Summer of Terror- Universal Monsters: Dracula

     Bram Stoker's 1897 vampire novel, based on folklore of Eastern European vampires and the infamy of Vlad Tepes (aka Vlad the Impaler, aka Vlad Dracula or "Son of the Dragon") was already adapted into a German film in 1922: FW Murnau's Nosferatu . However, that adaptation was unauthorized and Stoker's widow Florence sued to have all copies destroyed (which was a failure). The origins of this film lie instead in a 1924 English stage play adaptation by Irish playwright Hamilton Deane that was approved by the Stoker estate. This stage play would be revised by John L. Balderston for Broadway in 1927, starring Bela Lugosi in the title role. Lugosi, a one-time bit player in the Hungarian National Theatre, had appeared in German silent films after his exile from Hungary in 1919 (for organizing an actor's union following the failed 1919 communist revolution), before immigrating to the United States in 1920, and became a stage actor. This would be Lugosi's first major English speaking role. Carl Laemmle, Jr., a producer under his father at Universal, saw Stoker's novel as a potential historical tragic epic in the vein of Hunchback and Phantom and bought the rights to Stoker's novel as well as the stageplay. The writers used the stage play as the basis, with some inspiration from Nosferatu. Laemmle was reluctant to cast Lugosi, despite his good reviews in the play, looking instead to actors like Paul Muni, before Lugosi lobbied heavily to reprise his role. Also reprising his role from the play was Edward van Sloan as Van Helsing, the effective hero of the story. Directing the film was Tod Browning, a former Vaudville actor who directed several Lon Chaney movies during the silent era (including the vampire picture London After Midnight, which would've been covered, had the film not been lost). Browning initially envisioned the titular character as largely unseen figure played by a relative unknown, but the studio overrode it. By most accounts, Browning delegated much of the directing cinematographer Karl Freund (who was most notable for his cinematography on Fritz Lang's Metropolis), effectively making the latter co-director. The film was shot on the Universal lot with the sets being reused for a Spanish language version being made at the same time. While there were fears that a straight forward supernatural horror movie may not do well, it was an resounding success, though for a 1936 reissue, some scenes, including an epilogue by Van Helsing were cut, and subsequently lost. The film would be considered a seminal film in the development of the Universal monsters and the horror genre in general.

     Renfield (Dwight Frye) is an English Solicitor on business in Transylvania in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. He is visiting the castle of Count Dracula (Bela Lugosi), but is warned of his proclivity for vampirism by some of the residents. Sure enough, Dracula brainwashes and enslaves Renfield to take him in a coffin back to England. There, Dracula steadily begins a killing spree, while getting the attention of Mina (Helen Chandler), her fiance John Harker (David Manners), and her friend Lucy (Frances Dade). While Dracula terrorizes them, Mina's father Dr. Seward (Herbert Bunston) and Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan), investigate Renfield's vampirism, which brings them into conflict with the count.

    The definite highlight of this film is Bela Lugosi. He exudes a quiet menace to him, being dignified as an Eastern European count but also being incredibly creepy and threatening when need be. He doesn't talk much during the film, so a lot of his performance is conveyed through his motion, especially as he attacks or threatens people around him. It is a stellar performance. Surprisingly, given how it's saturated in pop culture, Lugosi's accent isn't all that thick in the film. It sounds almost English, with some slight indications Dwight Frye's Renfield (taking the role Harker had in the book) is also a joy to watch, showing the opposite with his psychaotic mannerisms and insane ramblings. The film had exquisite set design, and especially good use of shadows and lighting, tying of course to the other two films covered before. It truly enhances the terror of it, especially the lack of a soundtrack (which was apparently more of a cost saving measure, but makes a lot of the film's main set pieces work well).

    The film is surprisingly short, at only 71 minutes. I can tell a lot was probably cut because of censorship, particularly during the Hays Code era. There are some scenes that abruptly end or cut in the middle. The ending is the biggest example, where the aforementioned epilogue is not there and the film just ends on the characters climbing a set of stairs. While this sometimes enhances the horror, it also makes parts of this film confusing. Another, smaller complaint is that the effects haven't aged well. Especially the bats and the clear use of the fog machine.

    This was surprisingly effective, even today. It's not "scary" in a traditional sense, but the way the film uses subtle acting and editing to convey its scares was definitely an influence on modern day horror movies. It's an interesting historical film, and definitely should be sought out for that, and just as an entertaining, well-made film in its own right.

    Apologies for the lateness of this. I had a breakdown a few days ago, and couldn't muster the energy to do much writing. As such, this Summer of Terror will be a lot more erratic and spread out. I might not finish until September, but we'll see. Anyway, next time, after someone suggested it, we'll take a look at the briefly mentioned Spanish language version also produced by Universal.

Summer of Terror- The Universal Monsters: The Silent Era

      From 1921 to 1960, the Universal Monsters terrified and enthralled audiences across America with their grotesque, but sympathetic creatures, all of whom represented something about mankind that spoke to them. While they have mostly entered the pop culture lexicon as fixtures stripped of their original horror elements and reduced to kitsch items, their legacy can still be felt in horror to this very day. And with a new decade ahead of us, I figured there was no better franchise to start off a new decade than what is considered the first true horror franchise. If you haven't really noticed, I do actually burn out a lot when I do these, and I have a lot of trouble with this, given there is a large number of films outside the classic monsters, and the nebulous definition of a "Universal Monster" film. So, I'm going to do this a bit differently. The big films with the big creatures get full reviews. However, smaller films get smaller mini-reviews that are compiled together. They won't have a full in-depth look, but just a brief examination. This is especially true of these first two features, both of which are silent. Silent movies aren't exactly my area of expertise, so instead of doing my usual schtick, I'll just list stuff I enjoyed about the film.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923)

    Of course, based on Victor Hugo's 1831 novel of the same name, it follows the story of Quasimodo (Lon Chaney), the titular hunchback who rings the bells of the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, during the reign of Louis XI (Tully Marshall) in the 14th Century. Quasimodo ventures out to a large festival being held, with his master Jehan (Brandon Hurst), Jehan's brother, clergyman Dom Claudio (Nigel De Brulier, analogous to Claude Frollo from the book), and dancer Esmeralda (Patsy Ruth Miller) in attendence. He is celebrated, only for people to turn on him upon learning of his deformity. Only Esmeralda shows sympathy, causing a chain of events involving Esmeralda, Jehan, and Phoebus (Norman Kerry)
     Popular legend attributes the creation of this film to producer Irving Thalberg (later a seminal figure at Universal's rival MGM and whose life was later fictionalized by F. Scott Fitzgerald in The Last Tycoon),but the film by most accounts, was the idea of Lon Chaney, having then established his reputation as a versatile character actor and who lobbied heavily for the role of Quasimodo. He later chose the director Wallace Woolsery (who had worked with Chaney on some productions at Goldwyn), after his first choice, Erich von Stronheim, was fired by Thalberg. Thalberg did originate the idea to make the film more of a large scale dramatic epic instead of a straight forward horror movie. Because of censorship prohibiting mocking religious figures, the villain of Claude Frollo (a Catholic priest) in the book was instead given a brother, who would take up the role.
    What really works about this film is the large scale of it. The massive sets, the extras, the sheer sizeof it can be overwhelming. Yet, despite this large scale epic scope of the thing, it does manage to have some intimate moments, especially with Quasimodo. Speaking of, Lon Chaney does pretty well as the Hunchback. He imparts his performance with a lot of physicality and emotion, giving an audience enough to sympathize with him, especially at the end. Finally, it uses its sets very well, especially with dark scenes set in the corridors of the Cathedral.

The Phantom of the Opera (1925)

     The Paris Opera House suddenly finds itself in the thrall of the mysterious "Phantom" (Lon Chaney), who has taken an interest in a young understudy named Christine (Mary Philbin). While the new owners and Charlotta (Virginia Pearson) laugh off the threat, the Phantom soon makes his presence known, which guides Christine at first, but slowly, the Phantom makes plans to kidnap her, and the Vicomte Raoul de Chagny (Norman Kerry) must navigate the strange architecture of the Paris Opera House to stop him.
     Gaston Leroux's 1910 novel was based around various myths and legends centering around the Opera House (including the use of a real skeleton in an 1841 production.) Leroux met Carl Laemmle, the head of Universal, in 1921 during a visit by the latter to France. Leroux gave Laemmle the book, and Laemmle envisioned it as a vehicle for Lon Chaney. Chaney made up his own make-up for the film. The film's turntable set would continue to be used for another 90 years after the completion of the film. The film's gigantic success would be the impetus for the Universal monsters.
   I remember being terrified of the Phantom's make-up as a kid. Never actually saw the film until years later, but the make-up just scared me. It (meant to apparently invoke a skull) is still effective, especially when the Phantom is unmasked towards the middle of the film. Again, Lon Chaney is the star here, and even more so, he is the main reason to watch, with his physicality and his ability to balance menace with some humor. The set of the Paris Opera House also looks incredible, even today, and it also has a massive scope.

----

Well, that begins this Summer of Terror. Apologies for the lateness of this. As with all of us, the pandemic hasn't been exactly great for me, and it's been a struggle to muster the energy to do this. Not helping is the fact I tend to burnout on these, and I had a pretty bad case of burnout yesterday. If some entries are late or come a few days after the last one, that's probably why. Apologies in advance if this ends up inconsistent as a result. Nevertheless, I feel like starting off this new decade with something different, and what better than the first horror franchise, one that was influential for years to come. Join me tomorrow for Dracula.

And as always, if you enjoy this or other works, I have a Ko-Fi page to donate to, if you're interested: https://ko-fi.com/rohithc

Reason for the Season- Twilight Zone (2019), Season 2

       Alright, Season 2 of the 3rd reboot Twilight Zone. Just a reminder that these are not traditional reviews, but stream-of-consciousness reviews where I just ramble off immediate thoughts on a show, and don't really have any recommendations on whether to do it or not. Anyway, let's gooooo.

         Alright in 1963, for the 4th season of the original Twilight Zone, Rod Serling tried an experiment where he would expand the stories out from a half-hour to one hour (with commercials). This turned out to be a failure, with the 4th season being regarded as the worst, even by Serling himself and the half-hour restored. I bring this up because a huge problem with the first season was that the episodes were all too long. The structure of a Twilight Zone episode necessitates a half-hour structure, and an hour just feels too long and the story overstays its welcome. Unfortunately, for this season, the problem persists. There are several episodes that are too long and have very superfluous elements to them. The first episode, "Meet in the Middle", is a prime example, with its premise being stretched out far beyond its breaking point. Ditto "Who of You", which has an interesting body switching element, but drags on with this really odd chase element to it. If you can get over the lengths, overall, this season is actually a lot better than the first. My biggest problem with the first season was that it was trying way too hard to be too contemporary, so we had episodes like "Kid Trump" and "Not All Men", which fell flat in execution despite promising premises. Here, all episodes do work, and while not as political, manage to have their own commentary on society or individuals, which makes the season as a whole a lot stronger. The individual episodes, while starting off slow, do have good pay-offs and at least interesting endings. My favorites of this bunch are probably the aforementioned season premiere; "8", about an Antarctic research station terrorized by an intelligent octopus; and "A Small Town", which was the closest this series gets to feeling like a classic Twilight Zone episode. The other ones vary in quality, but none of them were bad in the way "Kid Trump" was last season. My least favorites are probably "Among the Downtrodden" (which took an interesting premise, but stretched to a 40 minute length, making it kind of boring. However, Sophia Macy, daughter of William Macy and Felicity Huffman, is quite good in, and I hope she does other things and shakes off the whole college admissions scandal thing.), and "You Will Also Like," which had the potentially interesting concept of creating a sequel to the classic episode "To Serve Man", but got caught up in its own satire and was also just boring. Really, if there is one big problem with the bad episodes this season, it's that they are boring, which is exacerbated by the long lengths. This is true of "Try, Try", which takes a horror riff on the "Groundhog Day" formula, milks it, and ends up with Topher Grace just spouting Gamergate propaganda out of basically nowhere. Again, though, as an overall season, it  works better than the first season. Hopefully, they can continue this trend into the next season.

Alright, there's the review for you. If you like my work, you can see my Ko-Fi page. Not anything there right now, but I will start posting exclusive content for those interested: https://ko-fi.com/rohithc. And in a few days, I will start my Summer of Terror annual horror reviews, and with the new decade coming up, I will be looking at a diverse range of films about Gods.... and Monsters.

Reason for the Season- Rick and Morty, Season 4

       It's been a while since I've done one of these. This is a season review for the most recent Rick and Morty season. Both parts of it, because I figured that I needed the whole season to make a proper evaluation. As always, this is a stream-of-consciousness review, where I just go off on a series, and state what comes to mind about it that I can think of at the moment. As a result, there will be spoilers. So, with that out of the way, let's.... go!:

     Better than the last season. Definitely better than Season 3. It had more good episodes, and even the one bad one (the penultimate one) was still slightly better than the worst of season 3. It feels like they're at least trying to inject some fun and insanity back into the series, with a lot of the heavier elements of the series largely kept to the side. This can be seen most in the 5th episode, "Never-Ricking Morty", which is probably the best of the season. There is a lot of meta fun and weirdness to the episode that really satiates my taste for the adventures of Rick and Morty. It also has some nice jabs at the increased continuity fixation of some fans. That said, there is some continuity pay-off with the final episode of the season, so it doesn't really feel like the writers are just dicking around with us.  The commentary on consumerism at the end is interesting, given how Rick and Morty has become an advertising fixture over the years. I suppose it's a result of the writers trying to grapple with the implication of the show's popularity. The fact that it has become a cultural phenomenon, more or less, and easily recogniseable. Another thing the show is grappling with is the fact that viewers seem to take the wrong lessons from Rick. How they try to constantly emulate him despite him being an amoral sociopath. A lot more focus is given to that, though the constant problem of Rick ultimately being right (despite his cruelty) is still present in a lot of this. A particular example is "Rattlestar Ricklactica", which was actually probably one of my favorite episodes of the season, but definitely had Rick's (fairly regressive) viewpoint validated at the end. However, the worst example of this was the penulitmate episode "Childrick of Mort", which has Rick validated, despite him committing mass murder at the end. That episode, like the penultimate episode last season, starts off alright, but then just gets somewhat lame, with a confused Greek mythology riff, and a bizarre message at the end. Other than that, it does feel like a return to form for a fairly smart, funny show. Honestly, the weakest episodes (which were bad period, not just bad relatively) were this and "Claw and Hoarder". The latter just being a bit generic and boring, with again, some confusing elements. The best ones are definitely "Never-Ricking Morty", Rattlestar Ricklactica", and "One Crew over the Cuckoo's Nest", which, despite the rather punchable presence of Elon Musk, manages to be compulsively rewatchable. The season finale is a definite improvement over last season, with Rick being further distanced from his family thanks to his actions and realizing just how bad he really is to his family and friends. A much better conclusion with a more poignant tone to it than last season.

     So, that's all I could come up with. Thanks for reading. If you like this, you can check out my Ko-Fi: https://ko-fi.com/rohithc. I'm doing a "Top Ten Venture Bros. episodes" list, and I'm thinking of posting on Ko-Fi first a week before the blog, just as an experiment.

Current Film Review/Coming to a Video Screen Near You- Scoob!

       Yep, the pandemic is still going on. We're all still stuck at home, and most movie theaters are still closed. So, it's mostly direct-to-VOD for a lot of movies. So, for this month, it was either this or Josh Trank's Capone. I didn't really want to spend time talking a movie where nothing happens except Tom Hardy growling at people and shitting his pants, and this actually seemed to have potential from the trailer. I greatly enjoyed the comic series Future Quest, and this seemed to capture similar energy, creating a universe of Hanna-Barbera characters. And hey, it's a crossover between my Current Film and VOD reviews, appropriate for this film.

        Based on Joe Ruby and Ken Spears' venerated series (and featuring characters from other Hanna-Barbara produced series), the film, of course, centers on Mystery Inc.: Fred (Zac Efron, which is too perfect casting to have not been considered before), Daphne (Amanda Seyfried), Velma (Gina Rodriguez), and the ever loveable Shaggy (Will Forte, doing a decent Casey Kasem impression) and Scooby Doo (Frank Welker). After Simon Cowell (Simon Cowell) questions the latter two's contribution to the group, they sulk a bit in a bowling alley (In a cute nod, named for veteran Hanna-Barbara animator Iwao Takamoto), before they are attacked by scorpion robots and beamed into the Falcon Fury, the sanctum of the superhero Blue Falcon (Mark Wahlberg) and his assistants Dee Dee Sykes (Kiersy Clemmons) (from Captain Caveman and the Teen Angels) and Dynomutt (Ken Jeong). Apparently, the robots were sent by nefarious villain Dick Dastardly (Jason Isaacs) (from The Wacky Races) to capture Scooby. What results is a globe-trotting adventure as the gang with their new allies try to stop Dastardly and his mysterious scheme. 

      First, a lot of really good jokes and gags littered throughout. Very subtle jokes alongside very good references. The jokes appeal to all ages too, so you don't have to be very young to appreciate them. I liked all the references they made both to the old cartoon (including a CGI recreation of the original theme) and the other Hanna-Barbara creations, especially in terms of the designs. Jason Isaacs hams it up as Dick Dastardly. The animation is pretty good, with very fluid motion and colorful design. I really liked that they included all the little cartoon sound effects from the original series all over, which gives it a lot more oomph. 

     I'd honestly try not to think too hard about the plot, because it gets into a lot of confusing territory real quickly. There are basic character arcs that mostly work, but the plot goes into some weird directions to try to connect all these characters together. Even as an adult, I had trouble really following some of this story, so the target audience might also have trouble figuring out the mechanics of the plot. And unlike those direct-to-video Scooby movies from when I was a kid (like Zombie Island and Cyber Chase) , it really doesn't follow the Scooby formula very much. It's just a standard adventure story that Shaggy and Scooby just happen to be in. There are nods to the original format, and even a short bit where they homage parts of the formula, but the story doesn't have that Scooby Doo feel to it. 

     This movie delivers what was promised:  a nice, decently Hanna-Barbara crossover with tons of little nods, potentially setting up an animated cinematic universe of those characters (especially in the end credits). If you're familiar with these characters, like I am, you'll probably get a kick out of all the little references. Even if you aren't and you watch it with little children, it's good enough on its own, with tons of funny gags and nice animation to keep you satisfied, even if the plot has some trouble. 

     Anyway, thanks for reading, and if you like this review, please consider donating a bit to my Ko-Fi: https://ko-fi.com/rohithc. I'll sign off with this interesting compilation of Scooby Doo openings through the decades:

Dailles and Nightlies- Beyond the Sea

       So, yeah, big global pandemic. Really distressing. Couldn't really do anything last month with the whole "country in shutdown" ordeal. Might as well look at a film by noted actor, sex predator, possible murderer Kevin Spacey. A film that he not only starred in, but he directed, produced, and co-wrote. Yes, this was his passion project, his magnum opus, his attempt to bring a unique vision to the screen. Watching this in light of Spacey's fall from grace, it becomes clear the film is little more than a vanity project by a narcissist who wants to show just how great he is and how much people love him. Oh, and also something about Bobby Darin. Maybe.

     So, the film chronicles the life of crooner Bobby Darin (Kevin Spacey, even when Darin is a young man, and yes, it's off-putting), from his childhood in the Bronx as Walden Robert Cossotto (William Ullrich, who Spacey spends a lot of time interacting with, and yes, it is incredibly creepy to watch now), encouraged by his former vaudvillian mother Polly (Brenda Blethyn), his sister Nina (Caroline Aaron) and Nina's husband Charlie (Bob Hoskins) to become a star on par with Frank Sinatra. He manages to do so in the late 50's, with the help of agent Stephen Blauner (John Goodman) , with hits like "Splish Splash" and "Mack the Knife". From there, he makes his mark on entertainment, headlining the famous Copacabana nightclub, starring in award-winning films, and romancing movie starlet Sandra Dee (Kate Bosworth). All the while, he feels his time is slowly diminishing, primarily because of a childhood disease he was not expected to survive.

     If the slimy, skeevy presence of Spacey is too much to bare, we are a character actor double punch of Bob Hoskins and John Goodman, who both manage to be the best parts of whatever scenes they're in. Hoskins especially has his usual charisma and energy popping out every time he's on screen. There's a nice sequence detailing the production of 1963's Come September in Italy, that looks far better than the rest of the film. Some of the renditions of the songs were alright.  Kate Bosworth is alright.

    Before I get into the meat of my criticisms, let me start with the fact that this movie looks terrible. Awful, cheap looking sets; a weird, distracting blue tint to the scenes that drains all the energy out of the scenes; bad production design for many of the musical sequences. It's not even so much bad as just weird. These large elaborate song sequences, set against these really cheap looking club sets and small feelings venues. Not helping is the fact that Kevin Spacey is way too old to play this role. He was 45 when he did this part. The real Bobby Darin died at age 37. Whenever he's in Darin's most iconic roles, it's jarring. He looks like a 40 year old being a teen idol, and yeah, hindsight is a big part of why this doesn't work, but he still couldn't pull off being a wide-eyed younger Darin trying to make his way through show-business. The film also has this bizarre framing device where they're filming Darin's life with Darin in the lead role, and it is so weird and confusing, and brings Spacey in proximity of that kid, and it's creepy as hell watching it. A lot of this film is just Spacey displaying his various skills, showing both light-acting, hard emotional acting, singing, dancing, impressions. Which might be forgiven for this, but in light of the revelations, comes across as the work of a massive narcissist who wants to show the world just how talented and awesome he is, and burying the fact that he's a manipulative rapist.

    I honestly don't know why I did this. We're all stuck at home, watching as governments and organization struggle with the fact that this pandemic is still ever-growing. I don't recommend watching this except maybe morbid curiosity. Spacey continues to pop up every Christmas like an anti-Santa Claus and remind us that the law hasn't caught up to him yet. Let's hope it does in the coming years. 

Notable 2010's Films

   So, I've been wavering on how to do this. I wavered through a straight forward list, a decadal retrospective, or just listing films down. After consideration, I finally came up with a novel solution. Basically, I put down films I felt were interesting or notable in the decade, whether big blockbusters or the smallest indies, and put them into categories that would work as a survey of the decade in general. I'll take about the commonalities in the films in relation to their category and why they are notable to me.

So, to finally get this out of the way,

Notable 2010's Films

Vaults, Crypts, and Haunts: So, this was a pretty good decade for horror movies. Or rather, this decade saw the rise of a genre referred to "post-horror", for snobs to distance themselves from what they regard as a lowbrow genre. "Post-horror", in spite of attempts to distance it from regular horror, notably takes cues from the "New Horror" period of the 70's and 80's and lurid Italian genre of Gianllo, distinctly political or psychological and with a penchant for wild violence. Films like It Follows, The Babadook, and Hereditary are often listed in this regard, with good reason. All three managed to capture some anxiety about the world and amplify it. Of course, alongside this particular brand, we still had traditional horror movies in form of slashers like Hell Fest, found footage like Europa Report, and horror satires like Cabin in the Woods. Perhaps the biggest name in more traditional horror was of course, comedian Jordan Peele, who made a truly iconic film in Get Out, which was used 70's New Horror tropes to get into some very cutting commentary on racial politics in America. He followed it up with the more traditional, nominally apolitical Us, and rebooted The Twilight Zone (to mixed effect). You also had truly out-there ones, like Doctor Sleep (which takes the Shining to whole new levels unheard of), and Cosmic Horror (my own favorite genre) in The Void and The Colour Out of Space. And I'd personally be remiss if I didn't mention my favorite film of the entire decade, The Shape of Water, which is among Guillermo del Toro's finest, taking his love of horror, and using it to tell a poignant love story.

Childhood's End:  Another genre that rose in media in general this decade were stories catered to the sensibilities of teenagers and young adults. Whilst there were failures in this area (like the brief spout of YA dystopia adaptations that came and went entirely without notice),  there were also some notable films about coming of age. The difficulties of it, the awkwardness, the weirdness of it all. Films like The Spectacular Now , The Fault in Our Stars, and Me and Earl and the Dying Girl all used the changing atmospheres of high school and the dawn of adulthood as the backdrop to romances which fit into the dramatic arc of this awkward period (in the latter case, complicated by cancer.) Outside the bounds of the traditional adolescent film, we have The Way, Way Back, which takes on adolescence and insecurity in a way rarely seen on film. Thoroughbreds and Assassination Nation  used high school to explore political issues or  show the depravity of the human spirit more specifically. Films like Blockers, Eighth Grade, and Booksmart were comedies exploring the distinct teenage culture of the late 2010's (different from how I remember middle high school at least) to uproarious effect. The Long Dumb Road was an... interesting sort of coming of age story that shouldn't be spoilers  Even sci-fi thrillers like Attack the Block and blockbusters like Shazam and Bumblebee took on adolescence in interesting and enlightening ways.

Director's Cut: Simple enough category: Films that could be regarded as the works of so-called auteurs. While I have my own issues with auteurism as a concept, it's hard to deny that there were several films that were exemplar of a certain director and their style and/or interests. Martin Scorsese expressed his love for cinema in the superb early film homage Hugo , the Coen Brothers brought their brand of sardonism and dark comedy to the 60's folk scene in Inside Lleweyn Davies and 50's Hollywood in Hail Caesar. Edgar Wright did action comedies in Scott Pilgrim vs. The World and Baby Driver. Paul Thomas Anderson explored societal shortcomings and relationships in The Master and Phantom Thread. Quentin Tarantino gave an ode to a lost Hollywood with films like The Hateful Eight and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Guillermo del Toro brought the best film of the decade, both through his productions including Pacific Rim and the best film of the decade The Shape of Water. Along with those stalwarts of traditional film criticism, other directors brought new energy to large blockbuster films. Joss Whedon infused a witty script with good action and iconic moments in 2012's The Avengers.  In the two Guardians of the Galaxy films, James Gunn explored concepts of family and belonging in a very heartfelt, sincere way (combined with great action and comedy). Ryan Coogler turned Black Panther into a global hit in part because of his explorations of racism and colonialism. Matthew Vaughn and James Mangold gave the X-Men good movies with First Class and Logan, respectively. Justin Lin put the Trek back into Star Trek with Star Trek Beyond. Patty Jenkins made a Wonder Woman movie that gave the character the treatment she deserved. Finally, you had some directors explore politics with their films.   Adam McKay took out righteous anger in The Big Short and the uneven Vice. Barry Jenkins and Bong Joon-Ho gave probably the most radical films to win Best Picture with Moonlight and Parasite respectively. Finally, a shout-out to rapper Boots Riley, whose film Sorry to Bother You is still perhaps the only truly socialist work to gain widespread distribution, which deserves much respect. On a less political note, Akiva Schaffer and Jorma Taccone of the Lonely Island delivered a hilarious send-up of musician documentary with colleague Andy Samberg in Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping and James Grey for the epic Lost City of Z. Finally, to Gaurinder Chadha and Lena Khan for delivering immigrant stories that were very personal to yours truly in Blinded by the Light and The Tiger Hunter (If it seems I shoved a bunch of random films in here, yeah. I had a honorary mentions category originally, that was grew too small to warrant mention, so I just decided to dump the remaining ones here).

Very Hard Science: Short category, but one that applies specifically to me, since my favorite genre is in fact hard science fiction. Of course, while accurate, the hard science fiction films of the 2010's came in a variety of tones and themes that explore the human condition. Interstellar and Ad Astra explored the extremes of the debate around space exploration: the former for, the latter against. The Martian was pro, but managed to add a bit of humor and fun into the proceedings, which made it one of the most entertaining films of the decade. Arrival is fairly agnostic, but instead discusses perceptions of time and language, and how it ultimately is universal, in spite of massive differences.

Crime and Punishment: Another relatively short one, partially because some of these crime, thriller, and comedy films were mentioned before, partially because there is a large amount of variance between many of these. For crime and thrillers, sometimes, you'd get a straight forward thriller that keeps you at the edge of your seat, like Tinker Tailor, Soldier Spy or the very innovative Searching. Sometimes, you'd get a story about the crimes of culture or government or society or whatever, like The Big Short, God Bless America, and Hustlers. Sometimes, you get crime satires or comedies, like I, Tonya, Knives Out, and The Art of Self-Defense. Finally, there's the WTF category, with Parasite, Assassination Nation, and Thoroughbreds.

Animation Nation: Finally, this decade saw many great animated films. Pixar  had a .... rougher period this decade than the last, but they still managed to get those feels with the second best film of the decade Inside Out and the superb Coco. Miyazaki and Studio Ghibli were still in their A-Game, with such fare as The Wind Rises and The Tale of Princess Kayuga . Comic adaptations The Adventure of Tintin, Peanuts, and Into the Spider-Verse brought the energy and spirit of their respective source materials to the screen with stunning, memorable animation. Even The Lego Movie, which seemed like an ad for LEGOs, turned out to be a pretty interesting look into the nature of creativity and the value of sharing (also being incredibly funny.)

-----------

So, that's my decade retrospective. It's been a rough month, but luckily, I was able to get this out before the month of February ended (and if some of it seems off, that's why.) Anyway, thanks for reading, it took me a while to write this because of unrelated issues. In the intervening time of starting and finishing this, I started something called a Ko-Fi. Basically, if you like this or any of my other writing, you have the option of giving some money in appreciation. Absolutely not necessary, and these will remain free. Still, it would be appreciated to have some supplementary income. Check it out here and if you want (again, absolutely not necessary, you can give some money): https://ko-fi.com/rohithc