There are many components that contribute to the success of a movie. Of course, there are the obvious things: strong plot, relatable/believable characters, great actors, sharp editing, stimulating music, and stunning visuals (be they special effects or just great cinematography). However, there are things you need to do before people even see the movie, which includes all forms of marketing, and movie trailers are the most important of all the marketing techniques.

I love movie trailers. In fact, I’m a self-professed Movie Trailer Whore. If they hadn’t been eating up so much of my computer’s memory, I would have upwards of 1000 trailers right now, though I’ve sadly had to delete the majority of them. Thankfully, they will live on throughout the internet for all time.

What makes a good trailer? Much the same things that make a good movie, in fact. Yet, it’s much harder to do. In a movie, you get hundreds of minutes to go through your plot and such, but with trailers you only get a couple. In those few minutes, a lot of things need to be accomplished: explain the story, create an emotional connection with the viewer, plant the seed for wanting to see the movie when it comes out, and hold on tight!

Below, I have collected twelve of my favorite movie trailers from the past five years. Why are there twelve and not ten? Because I can’t choose between them! They span a broad range of movie genres, but they all have one thing in common: they made me want to see the movie REAL effing bad! And, they worked. I’ve seen all of these movies. Most of them were great, but some of them didn’t live up to the trailer, which can completely set the tone for the movie (rightly, or wrongly, it would seem!).

They’re in alphabetical order, since I couldn’t possibly choose a favorite!

What about you? You seen any trailers in the past few years that sent shivers of excitement up your spine? List them below with a link (not code) so everyone else can see them, too!

Enjoy!

300

There are a number of things I like about this trailer. It starts out with very simple music and slow moving scenes, and progresses nicely into electronic guitar riffs and hardcore action sequences. It also showcases the stunning special effects job done on the film. One of the best parts are all of the great one-liners that are spattered throughout, giving lots of quotables for around the office water-cooler.

Music: Just Like You Imagined – Nine Inch Nails (iTunes : Amazon)

Read similar posts to Top 12 Recent Movie Trailers on Filmonic

Hello again, and welcome to the second edition of There Will Be Blog. Last week’s column certainly produced its fair share of discussion, and controversy. For those who got angry about your favourite director not being included, remember that these lists are just my personal preference, and I only had 10 slots. I enjoy the work of many of the directors I “overlooked”. But I did say I intended the last column to spark conversation and debate, and it did just that, so overall I am happy with how it turned out.

Which brings us to my second column. Apologies for the delay in getting it up, I’ve been quite ill over the past week or so. This week’s top ten is focused on actors. Actors are of course an integral part of most films. The director may be the film’s creator, but it is the actors who are the film’s identifiable face for the audience. They are who we see on-screen, they become the characters we are supposed to relate to or despise. Many movies are sold on the face of the leading man in the poster. But who are the best actors working today? Who are putting on the most consistently compelling performances? What actors will make me want to see a film if their face is on the poster?

First, a few notes. As well as my illness, another reason for the delay of this column is just how hard it was to narrow the list down to ten. It was bad enough doing it for directors, but with actors, it was far tougher, considering how many there are out there. Kevin Bacon, William Hurt, Jeff Bridges, Michael Caine, Bill Murray, Jake Gyllenhaal, Don Cheadle, Brad Pitt and many others came close to making the list, or even were briefly included on it, only to not quite make the cut. Shed a tear, in particular, for poor Matt Damon, who bounced in and out of the list like a yo-yo, and only got cut out with finality minutes before I started writing. So, if the complaints about unforgivable exclusions were bad last week, I expect it to be much worse this week. So let’s address some of the grievances I anticipate right out of the block.

There are no women in the list. This is not because I’m sexist, or because I don’t think women can act. Actresses will be the subject of a future top ten. There are no non-English-speaking actors on the list. This is not because I feel there is no international actor who can match up with the best of the English-speaking world. Rather, much like with the directors list, it is because my viewing of world cinema is more sporadic. I may have seen one or two films by a foreign actor (or director, in the case of last week), but not enough of their back catalogue to give a more comprehensive verdict on their merits. Take, for example, Javier Bardem. He was on the list for a long time when I was developing it, but I ultimately removed him because I’ve only seen three of his films – “No Country for Old Men”, “The Sea Inside” and “Before Night Falls”. While he made quite an impact on me in those films, I think I’m missing too much of his other work to fairly include him in the list over actors I have a deeper knowledge of. As with last week, this is not an “all-time greats” list. This is a list of the actors I feel are giving us the best performances NOW. Some didn’t seem to get this last week, and chewed me out for not including the likes of Stanley Kubrick or James Cameron. I hope I don’t get any “GAH NO MARLON BRANDO DIIIIIIIIIIIIIE!” posts this week!

Finally, I’d like to note that, while I just listed 10 directors in no particular order last week, this week I’m ranking the actors 10-1. Again, you are welcome to post your own top 10s in response, as well as your feedback on my list.

10. TOM CRUISE

I know this is going to be a controversial choice. How is it that the biggest movie star in the world is so underrated as an actor? I can kinda see why. His celebrity status and sometimes-strange behaviour have come to overshadow his films, as reflected in the reduced box-office takings of his more recent films. It was almost enough to make me cut him out of the top ten – for a lot of the time Matt Damon had this spot. But then I considered that, though I’ve not seen “Lions for Lambs” (though I do intend to catch it on DVD), before that, I had seen 13 of Tom Cruise’s consecutive performances, every film he’s made since “The Firm” in 1993, and I’ve seen the majority of his films before that too. It’s a streak unmatched in my personal viewing by anyone else in the top ten, or any other actor I can think of for that matter. So, for me at least, Tom Cruise must have big-time drawing power as a headline movie star.

Movie stars could have had their own top ten. The actors whose faces are instantly identifiable, whose powers lie less in transforming into characters than in their selling and branding of themselves, an approach to acting which is perfectly valid, may I add, if you can pull it off. Tom Hanks, Will Smith, George Clooney, there are a good few of these box-office titans still working at the peak of their powers, but to me Tom Cruise remains the definitive movie star, so who better to represent that kind of actor on this list than him? But what is his appeal? Perhaps the answer lies behind his famous whiter-than-whiter-than-white grin, carefully treading the line between amicable and sickening. And similarly, though Cruise is best known as a movie hero, he is at his best when the charm he brings to his heroic roles is subverted, and channelled into villain or anti-hero roles.

Cruise is certainly entering an interesting phase of his career now. Well on his way to 50, surely it’s only a matter of time before his good looks fade. Many think this will be devastating for Cruise, assuming he’s always just been a pretty-boy who’s got by on his looks rather than any talent. But I look at the other way round. Tom Cruise himself said several years ago that he looked forward to getting old, as that’s when you got the best roles, and I can kinda see his point. I think, if anything, Tom Cruise’s good looks have made people underrate him, and overlook his acting talent. People still link him to “Top Gun”, but less recall that, a mere three years later, he gave an astounding performance as Vietnam vet Ron Kovic in “Born on the Fourth of July”, a role which would have surely earned him a Best Actor Oscar if it has not fallen on the same year as “My Left Foot”. And Oscars have been constantly elusive to Tom Cruise. Twice now, he has co-starred with actors who went on to win the Best Supporting Actor Oscar, first with “Rain Man”, then with “Jerry Maguire”, for performances which were showier, but ultimately weaker than Cruise’s. And he was robbed of an Oscar with his nominated turn in “Magnolia” losing out to Michael Caine (who’s done better work before and since) in “The Cider House Rules”. But perhaps now as Cruise gets older, moving away from action blockbusters and towards more character-driven parts, he’ll finally find himself in a position to get his long-overdue Oscar.

MUST-SEE ROLE: FRANK T.J. MACKEY, “MAGNOLIA”

One of the few Tom Cruise movies of recent years where he isn’t the headline lead, instead slipping into an impressive ensemble cast, Tom Cruise nevertheless manages to damn near steal the movie as appalling sex guru Frank T.J. Mackey. With his shark-like grin and macho posturing revealed to be a façade, hiding a haunted, bitter shell of a man, Cruise’s turn in “Magnolia” could be viewed as a scathing self-satire. Whether this is the case or not, it cannot be argued the performance works a treat. On first viewing it seems like a showboat role, something which the infamous seminar scene (shown below) would certainly suggest. But the more you watch “Magnolia”, the more you admire the subtlety of the performance, and the gradual stripping down of the bravado and false civility as the film progresses. It is a tour-de-force performance, the standout in a film full of them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n2IVF9a2IA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCEYxs7kWmQ

9. DENZEL WASHINGTON

I talked about Tom Cruise as being the definitive movie star, but yet here is Denzel Washington, who would also come under that movie star bracket, one space higher than Cruise in the top ten? Well, Denzel isn’t quite the box office draw that Tom Cruise or Will Smith is, and he didn’t join the famed “20 million club” until relatively late in the game. But Denzel’s real power as a leading man comes in the shape of his inherent likeability. Even when he’s playing a villain – in films like “Training Day” and “American Gangster” – Denzel has a charisma about him that just makes you gravitate towards him, and get behind him.

Washington has made his name over the years playing a selection of real-life historical figures. Malcolm X. Steve Biko. Rubin Carter. And most recently, Melvin Tolson and Frank Lucas. He fits so well into these roles as they are stories of triumph over adversity, and Denzel has the gravitas to be convincing as an ordinary man, “one of us”, and as someone capable of extraordinary feats of will-power or compassion. This is a gift he carries over to his fictional films too. He betters Frank Sinatra in his role as Ben Marco in the underrated remake of “The Manchurian Candidate”, and holds his own against the formidable Gene Hackman in “Crimson Tide”. He’s also brought some shine to lesser films, making the lightweight likes of “The Bone Collector” and “Remember The Titans” watchable, and at times even compelling merely through his ever-reliable presence. And surely that is testament to a great actor – making films better just by being in them. Why else would I have gone to see “Déjà Vu” in the cinema?

MUST-SEE ROLE – ALONZO HARRIS, “TRAINING DAY”

The movie that finally broke Denzel into the aforementioned “20 million club”, “Training Day” also earned him a Best Actor Oscar. Surprisingly, it was seen as an upset at the time, with Russell Crowe considered the strong favourite to win for his work in “A Beautiful Mind” until it became overshadowed by his volatile behaviour. But it’s a shame some view Washington’s Oscar win as a political one, as his performance here in “Training Day” was far superior to Crowe’s, and was well-deserving of the award. Denzel’s trustworthy charm is wonderfully perverted as the duplicitous corrupt cop Alonzo Harris. He seems like a cool, even glamorous rogue to begin with, but as the film progresses, it becomes apparent just how small and petty Alonzo is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XX-d2MMp3co

8. ROBERT DOWNEY JR

Everybody loves a comeback story. And few of the film world’s comebacks in recent years have been more impression than that of Robert Downey Jr. In the early 90s, it seemed like he had so much potential. His performance as Charlie Chaplin seemed like a real star-in-the-making turn. But then came the drugs. It’s a shame, as I feel if Robert Downey Jr had never gotten himself addicted to drugs, he could have been recognised as one of, if not the finest actor of his generation, and one of the biggest stars, too. But instead, for a long time, his name was synonymous not with any of his parts, but with drugs, and jail. Downey Jr became the kind of guy people talked about with a sigh and a shake of the head. “He could have been so much, but he throws away every chance he gets on the drugs.” He was like a Hollywood cautionary tale.

But then something funny happened. Robert Downey Jr got clean……and he STAYED clean. Then he got busy, putting together a string of high quality performances in quick succession, in a streak that’s ongoing to this day. Seemingly conceding that he had burned his bridges as a leading man, Robert Downey Jr reinvented himself as a supporting player, bringing his unique, offbeat charm to films like “Wonder Boys”, “Good Night and Good Luck” and “Zodiac”. Robert Downey Jr has a great skill for making his past baggage work FOR him, playing the kind of frazzled, on-the-edge characters which of course seem more genuine when played by an actor with Downey Jr’s history. But as Downey Jr earned back our respect, and gradually broke through our preconceptions about his past to remind us of his great talent and natural charisma, of course the leading roles are now once again being offered to him. First in smaller-scale gems like “Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang”. And now, this summer, in the big-budget summer blockbuster “Iron Man”. I hope the film is a big success, and Robert Downey Jr. can cement his status as an A-list leading man. He’s certainly worked hard enough to get to this point.

MUST-SEE ROLE: HARRY LOCKHART, “KISS KISS, BANG BANG”

“My name’s Harry Lockhart, I’ll be your narrator.” And that sets the tone for “Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang”, a film which is not only excellent in its own right, but stands as the quintessential Robert Downey Jr movie. First, that narrating. You thought Morgan Freeman was a good narrator? Downey’s wry wit makes him a perfect fit for the role, even as he messes up his exposition, reshows previous scenes because he has forgotten what’s going on, and calls out scenes for being stupid or clichéd. And he’s just as beguiling as an on-screen presence, playing the loveable loser role with just the right amount of self-deprecation. The Hollywood outsider who isn’t welcome in the glossy world of Tinseltown probably struck a familiar note with Robert Downey Jr in what was considered his comeback role. Credit must also go to Val Kilmer – who as Gay Perry is also on career-best form here – as it’s his chemistry with Robert Downey Jr that makes both characters so entertaining throughout the duration of the movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hPT7Soswe0

7. PADDY CONSIDINE

For those of you outside the UK, Paddy Considine may be something of an unknown to you. But if his talent is anything to go by, he won’t be unknown for long. Few feature film debuts of recent years have been as explosive as Considine’s turn as terrifying oddball Morell in Shane Meadow’s 1999 film “A Room for Romeo Brass”. His performance is agonising – there were several points in the film where I literally watched from between my fingers, or had to leave the room – and boasts one of the most bizarre accents you’ll ever hear. Several more show-stealing supporting parts followed, but it was his second collaboration with Meadows, as an ex-soldier out for vengeance in “Dead Man’s Shoes”, that truly cemented his status as a leading man here in the UK. Paddy Considine has been hailed (perhaps prematurely) as the British DeNiro, with his work on Meadows’ films aligned with the DeNiro/Scorcesse partnership due to the comparable levels of intensity and raw emotion Considine showcases. If Morell from “A Room for Romeo Brass” is Considine’s Johnny Boy, then Richard from “Dead Man’s Shoes” is his Travis Bickle.

Nevertheless, I don’t think the DeNiro comparison is a fair one. It’s one Considine himself understandably dismisses. Of course, DeNiro is a legend, while Considine is still relatively new in the film world – the youngest entrant on this top ten – so he has a long way to go to reach DeNiro’s level. But that’s not selling Considine short. He has a strong Everyman appeal about him, which makes him down-to-Earth and relatable, even in his edgier roles. He also has a keen comic flare too, which has helped him bring a touch of light to darker roles, as well as excelling in comedic performances like his role as Andy Wainwright in “Hot Fuzz”. He’s only just started to break America, with his highest-profile role across the pond to date being the doomed reporter Simon Ross in “The Bourne Ultimatum”. But it’s only a matter of time before he starts getting bigger roles. Paddy Considine has “future star” written all over him.

MUST-SEE ROLE: JOHNNY, “IN AMERICA”

As Irish immigrant Johnny in the underrated “In America”, Paddy Considine gets put through the ringer. His son dies after a long illness, his wife too becomes seriously ill, his remaining children begin to lose their love and respect for him, and he finds himself enduring extreme poverty. But his ability to pull through in the face of such hardship marks him out as one of the great movie heroes of the past decade. It’s a hero on a smaller scale than what you’d usually associate the word with, but that makes it no less resonant. I had the exact clip in mind that I wanted to show here, but couldn’t find it online anywhere. It seems “In America” clips of any kind are few and far between on Youtube. The only one I could find is the very last scene, so if you don’t want to know how the film ends, don’t watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG0X_ai__Hg

6. FOREST WHITAKER

When Forest Whitaker won his Best Actor Oscar last year for his performance as Idi Amin in “The Last King of Scotland”, some media pundits shaped the story as a stalwart supporting player finally getting the chance to shine in a big leading role. This is an assumption that’s wrong on two counts. Firstly, because his performance in “The Last King of Scotland” is not a leading role. Don’t get me wrong, it was an award-worthy performance, and I’m glad Whitaker won the Best Actor Oscar, but James McAvoy was the lead in “The Last King of Scotland”, Idi Amin was a supporting part, albeit a dominant, scene-stealing one. And secondly, because this wasn’t Whitaker’s first chance to shine in a leading role. Yes, he has done most of his known work in supporting roles in films like “Panic Room”, “Good Morning, Vietnam”, “The Crying Game” and “Fast Times at Ridgemont High”, but he has already proven his mettle as a formidable leading man, bringing his unique, captivating presence to film’s such as “Bird” and “Ghost Dog: Way of the Samurai”.

There is an intriguing dichotomy about Forest Whitaker. His hulking frame and lazy-eyed hangdog expression (his famous drooping eye caused by the genetic disease ptosis) often make Whitaker seem friendly and cuddly, on the turn of a dime they can be manipulated to make him seem extremely threatening. Regardless of what side of the fence he falls on, Forest has an energy about him that just draws you in. Perhaps it’s his voice, a soft-spoken, almost mumbling drawl that you can’t help but focus in on to listen too. And because he’s usually so quiet, when he does let loose and let his temper flare out in confrontation, it seems all the more explosive. A highly compelling – and until recently, sorely underrated – actor, Forest Whitaker has long been something of a personal favourite of mine, so it makes me happy to see him finally getting his due.

MUST-SEE ROLE: JON KAVANAUGH, “THE SHIELD”

For such a talented film actor, it may seem funny to rank his best-ever performance as a TV guest role. But oh….it is. I should say now that “The Shield” is my all-time favourite TV show, and I didn’t think it was possible for it to get even better. Then along comes Forest Whitaker, taking on a recurring role for the duration of Season 5, and the first couple of episodes of Season 6. I was excited right from the get-go, of course – I knew casting Forest Whitaker as a Lieutenant from Internal Affairs would provide a worthy adversary for Vic Mackey. But I didn’t anticipate the energy and intensity Whitaker would bring to the role. As an example of the dedication Whitaker brought to the role of Jon Kavanaugh, just looks at the weight he loses throughout the season. He starts off as his usual round, cuddly self, but by the end of the season he looks almost skeletal, losing so much weight that he almost isn’t recognisable as the same Forest Whitaker. As if Kavanaugh’s obsession with Vic is literally eating him away from the inside. I’m tempted to call the character one of the all-time great TV villains, but Forest objects to the character being called a villain. He really is the perfect adversary to Michael Chiklis’ likeable-but-corrupt cop Vic Mackey. Kavanaugh is by the book, and clean as a whistle, yet Whitaker fills the character with enough smirking menace to make him seem utterly vile and despicable, so that you end up cheering for cop-killer Mackey. Kavanaugh is an almost demonic presence in the show, seeming to ooze into every scene he appears. It really is a remarkable performance, I’d advise you all to check it out. Even if you’re not a “Shield” fan, Season 5 can work as a standalone showcase for Forest Whitaker, as well as the rest of the fine ensemble. Despite only being in “The Shield” for a short time, it already feels like the show isn’t the same without Jon Kavanaugh, and he’s already emerged as one of my favourite TV characters ever. Finding a clip to demonstrate Whitaker’s excellence in this role, however, proved to be difficult. The clip I had in mind originally – of Kavanaugh’s legally-right yet morally-reprehensible rejection of his estranged wife – was on Youtube before, but has since been taken down. Indeed, it seems like Fox has done a sweep of all Shield-related material, as there was literally only one Kavanaugh clip left for me to show you. Not the best example of the subtlety of Whitaker’s performance, but still a cool moment. Up until this point, Kavanaugh has been an endlessly-grinning thorn in Vic’s side, always seemingly one step ahead of everyone else. But in this episode, Vic has finally managed to outwit him and humiliate him, prompting the cheerful “aw shucks” mask to finally slip…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKzd6FmjDwY

5. JACK NICHOLSON

What can be said about Jack that hasn’t already been said? The man is a legend, one of the all-time greats. Indeed, if this was an all-time top ten and not about who I feel are the best right now, there is a very good chance Jack Nicholson would be ranked at #1. But as it is, most all-time lists tend to rank him no higher than third, with the top two slots regularly hogged by the also-legendary Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro. However, while DeNiro has become a passionless shadow of his former self, and Pacino has dropped from consistent excellence to sporadic flashes of brilliance, Jack Nicholson has remained endlessly watchable, the only one of the three who I will go out of my way to see in action in whatever new movie he’s appearing in. That’s why you won’t find DeNiro or Pacino in this top ten. No death threats, please.

But as great as Nicholson is, many people seem to sell him short, saying he’s only ever played himself. I don’t think this is necessarily true. Nicholson has gone the “chameleon” route in the past with his performances in the likes of “About Schmidt” and “The King of Marvin Gardens”. But more often than not, these films have been among Jack’s lowest-grossing, because people WANT to see Jack “play himself”. Nicholson himself explains it by saying, “If people go to see a movie with my name above the title, I figure they want to see a little of me on the screen.” And it’s true, Jack’s unbeatable charisma helped make films like “Chinatown”, “One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest” and “The Shining” into the classics they are. In more recent years, yes, he’s pushed himself less than he did in the 70s and 80s, that’s why he’s 5 rather than 1. But even when he does “play himself”, it’s still a great performance, as Jack, the brand, is a more entertaining, watchable character than most creations a writer could come up with.

MUST-SEE ROLE: JACK TORRANCE, “THE SHINING”

I should clarify here, that I don’t think “The Shining” is Jack’s best movie. It’s a very great film, one of the best of its genre, but Jack’s been in his fair share of all-time classics, and I’d rank “Chinatown” as his best film. But as far as Jack’s performances go, I’d rank his role in “The Shining” as my favourite. It’s the ultimate “Jack” performance. Larger-than-life, all devilish grins and arching eyebrows, and a healthy dose of menace. Stanley Kubrick apparently asked Nicholson what he hated, and when he said cheese sandwiches, Kubrick forced him to eat a plateful of cheese sandwiches before filming every day, to get him in the murderous mindset the role of Jack Torrance required. Unorthodox, you may think, but if this clip is anything to go by, it worked. As struggling writer and troubled family man Jack Torrance, Nicholson depicts one of the most convincing – and terrifying – descents into madness ever committed to film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS95mIo8GPY

4. CHRISTIAN BALE

I first encountered Christian Bale in “Empire of the Sun”, where despite being only 12 years old at the time, he delivered an astounding performance that really struck a chord with me, and marked Bale out as a sure-fire future star. The next time I encountered Bale was in “American Psycho”. And boy, he’d done a lot of growing up. Ever since that astonishing, electrifying role, Christian Bale is an actor whose career I’ve avidly followed.

So many child actors fizzle out into obscurity as they get older. Not so with Bale, perhaps because he’s now grown into that before-his-time maturity he brought to “Empire of the Sun”. His brooding intensity makes him a compelling presence, even in lesser films like “Shaft” or “Equilibrium”. And in his better films, Bale can carry that intensity and commitment into truly transformative, exhausting performances, like his agonising turn as Trevor Reznik in “The Machinist”. But Bale’s big breakthrough came when he got the coveted title role in “Batman Begins”. For me, it was dream casting. And in execution, the performance was a triumph. Not just because he absolutely nailed Bruce Wayne, and helped bring credibility back to a franchise damaged by the follies of Joel Schumacher, but also because I got to see an actor who I had supported for quite some time finally break through, and take his star to the next level. But aside from the upcoming “Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins”, Bale hasn’t really let his success change the kind of films he’s making, as he has put his energies into thought-provoking roles in “Harsh Times”, “Rescue Dawn” and “The Prestige”, among others. And with his upcoming films including “Public Enemies” (with Johnny Depp), “Killing Pablo (with Javier Bardem) and of course the eagerly-awaited “The Dark Knight”, the future is bright for Christian Bale.

MUST-SEE ROLE: PATRICK BATEMAN, “AMERICAN PSYCHO”

For a long time, I ranked Christian Bale’s dazzling turn as Patrick Bateman as my all-time favourite performance in a movie. Now, I’m not so sure if I’d call it my absolute favourite, though it’s still up there, but that doesn’t take away from its brilliance. Bale really is a force of nature in “American Psycho”. All odious smirks and venomous voiceover, Patrick Bateman is a decidedly unflattering portrait of 1980s yuppie culture, made all the more unsettling by the fact that this serial murderer (or is he?) doesn’t seem to be any worse than his collection of shallow, heartless, self-obsessed “friends”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-hUkO13Fy8

3. PHILIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN

The ultimate supporting player, I was really pleased to see Philip Seymour Hoffman step up and win the Best Actor Oscar for his spectacular performance as “Capote”. Hoffman had been in so many films that I’d loved – albeit often in small roles – and so it felt so good to see him finally get such recognition from his peers. But even before his profile was finally elevated, no matter what the size of his role, Philip Seymour Hoffman always managed to steal scenes and make a memorable impact in whatever movie he appeared in.

Let’s get the one blatant fact out of the way. Philip Seymour Hoffman is a great big fatty. But to his credit, Hoffman has made his weight a plus rather than a minus, playing both gormless losers and intimidating bullies with equal credibility. Hoffman has long worked best in ensemble films – “Boogie Nights”, “Magnolia”, “Happiness” – perhaps because he has a great skill for bringing out the best in whoever he’s working with. He’s so good at making others look good, in fact, that it has come as something of a surprise what a dominating screen presence he can be now that he is at long last getting a chance to really shine. He’s electrifying in “Capote”, going beyond mere impersonation to really add depth and nuance to his portrayal of Truman Capote. And from there, Hoffman oozed spiteful intensity in his villainous role in “Mission: Impossible 3”, as jarring as it was to see Philip Seymour Hoffman in a Tom Cruise action movie. Annoyingly, three Philip Seymour Hoffman movies came out in quick succession in January – “The Savages”, “Charlie Wilson’s War” and “Before The Devil Knows You’re Dead” – and I wasn’t able to see a single one of them. But if the reviews are anything to go by, Hoffman continues to go from strength to strength, and is excelling in these showier leading roles, as I knew he would.

MUST-SEE ROLE: DEAN TRUMBELL, “PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE”

I was very tempted to give this nod to “Capote”. Most people would, it’s come to be recognised as Philip Seymour Hoffman’s defining role, and it was the one that won him his well-deserved Oscar. But for this particular list, I thought it would be more appropriate if I chose an example of his earlier work – stealing scenes in smaller roles – to give an idea of what made me such a fan of his in the first place, and what made his big leading role in “Capote” such a big deal to me and the rest of Hoffman’s cult following at the time. Under this criteria, I’m still spoiled for choice – Philip Seymour Hoffman has made an impact in so many great films –but the one I’m going to settle on is the underrated comedy “Punch-Drunk Love”. Hoffman’s only in the film for three scenes, but his appearance remains one of the most memorable elements of the whole movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I7Zk4LMvYE

2. JOHNNY DEPP

Johnny Depp can do no wrong. A true jack of all trades in the film world, it seems Depp can turn his hand to anything and not only adapt, but excel. He can do comedy (“Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas”), he can do drama (“Finding Neverland”), he can do horror (“Sleepy Hollow”), he can do fantasy (“Edward Scissorhands”), he can do romance (“Chocolat”), he can do gangster movies (“Donnie Brasco”), he can do kids’ movies (“Charlie and the Chocolate Factory”). He can convincingly play heroes (“Pirates of the Caribbean”), villains (“Once Upon a Time in Mexico”) and real people (“Ed Wood”). He’s long been credible as a leading man (“What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?”) but can just as easily steal scenes with the smallest of supporting roles (“Before Night Falls”). It seemed like Johnny Depp could do everything except sing! Then he did “Sweeney Todd”.

With his movie-star good looks, Johnny Depp seemed destined – right from his early days on TV show “21 Jump Street” – to be a big-name movie star. Classic leading man roles were lined up for him as he launched his film career….and he turned them all down. Depp has never been about doing the obvious. Instead, Depp carved his own niche in Hollywood, sacrificing the big money and easy fame he could have got doing studio blockbusters, and going the left-field route with a selection of oddball character roles. Of particular note are his frequent collaborations with Tim Burton, with his performances as Ed Wood and Edward Scissorhands marking him out as far more than just a pretty face. With his fantastic performance as Jack Sparrow in “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl”, Johnny Depp finally became the box office titan he always had the talent to be when he so chose. The lacklustre sequels in the “Pirates of the Caribbean” series may have lost the shine of the original, but Jack Sparrow never lost his sign. The character was injected with an offbeat energy that felt so out of place in a typical summer blockbuster. Which is perhaps why Depp is so appealing as a movie star: he can bring an indy credibility and edge to the most mainstream of blockbusters. He is Hollywood’s Dark Star.

MUST-SEE ROLE: RAOUL DUKE, “FEAR AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS”

I should start by saying that I think “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas” is far from being Depp’s best film. In fact, I don’t even particularly like the film itself, I think it loses steam after the first half hour or so. But it cannot be denied that Depp is brilliant in it. Completely transforming both his appearance and his voice, Depp totally loses himself in the bizarre, drug-addled persona of Raoul Duke. Now, enjoy one of the best “drunk walks” ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0ktKSRs6a4

1. DANIEL DAY-LEWIS

It’s become something of a cliché to call Daniel Day-Lewis The Greatest Actor of Our Time. That doesn’t make it any less true. No one completely throws themselves into a part quite like Day-Lewis. He doesn’t do a lot of movies, but that only adds to this mystique. It seems like he disappears just long enough for people to begin to forget him, so that his latest performance shocks and enthrals people like they’re discovering him for the first time all over again. It’s like every film he appears in becomes an event.

First cutting his teeth on the stage and on British TV, the first exposure to Daniel Day-Lewis for a lot of people was the double-bill of “A Room With a View” and “My Beautiful Laundrette”, both opening in the same month in 1985, and on the same day in New York. This quickly showcased Day-Lewis’ great versatility, playing two very different supporting roles – the foppish Cecil Vyse in “A Room With a View”, and thuggish bisexual Johnny in “My Beautiful Laundrette”. These roles quickly elevated him to leading man status, though it wasn’t until “My Left Foot” that Day-Lewis got a leading role truly worthy of his great talents. But what a role it was, and what a performance! Day-Lewis totally threw himself into the persona of cerebral palsy sufferer Christy Brown. Too often in films, when actors “play handicapped”, it can come across as gimmicky, or sentimental. Not so here. Day-Lewis stayed in character whenever he was on-set, and so the result is that he is absolutely convincing, he becomes the character. And it is a performance mercifully free of schmaltz, with Day-Lewis playing Christy Brown in a manner that often borders on unsympathetic. He’s not afraid to make Christy seem selfish or egotistical, rather than the stereotypical “noble victim”. It is a truly engrossing performance, one that was not only deserving of the Best Actor Oscar that year, but stands among the elite amongst all the performances to ever win that award.

It is, of course, easy to say I forgot Christy Brown was Daniel Day-Lewis, as its such a transformation. But this is an effect I’ve continued to have when watching Day-Lewis’ subsequent films, ones where the transformation is less obvious. In the case of both “The Age of Innocence” and “In The Name of the Father” – the two films where he appeared in 1993 – my main reason for seeking them out was Daniel Day-Lewis in the leading role. But in both cases, by the time I was an hour into the film, I was no longer watching Day-Lewis. I was watching the tortured Newland Archer agonising over to choose what’s “right” or what will bring him happiness. I was watching Gerry Conlon crumble under great injustice, only to build himself back up and fight for his freedom. I don’t think there’s any other actor who can make you completely believe in his character quite like Daniel Day-Lewis. But in 1997, after starring in “The Boxer”, Daniel Day-Lewis disappeared from our screens. He entered a state of semi-retirement, living as a cobbler in Italy. It was Martin Scorsese who finally convinced him to come back, to play Bill The Butcher in his 2002 epic “Gangs of New York”. And what a comeback it was! Day-Lewis was simply stunning as Bill, dominating the movie, and proving to be by far the most memorable thing about it. Under the weight of expectation, and fears that he may have lost his touch after all his time out of the spotlight, he came back with one of the finest performances of his career. And that’s what’s so great about Daniel Day-Lewis. As great as he is, and has been, he shows no signs of peaking, or going downhill. At the age of 50, around the age when several other greats who have achieved such a status have opted to go mainstream and start making movies for the money, Day-Lewis continues to push and challenge himself, and continues to outdo himself, as his must-see role demonstrates. The best actor working today just keeps on getting better.

MUST-SEE ROLE: DANIEL PLAINVIEW, “THERE WILL BE BLOOD”

Believe the hype. “There Will Be Blood” is one of the best films of recent years. And the biggest gun in its arsenal is a powerhouse central performance by Daniel Day-Lewis. Daniel Plainview has been called “more metaphor than man” by one reviewer, and I can see where that comes from. Day-Lewis invests Plainview with such a dark, elemental energy that he comes across as the living embodiment of, at various times, The American Dream, capitalism, greed, and plain old evil. But while this would suggest broad strokes – and there are indeed moments where the performance is larger-than-life – what makes his Plainview so great is that it is also a performance of great subtlety and humanity. It’s a classic story – a man wins the world, at the expense of his soul – but Daniel Day-Lewis performs it with such passion and intensity that, when you watch it, it feels like something completely new. Every facial expression says something, every line seems to have an undertone, I don’t think it’s possible for someone to act more than Daniel Day-Lewis does in this movie. A perfect example of this intricacy of performance is in the scene selected here. In this scene, Plainview (who is presumably Atheist) must be baptised and join the local church in order to gain access to land he needs to build a pipeline through. Just watch how much is going on in Day-Lewis eyes throughout. One of many fine examples throughout the movie. It’s an astonishing, captivating performance, Day-Lewis at his career-best, and that’s saying something! And surely, the best ever performance by the best actor working today must be considered to be up there among the all-time great performances of cinema.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP7lFpPnHg4

- John Lees

Read similar posts to There Will Be Blog: Top Ten Actors on Filmonic

Hello, and welcome to the first edition of There Will Be Blog, the first – I hope – of many to come, depending on the response this one gets. I should perhaps introduce myself. Hello, I’m John Lees, Scottish film buff, and I happen to love talking about films so much that I write overlong columns ranting and raving about them! The idea is that each week (or whenever I can be bothered to write) I’ll post a new film-related column. Right now, the format is going to be based around a variety of cinematic top tens, but that may change in future, if I have an issue I wish to discuss, or a film I wish to review in-depth. I by no means claim to be any kind of definitive authority on cinema, and so my thoughts are not intended as the final word, or even representative of Filmonic as a whole, but rather as a conversation starter. If anyone else wants to give me feedback on my choices, or post up their own top ten lists, then they are very much welcome to do so.

So, for this first week, I’ve decided to talk about one of the key creative figures in film, the director. A world-class director can make an average film good, a good film great, and a great film into a classic. Of course, a good story is crucial to get a truly great film (and you’ll find many of the directors on my list are in fact writer/directors), but film is also a visual medium. The best directors can generate meaning through image, through the framing of scenes, through the very rhythm of a film, to create a film that both serves the story, and stands a unique expression of that director’s creativity.

There have been many best director lists over the years, and the usual suspects tend to fill up the top spots. Kubrick, Altman, Hitchcock, Welles. And deservedly so! They are all legends in their own right. But to make things a bit different for my list, and to perhaps give some credit to deserving directors who don’t always get recognition, I am not doing a “Best Directors of All-Time” list. Instead, I’m going to look at who I believe are the ten best directors working now. Who is consistently delivering the most consistent, compelling cinema, right now? For this week, my top ten is in no particular order, as I don’t think it would be fair to rank a group of directors who are different, but all great in their own way. For each entrant on the list, I have looked up a clip from what I feel are their stand-out films, and I’ll say now that in many cases it’s been difficult to choose just one! I hope you enjoy reading, and watching, and replying.

STEVEN SPIELBERG
Now, I know I said this is not an all-time best director’s list. But if it was, this man would surely be number one on my list. Yet, despite being the most successful, famous director working today, I actually believe he is underrated! In my film class, when we were all told to identify the auteurs of the 1970s, the others in the class mentioned the usual choices – Scorsese, Malick, Coppola – I mentioned Spielberg, to the sound of chuckles, and the tutor saying “Aaaaaah, the unfortunate auteur.” The perception was that his films are too commercial, and they lack any sense of his identity, his authorial stamp. I don’t see the so-called commerciality of Spielberg’s films as a flaw, so much as an indicator of Spielberg’s great skill in tapping into the public imagination, though it should be mentioned that he’s made plenty of non-commercial films too. As for lack of identity, I personally see the issue of family – particularly families under threat or falling apart – as a significant recurring theme in his work.

But why does there need to be a through-line that links all his films? Arguably Spielberg’s greatest strength as a director is his versatility, his ability to try his hand at just about anything – drama or comedy, period piece or sci-fi, blockbuster or small, personal film – and in most cases, pull it off absolutely convincingly. What other director could have made both “E.T.” and “Schindler’s List”? “Duel” and “Raiders of the Lost Ark”? “Jurassic Park” and “Saving Private Ryan”? “Jaws” and “Empire of the Sun”? “Munich” and “War of the Worlds” in the same year?

I admire the fact that Steven Spielberg is selfless as a director, that he chooses to sacrifice the little flourishes that could get him easy auteur points in favour of truly serving the story, and creating cinematic worlds that truly draw you in. As a cinematic storyteller, there are few – if any – who can beat Spielberg. His films are accessible, and many cases seem to be simple, but the best ones are filled with enough hidden depths and nuances – or just dazzling iconic moments – to keep them fresh and exciting for viewing, after viewing, after viewing. For me, nobody truly captures the magic of the movies better than Spielberg.

MUST-SEE MOVIE: JAWS
With so many wonderful, classic films to choose from, I felt like I was faced with an embarrassment of riches when trying to single out just one. You could make excellent cases for “Schindler’s List”, or “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, or “E.T.”, or several others. But for me, his finest hour remains the film that propelled his career into the stratosphere in the first place. “Jaws”. Excellently acted, and hugely influential in the shaping of the summer blockbuster market, “Jaws” still stands best as a masterclass in directing. The exhilarating scenes with Brody, Hooper and Quint chasing the shark on the Orca are about as close to pure cinema as you can get. If I bumped into someone who had been living under a rock for the past 100 years, and wanted to know what this cinema malarkey was all about, I’d show them “Jaws”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYyLWAgo7Vw

MARTIN SCORSESE
Often hailed as the greatest director alive today, Scorsese finally got his long-overdue Oscar this year. As embarrassingly late as that Best Director Oscar was, I don’t think it’s fair that some have called it an apology award for past efforts, for a high standard of work long gone. Oh, without a doubt, his work in the 1970s, running into the 1980s, is fantastic. That highly influential “great period” has inspired many of today’s most revered directors, and actors too. But Scorsese has never been one to rest on his laurels. The 1990s saw Scorsese become more and more ambitious with the visual stylings of his work, injecting a vibrant kinetic energy into the camerawork of films as varied as “Goodfellas” and “The Age of Innocence” (whoever dismisses Scorsese as merely a gangster movie guy are sorely underrating him, and need to see more films). Now, when a film incorporates a dizzying, intricate tracking shot, it’s often hailed as a Scorsese trademark, despite him introducing it after the so-called end of his great period.

But in spite of how the look of his films has evolved, the core of what makes Scorsese such a fascinating director remains unchanged. Scorsese is a master of the character study. Or should I say character dissection? Because whether it’s the low-budget grime of “Mean Streets”, or the Oscar-baiting gloss of “The Aviator”, Scorsese’s films feel positively filthy. He has a real knack for taking us out of our comfort zone, and placing us in positions where we don’t feel intimate with a character, we feel too intimate. We feel like we’re witnessing something we shouldn’t be seeing, getting under the skin of monsters. And what a collection of monsters Scorsese has brought to life, most notably with the help of Robert DeNiro. Ray LaMotta, Travis Bickle, and my personal favourite, the criminally underrated Rupert Pupkin, anti-hero of “The King of Comedy” (in my opinion, still DeNiro’s best ever performance).

These are the characters who have insured Scorsese’s status among the all-time directing greats. But what gets him his place in this list of the best current directors is his newer monsters. Bill The Butcher in “Gangs of New York”. Howard Hughes in “The Aviator”, less monster than plagued with an illness that is slowly turning him into one. And in “The Departed”, there’s of course Jack Nicholson’s great performance as Frank Costello, but the real dark heart of the film is Matt Damon’s Colin Sullivan. “The Departed” is a film full of character studies, character dissections. It’s the best film Scorsese’s made in years. Yep, he deserved that Oscar.

MUST-SEE MOVIE: GOODFELLAS
Psssssssssssst. It’s better than “The Godfather”. Don’t tell anyone I told you that, though, keep it between us. The scene below is the textbook example of Scorsese’s aforementioned skill in making us extremely uncomfortable in the presence of an explosive character. Say hello to Tommy DeVito.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twW_riHWz_4

PAUL THOMAS ANDERSON
One of those young directors who cited Scorsese as a major influence was Paul Thomas Anderson. A real cinematic wunderkind, with his second film – “Boogie Nights” – Anderson (aged just 26 at the time) created a film hailed by critics at the time as the best Martin Scorsese film Scorsese never made. Indeed, the influence of other directors on Anderson’s work is often brought up. “Boogie Nights” is cited as his love letter to Scorsese. “Magnolia” is his love letter to Altman. “There Will Be Blood” is his love letter to Kubrick. But it would be doing Anderson a great injustice to characterise him solely as a director tributing the work of others, as with each of his films he brings a unique, vibrant energy that can truly be called his own.

More than any director out there today, Paul Thomas Anderson stirs up in me an excitement for the visual possiblities of film, the artistry and technique of constructing a scene. From the audacious opening whirly-tracking shot of “Boogie Nights”, to the fast-cutting assault on the senses of “Magnolia”, to the intense isolation of Barry Egan in “Punch Drunk Love”, to the ominous, unearthly opening fade-in (complimented by the nightmarish hundred-hornets screech of Johnny Greenwood’s thrilling score) of “There Will Be Blood”, Anderson can craft an image to instantly set the tone for the entire film ahead, and perfectly embody the heart of the film in its opening seconds.

But this technical skill would mean nothing if Anderson had no touch with the humanity of his dramas. And thankfully, his camera always seems to find its way back into the heart of a deeply personal conflict. Anderson’s films are filled with wretched fathers and angry sons, with people on downward spirals and quests for redemption. Anderson can take characters who are flawed, or even vile – Dirk Diggler, Frank T.J. Mackey, Daniel Plainview – and makes them not only captivating, but appealing too. He is just a master of drawing you into the drama. It’s no secret he makes long movies – “Boogie Nights” and “There Will Be Blood” both clock in at around 2 and a half hours, “Magnolia” lasts for over 3, but his films never feel long. They whiz by in no time, so lost in his worlds and characters we become.

Some have labelled Anderson as pretentious. I disagree. Of course, it’s all down to perception – part of what makes his work so exciting is that he aspires to ideas so ambitious and out-there that the slightest flaw in execution (or a lack of willingness in an audience to go along with it) can lead to disaster. But if you do go along with it, you are treated to rare treats, little moments of brilliance – masterpieces within masterpieces, if you will. There is, of course, the famous ensemble sing-along in “Magnolia”. And in “Boogie Nights”, there’s the firecracker scene, knowingly playing with audiences’ unease with the “jumpy bits” in films. And who can forget about THAT ending in “There Will Be Blood”? Like I say, Paul Thomas Anderson is not for everyone, but if you’re willing to go along for the ride, you’ll be treated to universally-excellent work from the man I believe to be the most exciting director working today. Fact: before I knew a single thing about “There Will Be Blood”, seeing Paul Thomas Anderson’s name listed as director sold me on the film, instantly, my ticket was bought right there. That’s how good he is. And no, he didn’t direct “Alien VS Predator”…

MUST-SEE MOVIE: MAGNOLIA
This was a really tough decision to make. See, I just saw “There Will Be Blood” earlier this week, and it blew me away. I was astounded. It could very well be Paul Thomas Anderson’s finest work. But here’s the issue. “Magnolia” is my favourite film. If I concede that “There Will Be Blood” is superior, do I then have to accept “There Will Be Blood” as my favourite film? I wouldn’t necessarily have a problem with that. It’s excellent. It certainly could be. But it’s too soon. I don’t like to rank movies too highly until I’ve at least had a chance to put them under the repeat-viewing test. So, yes, “There Will Be Blood” could very well find its status in my estimations growing. But for now, I’m still going to go with “Magnolia” as Anderson’s finest hour. Filled to the brim with excellent performances (probably the best ensemble of any film), the film starts off at a breakneck sprinting pace, and never lets up throughout. It’s an emotional rollercoaster that grabs you by the balls. And it does so with this opening, brought to you in two parts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZCteWofrMM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6O1Y8RhhAYc

PETER JACKSON
Of course, everybody knows Peter Jackson for his groundbreaking work on the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy. And he deserves all the praise he gets for that, it was a monumental achievement. But don’t be fooled into thinking Jackson is a one-trick pony. Since “Lord of the Rings”, he’s achieved the impossible: he’s directed a remake of “King Kong” which is worthy of standing alongside the classic original.

Of course, Jackson ain’t all about CGI epics. He originally cut his teeth on low-budget gorefests such as “Braindead” and “Bad Taste”. The films were trashy, yes, but they were also great fun, filled with quirky characters and quite simply a love for film. And I think what makes his Hollywood films so special, is that he’s brought that low-budget oddness and enthusiasm into big-budget fare. Take “The Frighteners”, his first big-budget Hollywood CGI film. A straightforward monster movie for the most part, until you consider the inclusion of FBI Agent Milton Dammers. Totally peripheral to the plot, this bizarre oddball ends up being the most memorable element of the whole movie. And when considering “The Lord of the Rings” and “King Kong”, these indy sensibilities give the films a darkness and an edge that sets them apart from standard blockbuster fare. No matter how big Jackson’s films get, they never feel soulless. That enthusiasm for film is as clear as it ever was.

MUST-SEE MOVIE: THE LORD OF THE RINGS
I can’t choose just one part of the trilogy, as I view it all as one big film. It was all filmed as one big film, and it is best viewed as one (bring a bucket to pee in, though). And, as a testament to how Jackson has such a great skill for zoning in on the personal and the human no matter how large the scale of the film is, in a trilogy full of epic battles and iconic scenes, the best moment of all remains one character’s conversation with…himself. Gollum is a marvel in technology, acting (by the hugely talented Andy Serkis) and, of course, directing, as it makes a CGI character more human than a lot of humans!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLvIFRNbqOs

GUILLERMO DEL TORO
I struggled to decide whether to include Guillermo Del Toro in the list, or Tim Burton. I’m a huge fan of both. Both have a dark, vivid imagination, ideal for taking us on journeys into fantasy worlds. But while Tim Burton has more great films under his belt than Del Toro, in recent years, I fear Burton has fallen back too much on his reputation, and on giving “the Burton spin” on a number of remakes or adaptations, some with more success than others. Del Toro, meanwhile, has been venturing more into new territory, or at least visiting old territory in exciting new ways.

Guillermo Del Toro seems to have a fascination with childhood. Going right back to his first film, “Cronos”, we see children – and in particular children in peril – pop up again and again in his work. And this is because Del Toro astutely realises that there are few things more captivating – or indeed, terrifying – than the world from the eyes of a child. In particular, his Spanish language films – “Cronos”, “The Devil’s Backbone”, “Pan’s Labyrinth” – unfold like dark fairy-tales, presenting to us world that are both familiar and strange, magical and sinister in equal measure. Del Toro’s imagination when it comes to bringing a variety of monsters to life seems nearly boundless, but in most cases, the most terrifying monsters of all have a human face.

Perhaps Del Toro’s Hollywood output is less consistent. “Mimic” and “Blade 2” are both good-not-great films, but even these both have their moments of brilliance. Take, for example, Del Toro’s glaring middle finger to the unwritten “kiddies can’t die in horror films” rule in “Mimic”. But Del Toro’s best Hollywood work so far comes in the shape of “Hellboy”. A sorely underrated film, this came out in the UK at the same time as “Spider-Man 2”, and while it was of course dwarfed in terms of cinematic success, I actually feel “Hellboy” has fared better under the DVD repeat-viewing test. Its success is what makes Del Toro a great director throughout all his best work. Beneath the monsters and the make-up, the story is a very human one. And no matter how into fantasy Del Toro ventures, he always insures his stories have a human core to relate to.

MUST-SEE MOVIE: PAN’S LABYRINTH
Del Toro’s masterpiece. All the good work in his previous films, and all the themes he explored in them, seemed to be leading up to this. It’s a credit to Del Toro’s skill that the real world remains every bit as compelling (if not moreso) than the fantasy world. Having said that, though, the terrifying scene highlighted here takes place as part of Ofelia’s twisted fairy-tale. Just keep telling yourself: it isn’t real, it isn’t real, it isn’t real…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9YD2PFF31E

THE COEN BROTHERS
The Coen Brothers had one hell of a hot streak. “Blood Simple”. “Raising Arizona”. “Miller’s Crossing”. “Barton Fink”. “The Hudsucker Proxy”. “Fargo” “The Big Lebowski”. “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” “The Man Who Wasn’t There”. The Coens set the standard for themselves so high, that when they made a couple of movies which were merely good – “Intolerable Cruelty”, “The Ladykillers” – they were derided as the great folly of the Brothers Grim, and a sign they were losing their touch and going mainstream. Ever the ones to defy expectations, the Coens responded with “No Country For Old Men”, one of their darkest, most challenging films yet.

Yes, defying expectation is what the Coen Brothers are all about. Don’t believe me? It’s right there, in the unofficial theme tune of their first film, “Blood Simple”. “It’s the same old song, but with a different meaning”. The Coens have made a career of visiting tried and true film staples – the film noir, the gangster movie, the caper comedy – and giving them their own offbeat twist. Their canon of films proves to be surprisingly varied, but each is done in a style so unique to the Coens that “Coen film” can almost be called its own genre.

So, what makes a Coen movie? Try the unnerving mix of comedy, tragedy, and even horror, often all in the one scene. For example, the scene I’ve highlighted below. It’s a scene of quite horrifying violence, but I won’t hesitate to say I laughed at several points while watching it. Then there’s the characters. A collection of oddballs and eccentrics that could only spring from the Coens’ wacky imagination. The Dude. Marge Gunderson. Anton Chigurh, the best Coen character the Coens never actually created, though they did a fine job bringing the villain of Cormac McCarthy’s novel to sinister life in the form of Javier Bardem. The Coens have brought some iconic characters to the screen in their time, but even setting those characters aside, their very direction feels unique to them. Their pacing, their rythmn, the attention to the little details, the Coens have the rare skill of making us feel both nostalgic, and like we’re seeing something completely new, all at the same time. It’s an effect that can’t really explained without watching their films, and if you haven’t….I highly recommend you do so, as soon as possible. I’m sure you’ll find the experience highly rewarding.

MUST-SEE MOVIE: FARGO
The Coens have a fair share of modern classics and hidden gems under their belt, but for me, “Fargo” remains their greatest cinematic triumph. The Coens have explored similar territory to “Fargo” in other films – namely “Blood Simple” and “No Country For Old Men” – but I think what sets “Fargo” above even those excellent films is its heart. The Coens have a real mean streak in them, with many of their dramas (and even some of their comedies) seeming to present a worldview that borders on the nihilistic. “Fargo” could very well have been one of those films. Thank God, then, for Marge Gunderson. For my money, the best female character in film history, Marge’s unwavering optimism in the face of violence, cruelty and death gives the film a note of hope which makes it that little bit more satisfying a cinematic experience. But as this scene shows, the film may have a heart, but it could very well be a black one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYlLAoNa9oE

CHRISTOPHER NOLAN
The best quote I’ve heard to describe Christopher Nolan is that, while other directors slavishly work to imitate the techniques of Hitchcock, Nolan is busy making the films Hitchcock would have been making if he were alive today. It is a good point. Nolan could very well be Hitchcock’s successor. His films deal with similar themes of obsession and guilt, toying with perception and expectation, providing us with morally dubious protagonists. But at the same time, Nolan gives his films a 21st Century spin, the chronology of his films shifting and spiralling in unexpected directions. Nolan employs memory as an indicator of character or a key plot point, in much the same way as Hitchcock used props.

Nolan is a very consistent filmmaker. He’s yet to make a bad film. And it is all the more impressive that Nolan has retained his vision through a variety of genres, through films stemming from a variety of source materials. From his own creation in “Following”, to the adaptation of his brother’s short story in “Memento”, to the literary adaptation of Christopher Priest’s book in “The Prestige”, to the Hollywood remake in “Insomnia”, to the big-budget blockbuster comic book movie in “Batman Begins”, each of the stories – despite being so seemingly different on the surface – seem to share the same black heart. There is a little bit of Leonard Shelby in Bruce Wayne, and the duplicity and double-dealing of “Following” seems eerily familiar to the goings-on in the same place (London) over a hundred years earlier in “The Prestige”. And “The Prestige” says a lot about Nolan as a director. He presents you with a scenario, where you think you know what to expect, before pulling the rug out from under your feet – upsetting your expectations – and delivering something completely different. Quite simply, Nolan is a cinematic magician.

MUST-SEE MOVIE: BATMAN BEGINS
This may seem like a controversial choice. “Memento” and “The Prestige” are both excellent, and I’d absolutely understand most people ranking one of those as Nolan’s best work. But for me, the Nolan film I find to be the most rewarding is “Batman Begins”. It works on so many levels. It stands as a Christopher Nolan film, all his hallmark themes present and correct. But it also works as a great comic-book movie, revitalising Batman for a new generation of film fans. Its arguably the best superhero movie to date, ironically because it doesn’t play like a superhero movie. It plays like a sweeping crime drama, where the hero happens to be dressed as a giant bat. And because the superhero elements are used more sparingly, they feel all the more dramatic when they do show up. Roll on “The Dark Knight”!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCELYhYlLtU

DAVID FINCHER
Few directors working today can capture atmosphere the way that David Fincher can. His films – yes, even “Alien 3” – seem to share a washed-out, colour-drained look that compliments the grim, pessimistic nature of his stories. His films tend to revolve around men (or, indeed, women) struggling against apparently insurmountable odds, faced with seemingly impossible-to-resolve conflict. And the endings are rarely happy. I don’t think it’s a spoiler to say that “Zodiac” is a murder mystery that is never solved. And Fincher’s protagonists seem to exist in cold, uncaring societies every bit as cruel as the villains dwelling in them. This is seen blatantly in the urban hellholes of “Fight Club” and “Seven”, but also more subtly in a film like “Panic Room”, where the neighbours would rather close the blinds and go to sleep than help a family in mortal danger.

But Fincher’s true strength as a director comes in his mastery in manipulating tension. Look at “Zodiac”; ostensibly more a drama than a thriller, the film is nevertheless filled with moments that leave you more on the edge of your seat than a lot of horror movies. The opening introduction to the Zodiac killer. The murder in broad daylight. Robert Graysmith’s visit to Bob Vaughn’s house. Fincher has such a fine grip on the dynamics of dread. Same thing can be seen in the likes of “Panic Room”, his sweeping tour through the house playing like the first shots of the Nostromo in “Alien”. Speaking of which, his direction ensures that what could have been a disastrous follow-up to “Aliens” ended up a good film, albeit not quite on the level of its predecessors. The very fact that the then-unknown Fincher was able to follow Ridley Scott and James Cameron shows that he is a director of real worth. And he’s just kept on getting better and better since.

MUST-SEE MOVIE: SEVEN
“Fight Club” may be Fincher’s most popular movie, and “Zodiac” his most mature and technically-proficient, but for me, “Seven” still stands as his best. What could have been a pedestrian crime thriller (in the vein of the countless rip-offs that followed in its wake) was elevated through a top-notch cast and excellent, atmospheric direction into a profound, heartbreaking cinematic experience. Of course, it works just fine as a thriller too…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXuK0b_yM5M

DAVID LYNCH
Hollywood’s Wizard of Weird, David Lynch’s distinctive approach to film is often imitated, but never bettered. Lynch began as an artist, and branched out into film, seeing it as another medium for expressing his unusual artistic vision. And this explains the bizarre nature of his films, surreal, dreamlike explorations of the subconscious. Complaints that his films make no sense are perhaps missing the point, as I don’t think they’re supposed to, not in a conventional sense at least. Usually, Lynch’s films are best enjoyed when you’re less concerned with following the plot, and more with just being absorbed in the cinematic experience. This, to me, is the level Lynch works on best, as he is incredibly gifted when it comes to tapping into our emotions on a stripped-down, primal level, particularly when it comes to triggering fear. This is often achieved through something as simple as setting the background noise to just the right pitch. Few, if any directors have a handle on sound the way David Lynch does.

This is not to say that Lynch is incapable of coherent plotting. Far from it, Lynch has applied his unique style to more straightforward narratives in great films such as “Blue Velvet” and “The Elephant Man”. But they are no less nightmarish for being positioned closer to the real world: Something still feels inherently unearthly and dreamlike about them. This tension between the real and the surreal can be found with Lynch’s hugely influential TV series, “Twin Peaks”, where the mystery of who murdered Laura Palmer descends into the bizarre, frightening realm of the Red Room.

Something admirable about David Lynch is that he has refused to “go mainstream”, to compromise his vision for a wider audience. He funds his films largely through independent sources, to avoid the trials of studio intervention in his films, and to allow him to make the films he wants to make. Indeed, his films have become more and more abstract and experimental as his status grows, confounding new fans as he gains them. His latest brain-melting epic, “Inland Empire”, could very well be his most “Lynchian” film yet. It seems the last thing Lynch wants is to be defined, or pigeon-holed. He wants to remain as elusive and unusual as his unique brand of films.

MUST-SEE MOVIE: MULHOLLAND DRIVE
Skilfully treading along the middle ground between a Lynchian dreamscape and classic storytelling, “Mulholland Drive” is one of, if not the most exhilarating cinematic experiences of the 21st Century so far. I still remember the first time I saw it, and how it completely changed my outlook on film, and its potential.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-A6z6M1j2tQ

BRAD BIRD
Now, among these directors, a guy who directs cartoons may on the surface seem like an unusual addition. But consider the films he has directed. First making his name on “The Simpsons”, Bird went on to direct the underrated animated film, “The Iron Giant”. But it was his association with Pixar that elevated his profile to new heights. His work on “The Incredibles” and “Ratatouille” produced some of the studios finest ever films, and set a new benchmark for computer animation.

Bird’s great skill is, that his films don’t feel like cartoons. The way shots are framed, the way the reactions and emotions of his characters are captured, it is like he is directing a live-action film. With “The Incredibles”, we have moments of humour so small and nuanced, that they were surely meant for an older audience, on a level more mature and enduring than the winking pop-culture of, say, the “Shrek” series. And in “Ratatouille”, I recall one specific shot – from the street looking up – of some Paris scenery, where I actually turned to my friend and praised the great cinematography, only to be reminded the film was all animated, and there wasn’t a camera to film the action, not in the traditional live-action sense of things, at least. And when working with superheroes, talking rats, and giant robots, making your viewer forget they are watching a cartoon is quite a commendable skill.

MUST-SEE FILM: RATATOUILLE
Surely as close to a big hug as a film can get, “Ratatouille” tugs at the heart-strings in the way few animated films since the Disney heyday have been able to do. Sorry for the poor quality of this video, it was very hard to find anything on the film:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-A6z6M1j2tQ

Read similar posts to There Will Be Blog: Top Ten Directors on Filmonic