The Little Prince Review

"It is only with heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."

I felt it was appropriate to start this off with a quote that not only is spoken in the film but also describes why it totally won me over as well. On the surface The Little Prince undoubtedly treads in similar waters as many stories that were told before it. Here we follow a little girl (voiced by Interstellar breakout Mackenzie Foy) who is unable to embrace the wonders of childhood because of her mother (Rachel McAdams) who tries to make her daughter grow up fast, keeping her on a rigid and joyless schedule meant to further her education and future career aspirations yet lock her away from the depths of her own imagination. When the girl and her mother move to a new house, their next door neighbor is an old man known only as the Aviator (Jeff Bridges), and his home is a reflection of his personality. A man so creative and eccentric doesn't blend into a grey, routine filled existence. The Aviator introduces the girl to his world, one filled with magic and endless possibilities. It's a world that revolves around the story of the Little Prince.

The beats of the story may lead down a predictable path, but lord, the process of getting there is tremendously moving and imaginative. The film balances two completely different worlds and animation styles, one that is computer animated that displays reality and then stop motion when telling the story of the Little Prince. While the stop motion pieces of the film are more striking and interestingly detailed considering how commonplace computer animation is these days, both provide some truly stunning imagery along the way. Of course, this is only a small part of why I love this film. 

"It is only with heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."

The Little Prince struck a chord in my heart that allowed it to transcend any criticism I have over narrative familiarity. It's just a beautiful picture across the board, and the relationship between the little girl and the Aviator is full of so much warmth. Seeing her eyes open to what was around her, as she realizes how big the world is after her mother spent so much time making it feel small, was really special. The soul of The Little Prince reverberates through every moment, big and small, and it is essential. It is only with heart that I could feel it all. Despite so many frames being soaked in emotion and beauty, the true reason why I am still glowing from this experience is invisible to the eye.

Distributed in the U.S. by Netflix and available to stream there now, safe to say The Little Prince is a front runner for animated film of the year. As much as I love both Zootopia and Finding Dory, neither made me feel quite this wonderful.

4.5/5

Star Trek Beyond Review

Let me be clear right from the start: I am no Star Trek historian. In fact as of 2009 I couldn't even call myself a Star Trek fan on any level, as I had literally never seen a single thing from the universe that Gene Roddenberry created so many years ago. Nothing. Not a single episode of the show and not a single film. If it wasn't for a steady flow of positive word of mouth coming from those who had seen the 2009 J.J. Abrams reboot, I can't promise when I would have watched that one either but I gave it a shot, and I absolutely loved it. Still do. Same can be said for its sequel Star Trek Into Darkness, which falls a bit short of the first but plays right into my wheelhouse in terms of tone and entertainment value.

I prefaced my feelings about the two new films with my total lack of Trek knowledge because the main issue I have heard from many regarding the Abrams take on these stories (especially Into Darkness) is that it just doesn't feel like the Star Trek that many knew and loved growing up, and also the fact that apparently the second film is too much of a mirror image of previous work meant to whip up nostalgia rather than tell a compelling and original story. Whether Abrams captured the spirit of what true Star Trek should feel like, I do not know. Whether he apes the ground others had previously tread for him, I cannot possibly know since I have never walked that ground before, and even if he did it might be hypocritical of me to criticize considering it's the same detraction I see a lot of when it comes to The Force Awakens and yet I loved every damn second of that film.

The point is, I am judging these modern takes on the Trek universe with a different perspective than many, as even today as I am writing about Star Trek Beyond I am still yet to see anything prior to 2009. I was told to check out Wrath of Khan. I think I will. Until then, this is the way I see these three films, like it or not, because my mind cannot pretend to be upset about something it does not know. Maybe someday I will see what many see and understand where the vitriol and furthermore the celebratory attitude towards a change in director comes from, as Justin Lin took over for Abrams for the third film. This current trilogy is my Star Trek, and as such, consider me a fan.

As for the new installment, I will admit that I had some pretty huge concerns after seeing the first trailer however many months ago. After Star Trek Into Darkness left many dissatisfied thanks to its mimicry of past material, I couldn't help but think that what I was seeing now was a clear attempt to replicate the success of Guardians of the Galaxy, a film that managed to (somehow) seamlessly weave deep space, science fiction oddness with real world music and references, and James Gunn pulled it off in what is still my favorite Marvel film to date. The thing is, the reason it worked is because it was so refreshingly unique, so when someone says "What's the next Guardians of the Galaxy?" the answer is, it's impossible, unless of course we are taking the question literally and then it would be Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2. No other director can capture that same lightning in a bottle because it was already caught and released onto the world, and trying to duplicate that feeling in an audience will unquestionably end up falling short.

The good news is, while Star Trek Beyond did venture into a bit of Guardians type territory by incorporating seemingly out of place musical cues as mechanisms for both humor and action, for the most part it manages to be entirely its own thing, an adventure to deep space that maintains the same extremely impressive ensemble from the Abrams films while taking on a bit of a different tone. The adventure aspect of this film is something that completely worked for me as even as a defender of the two previous films, Abrams chose to make the stories more grounded and gritty at the expense of exploration and imagination.

I mentioned the impressive ensemble and yes, the usual suspects all continue to showcase terrific performances and the always building and maturing chemistry between the characters. It broke my heart to watch Anton Yelchin on the screen knowing that if this series lives on, he will not be a part of it which is such a shame. 2016 was the year that my admiration for him as an actor broke out after watching his outstanding turn in Green Room, and he is giving a meaty amount of screen time here with Star Trek Beyond as well and does not disappoint. Anton, you will be missed. Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, John Cho, and Simon Pegg (who also wrote the film) are all on point and have been a major reason for my admiration for all three of these films.

As for the new faces to the screen, Sofia Boutella (likely best known for her role in Kingsman: The Secret Service) is a really enjoyable addition to the mix here as Jaylah, a character that is stumbled upon when the crew is stranded on a remote planet and she serves as the crucial piece to present them an opportunity to have a chance to return home. She forms a really solid bond with Pegg's Scotty, both literally on screen as their communication forms a bridge of trust between her and the rest of the crew and in the sense that something about the two of them, Pegg and Boutella that is, work together really well and the dialogue between them comes off as genuine.

If there is an Idris Elba fan club out there, allow me to join it. I love the man, a gifted actor who constantly does outstanding work regardless of the material he is given, which is why I find myself disappointed right now after sitting down for Star Trek Beyond expecting the villain to shine. Elba does quite well with what he is asked to do, which unfortunately is very little and extremely forgettable, and even in the end the motivations of his Krall character proved to be underwhelming. I get it, why he is so angry with the Federation. When they do flesh out the reasons for his obsessive and murderous agenda, it all makes sense, but it is sorted out in a hurry and falls limp, the type of thing that isn't muddled now but will end up seeming that way years later when people try to remember what exactly pushed him over the edge because the writing of this revelation and the way it is elaborated upon didn't resonate strongly with me.

I know Eric Bana's Nero from the first film is considered a weak villain, and it's true he didn't bring a ton on screen beyond progressing the story forward, but at least the motivations for his actions were presented clearly, meaningfully and expounded upon with enough emotional power to sell me that while he is by definition a "bad guy", at least I can see where his vengeful desires came from. Krall is a let down of a villain, a side show to the extremely likable main cast of characters and their clever dialogue that often kept a smile plastered across my face. It's actually because of the crew of the Enterprise and the words Pegg, along with co-writer Doug Jung, gave them that has made this film more enjoyable in retrospect than it played originally, as I sit here thinking back to various moments and lines that were extremely well done.

Without a doubt I am a fan of Star Trek Beyond and will proudly sit it along side the previous two films, but with a shockingly uninteresting villain played by a profoundly interesting man and just a general lack of a wow factor for me throughout the movie, I find myself a little less on board with the picture as a whole than I hoped to be. It's a fun adventure, and even without ever seeing it I can appreciate those that have compared it to an episode of the original series because it did feel a bit episodic which could explain where I am coming up short. I walked out of the cinema feeling the same way I would have after a fun and exciting episode of a series, but under those circumstances I would be wondering what was coming next week or at most next season. When I walked in I was anticipating an event, a follow up to a film that felt like just that two years earlier, and perhaps my expectations were misguided. This might be a perfect example of where filling in the massive amounts of Trek emptiness from the past would have helped me, as perhaps I could have appreciated the journey on a higher level and had it mean a heck of a lot more if I knew where the inspiration behind it was coming from.

Don't let me rain on any parades with the misconception that I disliked Star Trek Beyond, it's a really good movie and I had a blast with it, but something feels missing. Perhaps I will eventually find it and a revisit will be even more rewarding.




3.5/5

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice Ultimate Edition Review

Back when Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was released in theaters, I came home very late at night (technically very early in the morning) and started furiously typing, explaining my issues with the film and yet the tone wasn't one of them. Everywhere I look I see people tearing down the movie for its grim aesthetic and mostly humorless dialogue, but these aspects actually work as a positive for me rather than a negative. I don't subscribe to the notion that a picture involving superheroes must be light and airy, that I need to feel like I am having fun the entire time in order to enjoy the experience. Just make a good film. Zack Snyder sorta did.

The reasons that I felt compelled to come home and start furiously typing those issues the first time around basically boiled down to two things: pacing and the villain. It may sound impossible to many, but the theatrical cut being 150 minutes long was too short, a film with a scattershot narrative as it desperately tried to build an entire cinematic universe in one story where as Marvel achieved theirs prior to any Avengers team up event by releasing 5 films spanning 4 years. Sure, we may know the Batman character inside and out from the decades of comics, television and film, but it is still up to Snyder to introduce us to THIS Batman and he did so, but at a disservice to his man of steel. Technically serving as a sequel to a film by that very name, Man of Steel, Henry Cavill obviously an integral part of the story of this film and yet his character feels short changed by a lens more focused in on Ben Affleck's brooding bat.

The new Ultimate Edition that was recently released on Blu-ray incorporates thirty minutes of scenes deleted for the theatrical cut and the result of adding them back in is a better film, plain and simple. Even when some scenes feel like they were worthy of deletion, they still enhanced the movie by making the story flow better and the whole ends up being a much more pleasurable watch. Superman is giving a few extra moments too and they help, and I couldn't help but think about what a shame it is that the world didn't get to see this cut initially and perhaps have a slightly better opinion of the movie. Slightly.

See, if you hated the film the first time, the Ultimate Edition will do nothing for you. Perhaps it will actually make you more angry because it's the same tone and style and writing and performances as the movie you already saw, only longer. Therefore, if you belong to that camp, don't take what I say as an endorsement that a revisit with this new look at Batman v Superman will change your mind, because it won't. However, if you are like me and you enjoyed the movie the first time but had reservations, it's entirely possible that this more pleasurably paced picture will cure what ails ya.

As for the villain, I was hoping that Jesse Eisenberg's portrayal of Lex Luthor would win me over with a second look. It was even worse this time. His twitchy, quirky take on the megalomaniac billionaire drives me nuts almost every single time he is in the frame, spare a scene or two where he was giving good dialogue and dropped the ridiculous mannerisms for a moment. That scene where he introduces Clark to Bruce at a party is cringe worthy awful and I still find it baffling that it was something included in the trailer ahead of the film's release, an advertisement meant to draw people into the cinema. For all the good that I find throughout this film, finding myself legitimately excited for the Wonder Woman solo effort after Gal Gadot was introduced as the character here, looking forward to a Batman movie directed by Affleck himself, being optimistic about the first Justice League team up due out next year, the idea of having to see more of Eisenberg as this character brings my enthusiasm down a notch or two.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is never going to be a perfect film, no matter how many different cuts they could release in the future. It is deeply flawed and has already proven to rub many the wrong way with its joyless determination to prove the superhero sub-genre doesn't need to crack jokes and fling colors at our faces for hours, but for me at the very least the additional half hour made me appreciate the movie a little bit more. Enough to bump my original score up by a half star and look forward to what turns out to be an improved cinematic universe going forward.



3.5/5

Tony Robbins: I Am Not Your Guru Review

I think the problem with a lot of the anger we find in the rhetoric on either side of any coin these days is the inability for a person to think and rationalize with nuance. It's all centered around what does this mean to me, what do I believe without anyone stopping to think, what does it mean to others? Why do people feel differently than me? We need to step outside of our bubble, our comfort zone for just a minute and look at the big picture.

I am not going to be a hypocrite and claim I have always had the ability to do this myself, it isn't the case. Just a few years ago I would have taken one glance at a seminar hosted by Tony Robbins and written off anyone who would spend the significant amount of money to be a part of it as crazy. As it starts the attendees rise to their feet. They dance and they cheer and some shed tears instantly, and I would have walked the other way and quickly. I would have judged them all.

As I sat and watched the new Netflix documentary Tony Robbins: I am Not Your Guru, I pushed all of that aside and I truly took in the experience. I still judged, but not so much the attendees but rather Tony himself because I couldn't help but wonder about his motivations, whether they are truly born of decency and kindness or manufactured as an act, a gimmick for fame and wealth. I found myself empathizing those that threw down the cash to try and have their lives changed by this one man and his seemingly powerful words.

I was moved to tears by a beautiful young woman in the crowd who was willing to admit to a room full of strangers that she was suicidal because of a tremendously dark and heartbreaking past, a life she was born into that promoted the sexual abuse of a child as a way of connecting with God. I stopped looking at these people as strange and started to see the world through their eyes, at least as much as I possibly could since I could never fully understand their pain. Of course these words would mean something to a soul so vulnerable, so desperate for answers when no one else would take the time to listen to their cries. The old me would have rolled my eyes at Tony Robbins and his pseudo-therapeutic "performance". The new me at least connected with how important he was and likely continues to be for many others.

What I can judge, however, are the merits of the documentary itself and this actually proved to be quite difficult. Directed by Joe Berlinger, a man who is likely not a household name in most places but is in mine thanks to his Paradise Lost series regarding the wrongful convictions of the West Memphis Three, took on the challenge of filming Tony Robbins during a huge event in California, allowing the world to see behind the curtain of what makes Robbins such a draw, and on that level the film is a success. As I said before, I now understand why so many people would pay so much for short term salvation, and I say short term because that brings up another problem I have with Robbins himself. I feel like his brand devalues the importance of seeking actual regular therapy from a professional, because anyone who believes pain that deeply ingrained in someone for months, years, even decades can be wiped away after 4 days of dancing and words is simply flat wrong. Perhaps this is an unfair criticism for me to make because maybe his team of employees do go deeper behind the scenes, connecting the patrons with recommended places they can go to continue treatment, but if he truly holds their head and says some inspiring things only to turn away from them, it would be tragic.

Where the film fails is in the way it portrays Robbins, and how Berlinger feels about him personally may have played a role since I have read he is a fan. There is absolutely no attempt to dig deeper into his character beyond softball questions and reflection upon the rough upbringing Robbins faced at the hands of his mother, which is inspiring and important, yet to accept it as the one and only thing that drives him without even a sniff of trying to question his reasoning for charging such desperate people a price of $5000 each seems misguided. I'm not oblivious to the fact that putting on such an event with entertaining production values, a full crew and whatever other expenses can add up, but I would love to hear to what extent greed plays a role in his drive to help people. The one woman I mentioned earlier apparently sold all of her belongings to pay for the opportunity to have Tony Robbins motivate her. I can't be the only person of which that doesn't sit right.

Tony Robbins: I Am Not Your Guru is a tough nut to crack because it fails as a documentary but completely succeeds as entertainment. If it were on cable in the future, I would probably sit through it again just to take in the way those that believe in his message look at him, like he walks on water and will truly change their lives for the better. It's fascinating, but knowing Berlinger is capable of such comprehensive and nuanced non-fiction work and yet he essentially crafted an infomercial is disappointing.



2.5/5

The Small Screen: Stranger Things

Bear with me here, as I have never written about the medium of television until now. I watch plenty of shows and yet I have always resisted the idea of treating them the same as films and I think it's because I used to look at the two experiences differently. A movie feels like something that is meant to be studied, broken down and discussed where as I have viewed television as an escape from such analysis. Even the most fascinating and complex shows, the best of the best that still made me think days, months, even years after they aired, I would let simmer in my brain rather than actually putting the words together to express how I felt. Trust me, I have plenty to say regarding Breaking Bad and Six Feet Under, my two favorites of all time. Simply never felt compelled to.

It isn't that Stranger Things is the first series worthy of finally putting those words down. It's just the show that inspired to do it. I felt something special and wholly unique while watching the Netflix show, which is a bit ironic considering a lot of what invoked those feelings centers around the brilliant way the creators of the show paid homage to the films that inspired them. Like a wonderful hug from 1980's Amblin Entertainment, the Spielberg influence is obvious, but if you look closely you will also see John Carpenter, Wes Craven, David Cronenberg, Stephen King, and perhaps even a bit of Richard Kelly's Donnie Darko, not the mention the spellbinding musical score that plays like an amalgamation of the work of Cliff Martinez on the film Only God Forgives and Disasterpiece's perfect score for the movie It Follows.

Yes, Stranger Things is both utterly familiar and yet completely fresh. How is that possible? Ask Ross and Matt Duffer, or as they are credited on the series, The Duffer Brothers. I am not afraid to admit that I had to Google these two when I saw the names and even after finding the results they remained unknown to me, but they are not only on the map now, anything they touch will be can't miss going forward. I am not overstating this: Stranger Things is that good. It's great. It's can't miss television dripping with nostalgia and yet completely modern, a series that I somehow both loved in the early 90's and again in 2016 because I could feel the kid in me that was drawn to my then favorite show The X-Files screaming with joy over what I was watching now.

The cast of this series features Winona Ryder, Matthew Modine, David Harbour, and then the insanely impressive collection of young actors that have previously done little with their careers and yet every single one shined during Stranger Things. Charlie Heaton as Jonathan Byers. Noah Schnapp as his little brother Will. Finn Wolfhard (what a fucking name that is) as Mike Wheeler. Natalia Dyer as his older sister Nancy. Gaten Matarazzo as Dustin, who is a small child that has played two roles ever including this one and he stole so many scenes here, eliciting actual loud laughter from me with his timing and delivery of dialogue. Caleb McLaughlin as Lucas and last but certainly not least Millie Bobby Brown as the mysterious young girl known as Eleven. So little experience between them all and yet this show proves how irrelevant that can be as long as the talent is there and the showrunners know what they want and get the most out of their cast. It's not only fair, it's only natural to think of The Goonies as you are watching Stranger Things because the chemistry between the kids is similar and equally as noteworthy.

Alright, so just some basics on the series. Nothing more because spoiling anything doesn't help anyone. The less you know as each episode unfolds the better because the title is apt. The story just keeps getting stranger and stranger as the pieces of the puzzle start being put together. At the start of the first episode, a young boy named Will (the aforementioned Noah Schnapp) disappears and his family, friends and the community around him try to cope with their grief and also make sense of what may have happened to a young child in such a quiet town. Winona Ryder plays his mother and when signs of government conspiracies and supernatural forces start to appear before her eyes, she continues to fight to find the child she lost, even as everyone around her is ready to assume that he has died.

I could go on and on with everything that I loved about Stranger Things, but I want to single out one aspect now because I think it's important: the first season of this series is only 8 episodes long. Why is that important? Because God bless those that recognize the importance of pacing and telling the best possible story rather than filling their material with filler and fluff in order to extend a show and earn more money. Some of the dramatic series' on network television have exciting premises but they die under the weight of 22 or more episode seasons because staying compelling and within the frame of a streamlined narrative is virtually impossible when asking writers to cook up so much content. When the announcement regarding season 7 of Game of Thrones came recently, that it would only feature 7 episodes, many cried out for more where as I wanted to applaud HBO and those in charge of the show for being willing to admit they need to do less. Earlier I mentioned my two favorite series of all time, Breaking Bad and Six Feet Under. What do those shows have in common? Both lasted only 5 seasons and only 12 to 13 episodes per. They ignored the popularity of what they had created and the size of the checks rolling in as the ratings increased because going beyond the potentially perfect conclusion merely for money would kill what had been achieved thus far. If you want a negative example of what I mean, go watch Dexter and try to endure seasons 5 through 8.

Because of the desire to tell this story in only 8 episodes, the Duffer brothers managed to create a show that is literally always entertaining. Always. I was never once even the slightest hint of bored, always invested in the characters and the relationships and the horrors they are forced to face. There is no filler present on any piece of the series and they left the perfect amount of loose ends that still need to be sewn up without being annoying and unfulfilling. I am already so eager for a second season and yet I am more than willing to wait because I know what matters most is the team of people that need the proper amount of time to be creative and come up with the best possible next chapter to this story.

Over the course of only a few days I managed to sit down and take in all 8 episodes of Stranger Things and if it were up to me I would have watched them even faster than I did (being a husband and father and having a full time profession hampers the ability to binge an entire series as quickly as I wish I could). I want more so badly I will likely revisit this first season from the beginning and this is unusual for me so it speaks volumes. When I love a film, I will sit down and screen it 10 times within a two year span and the way it speaks to me somehow never feels redundant, and yet with television no matter how much I love a show I rarely feel compelled to start over and relive the whole thing again. Stranger Things will get a second viewing because each frame is so creatively ingenious and imaginative that I couldn't have possibly appreciated every nook and cranny like I want to.

I keep thinking about the fun, the fear, and even a few tears that were shed as I watched Stranger Things unfold. It's tremendous entertainment and should be able to connect to viewers from multiple generations. Those that are too young to understand the magical storytelling abilities of artists like Spielberg and Stephen King can experience a similar feeling today by watching this series by the Duffer brothers. Those that love the influences of this show can connect the dots and appreciate just how comfortably these 8 episodes meld together the warmth of familiarity with something new and inviting.

Stranger Things is right up there with House of Cards as the best two series thus far from Netflix. Watch the first episode and see if you can stop yourself from turning on the second. For me it was 3 before I even realized how long I had been sitting there.

If you don't have Netflix, order it. Hell, ask a friend for their login information and watch it for free, and don't you lecture me on stealing. Just find a way to enjoy Stranger Things.

Ghostbusters (2016) Review

2016 has produced some truly outstanding films, but it's safe to say the summer tent-pole slate has been lackluster. Captain America soared but other seemingly safe bets in terms of entertainment level like Batman v Superman and X-Men: Apocalypse failed to leave a lasting impression. While a rebooted Ghostbusters doesn't exactly sound like a fresh idea, writer/director Paul Feig wanted to put his own stamp on the franchise by bringing it back with something interesting to say in terms of gender roles, but a new spin on things doesn't necessarily mean a quality picture and the first trailer released by Sony Pictures was rather poor and made me assume the worst. Expectations lowered but still more than willing to give the movie a chance, I took my seat.

The result was a somewhat funny and pretty decent film, certainly not Feig's finest work but more than enough to give an audience a reason to smile for roughly two hours. The jokes are hit or miss but some that hit really work, and it isn't the fault of the cast when some attempts at laughs don't land. Kate McKinnon is very talented and has her moments in the film, but much of her humor hinged on the far too simple concept of weird equals funny and I wasn't buying a lot of it. Kristen Wiig is fine but her performance felt very familiar, and the same can be said of Melissa McCarthy but thank god Feig was smart enough to avoid any weight related gags that have become low hanging fruit material for an actress who can do so much more. My personal favorite was Leslie Jones who much like everyone delivered a few duds, but completely won me over during a scene taking place at a concert that was probably the funniest bit in the film.

The nods to the original film were fine and clever enough but I didn't find any of them to really add anything to the experience either. Basically just there to give people a reason to give the person next to them a quick grin only to forget about it later. The visual effects were occasionally awesome but it's a shame how much movies in general these days rely on such obvious CG without an ability to make it blend seamlessly. Where the original film made everything feel organic, even the most supernatural of entities, the contrast between human and green screen creation was apparent throughout.

I was asked today by someone whether I am leaning a bit more positive with Ghostbusters because of personal bias, and I think it's a fair question considering I do root for more female driven productions with the hope that as my daughter gets older it won't be such a surprise or noteworthy aspect to cinema if women are running the show. The ability to show a movie like this to her does make me smile, and I really appreciated Feig flipping the gender roles not only in terms of the ghost busting itself but the clever idea of making the sexy and vapid secretary role be played by Chris Hemsworth (who much like everything involved was hit or miss), so yes, it is entirely possible that I view something like this with a glass half full mentality.

Regardless, the new Ghostbusters is neither a roaring success nor the total disaster that a dark and creepy corner of the internet wanted it to be. It's just a fun time at the movies, which compared to much of the comedy being released, that's a pretty huge endorsement.



3/5

First Half Best Films of 2016 - 5 through 1

The five best films of 2016 thus far. That simple. The movies that moved me the most, whether it be through laughs, violence, information, beauty or the chill of true dread, these five films are those that are most likely to stick near the top come year end. Why? What separates the best from those that finish just short?

I can only answer that question for myself. You are the only one who can answer for you. It's how art makes you think, reflect and feel. For some the movie I hate most this year will be their favorite, and that's okay. Embrace it.

I will sit here and talk about cinematography and lighting and performances and editing and writing, and I do that because that is what makes me think, reflect and feel. Well, that and telling a great story of course. The point is, I write about what I find to be objectively and subjectively important, whether it be something we can all see like a usage of color that is thematically relevant or something only I can feel, something that is speaking to me and tapping into a profound place. When I tell you a movie is the best, it's my best and the most I can do is hope that it will be yours too. If you loathe every moment of one of these films, I hope at the very least the fact that you hate it makes you think.

On that note, here are my 5 favorites so far this year:

5. Everybody Wants Some!!

Linklater does it again, another beauty from the man who demonstrates over and over just how intelligently he is able to capture the transformative stages of adolescence. Where as with Dazed and Confused he covered high school and Boyhood essentially covered it all, Everybody Wants Some!! has its focus on college, specifically centered around an incoming freshman baseball player days before classes begin. With brilliant dialogue that oozes with humor and heart, don't miss out on this wonderful film.

4. Green Room

In case I had any doubts (I didn't) regarding how much I love the new film Green Room, I went and grabbed the Blu-ray this past Tuesday when it was released and gave it a spin, a highly anticipated revisit. The bold and brutal genre film didn't disappoint. In fact its cuts may have sliced deeper. Director Jeremy Saulnier wowed me with his previous film Blue Ruin, and I think his maturity as a filmmaker shows with an tighter and more technically impressive effort this time around. If you can stomach this one, it will taste delicious.

3. The Neon Demon

So I included the "if you can stomach this one" disclaimer with Green Room. Let me take it a step further here: if you could NOT stomach that film, don't watch The Neon Demon. Just don't. If you had no issues with Green Room and want more challenging, violent and frankly bizarre cinema, you've come to the right place. Don't fall for the widely spread idea that this Nicolas Winding Refn picture is guilty of misogyny. See through that false accusation. What he created here is a criticism of the world that has placed such horrible and unhealthy expectations on women and the importance of physical appearance, and he perfectly puts the modeling industry specifically under the microscope. There is some other, far more hard to explain stuff going on too, including necrophilia and cannibalism (I'm not kidding). I loved this film so much and I can't wait to watch it again.

2. The Witch

Take my word for it when I tell you that a horror film that was released in February being in my top 2 so far for the year is a bit of a surprise. Typically this is a genre that doesn't quite reach such heights and especially not one put out early in the year during the dog days of winter. The Witch is something extraordinary though, a film that checked every box for me when it comes to what I am looking for. Thank goodness for the intense attention to detail from first time director Robert Eggers, a man who put a premium on atmosphere and the slow build up of dread through performance, setting and a pitch perfect musical score. I am not afraid to bust out the word masterpiece when discussing this terrifying film, so I had assumed this would comfortably be my favorite still at this point, but then a funny thing happened...

1. O.J.: Made in America

...I happened to watch the single greatest documentary I have ever seen. That's not hyperbole. O.J: Made in America is a revelation, the most comprehensive and brilliantly assembled doc I have ever witnessed. Clocking in at 7 and a half hours and I honestly wanted it to be longer, this film covers everything, and I do mean EVERYTHING, yet I wouldn't cut anything. Each piece of this puzzle matters, and the finished product is eye opening even for someone who was decently familiar with the infamous murder trial. Prior to watching this film I had always wondered how he got away with the crime. Now I know there was never a chance he would be convicted for what took place on that tragic, horrifying night.