luckily for us, a few prints survived, and have been restored for us to enjoy on DVD and television. The most powerful image that comes from this film is the shadow of Count Orlok creeping up a staircase. That, for me, is horror, the impending doom that the shadow signifies.

3) Jaws (1975)

“Jaws” succeeds by appeasing to a very real fear people have. Deep water is real. Great white sharks that are 25 feet long are real. People are scared of these things, and Steven Spielberg knew exactly how to play to these fears. You don’t see the shark in full until the third act, but the fear is still there. The opening shot of Susan Backlinie being dragged back and forth across the screen by an unknown terror haunts the dreams of swimmers to this day. And then when you finally see the shark, when it’s too late, creeping up on Chief Brody as he’s tossing chum into the ocean it’s this moment of shock that makes you utter words unprintable here.

4) Scream (1996)

It’s one of the smartest horror films to date, by skewering the tired clichés that had been used in countless teen slasher flicks. It stayed serious, but never too serious, never exuding the “wink and nudge” philosophy of the standard parody. Billy Loomis is one of the creepiest villains of the slasher genre, darkly twisted and disillusioned with the real world. And he works on a different level than Freddy or Jason, because he is a real person that exists in the real world.

5) Saw (2004)

It plays to a sick, twisted, demented part of our minds that revels in the torture of others. A dark corner that we refuse to acknowledge, but readily exists in all of us. It’s a more serious and frightening version of “Jackass”. And Jigsaw is the cinematic parable of everyone’s God complex; deciding the fate of others, sitting on high, judging those around. It’s a perfect allegory for people’s hidden desires that they refuse to admit to, but get to revel in for an hour and a half in a dark movie theatre surrounded by people thinking the same thing they are.