I love A LOT of movies, of all sorts of genres from westerns and heist films to comedies to indy films with certain attributes that make them good, even if they're a bit hard to pin down. Here's a list of five that I picked by staring at my DVD shelf and just going with whatever stood out to me.

Yojimbo / A Fistful of Dollars – For all intents and purposes, I put these films together almost all the time, as one is pretty much a direct remake of the other. I absolutely love them both though, and think they're two of the best examples of their genres, Samurai Stories and Westerns. The protagonist is strong willed, a skilled fighter, and a surprisingly compassionate person. He uses his wits to not only navigate around a difficult situation in a small town, but navigate it in such a way that he comes out on top. In both films much the supporting cast feel very fleshed out and believable, making you as a viewer that much more concerned about not what just happens to the hero, but everyone involved. Both films are wonderfully paced and beautifully shot. The fact that they're over 50 years old at this point but don't feel a bit dated to me is a testament to how well they were made.

Lawless – I am going to admit right off the bat that this movie isn't anything spectacular, but it's not awful either There are two things about this movie though that I absolutely love. I absolutely love the overall theme of the character Jack Bondurant stepping out his older brothers' shadows, learning to become a man of value in his own way on his own terms. Instead of muscles, he uses his brains. Instead of playing it safe, he tries something new and takes risks in hopes of a big payoff. At the same time, he falls victim to his own hubris and it comes to bite him in the ass. The other thing I love about this movie? The villain, Charlie Rakes. He's scum. Creepy, violent, nasty, weird, scum. Watching this movie with the scenes he's in is so cathartic because he's just so, so enjoyable to hate and despise. This movie is pretty violent though, very brutal and realistic, but it fits in the context of the film and the story being told, so I don't feel it's gratuitous or over the top. Though, I do think it could be have been toned down a notch or two without much being lost.

Smokey and the Bandit – This movie is '70s camp and light hearted action done perfectly. Every character is enjoyable in their own way and all of the actors have great comedic timing and chemistry with each other. While the camera work doesn't strike me as anything really revolutionary, they did an amazing job just capturing the thrill and the feeling of an amazing car, The Bandit Trans AM. It definitely feels dated and it definitely feels like it's a product of its time, but that doesn't in any way take away from this movie at all. It's just fun, fun, fun.

The Rocketeer – There have been a lot of films through the years with classic pulp themes, from loved classics like Indiana Jones to dud adaptations like The Phantom. The one that sticks out to me the most as my favorite (not the best though, I think Indy probably gets that title) is The Rocketeer. There is so much I love about this movie, from the set design to props and costumes to the casting to the overall pace of the film as the story unfolds. The story itself is great, but the overall feel and tone of the movie really makes it memorable for me. When I first learned that Joe Johnston was going to direct the first Captain America movie, I got excited as hell and I knew he was going to do the material justice, all because of how wonderful I feel The Rocketeer turned out to be.

Frank – Someone told me there's a deeper, underlying spiritual element to this film. I've watched it twice and haven't figured it out for myself yet, but I'll take his word for it. The message I pull away from it though, is that it's more important to embrace who you are and run with it than it is to sell out and try to be successful. Underlying messages aside, I absolutely love it for the characters involved and how they all interact with each other and how they're each fucked up and flawed in their own little ways.

Other movies worth mentioning, Alien, Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, Nine Queens, Drive, The Good, The Bad, The Weird, The Fifth Element, and way, way more. Seriously, I fucking love movies.

Movies I hate. I've seen some bad movies. More than my fair share. The world of film is full of junk like The Day After Tomorrow and Without a Paddle. There are some movies though, that are arguably quite good, but just aren't my cup of tea for some reason or another, for example I think that Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy is pretentious and poorly written.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon – God. I wanted to enjoy this movie so bad, even watching it at two separate times in my life. It has a lot going for it on paper, being a critically acclaimed operatic story with some very deep themes. It's beautifully shot, well written, and is a perfect example as to how Eastern Cinema can potentially offer great films that the Western World can appreciate, both in terms of critical acclaim as well as financial success. That said, it's also incredibly dense and incredibly dull. The fact that I've seen this movie twice and can barely remember much of it says a lot as to how hard it was to pay attention and I love foreign films and martial arts films, though I'll readily admit Wuxia films aren't always my thing.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre Remake – Even though the horror genre isn't my cup of tea and I very rarely watch them, I'm willing to admit that there are movies in the genre that have artistic merit. I don't think this film is one of them. It is obscenely violent, gory, and senselessly cruel and I think instead of aiming to scare people through excitement and suspense, it aimed to scare them through miserable scenes and images. It's been over a decade since I've seen this movie and to this day I still regret it.

M.A.S.H. – I love comedies and satires of all decades, from the Marx Brothers films to films like Airplane and Hot Shots to more recent films like The Hangover. I love M.A.S.H. the television series. I really, really wanted to love this film, but I didn't. The whole thing though felt like one big, disconnected mess. To me, it just seemed to wander, with no real big picture or goal in mind. It's not a bad film, it just didn't do it for me. In my mind, it'll always be that movie where a bunch of war surgeons did a bunch of random things until everyone decided to get together and play football.

Full Metal Jacket – I'm not going to lie. I stopped watching this movie immediately after Pyle's suicide scene in the bathroom. Emotionally, this movie was just way too much to handle. I think that's actually a pretty good testament to Kubrick's ability to tell a story.

American Gangster – I would arguably call this a good film. The story is compelling, it's well shot, wonderfully paced, captures the feel of the period very well, and overall it's just very well done. I don't think though, that I can honestly say I enjoyed it. None of the characters felt emotionally compelling to me to where I was concerned about who they were, what they were doing, and what was going to happen to them. Similarly, there is a very real, developing plot throughout the film, but the whole time it seems like less of a story and more like just a series of events. I hate to sound pretentious as fuck here, but to me it felt very competently made but also very bland. I don't want bland from my movies. If I want bland, I'll eat a bowl of white rice flavored with salt and a touch of butter.

As for the recommendations, I do trust you, very much so and I do very much value your input. So much so that when you recommend stuff to other people, I often find myself opening a tab to see what you're talking about. I think though, that in my mind, my asking for recommendations isn't a social obligation on my part to check everything out. If I did, I'd never have enough time to read everything, see everything, and listen to everything that people tell me to check out. To me, recommendations, like review websites and story synopsis, are a tool for me to investigate whether I should invest further time looking into something. So that's part of why I ask.

The other part though, it's a huge part of why I post on Hubski in the first place. I like to see what discussions come out of the questions that are asked and the things that are shared. Look at this thread alone, where you've gone on to discuss the merits of both The Matrix as well as Star Wars in the world of sci-fi. Hell, look at my camera thread from just a bit back, where we talked about Edwin Land and his contributions to America during The Cold War. Conversations like that, to me, are much, much more important than me spending and afternoon in front of the television. Conversations like that lead to discovery and learning, the broadening of horizons, and most importantly, developing relationships with your peers based upon shared interests. I could easily google the top ten critically acclaimed anime cartoons of each decade and go from there. But I don't want to, because I can't converse with google. I can converse with you though and everyone else on Hubski and I think that's more important than anything.

Right.

So we'll start with the observation that I'm hardly alone in this opinion. David Brin wrote what is probably the most famous takedown of Star Wars and later expanded it into a 400-page anthology of critical essays. I'm not going to give you 400 pages (I'm not sure why anyone would), but Jayson Bailey over at Flavorwire provides a good overview:

But that’s the trouble with mainstream science fiction filmmaking these days: there’s no expectation that an audience is capable of putting things together or waiting for a payoff, and there certainly aren’t many filmmakers or executives willing to take the risk. The problem, it seems, is the desire of those who greenlight movies to lump science fiction in with action, and it’s easy to guess why: Star Wars. Before 1977, there were occasional crossovers, but for the most part, science fiction was a genre purely unto itself, concerned with alien invasions and post-apocalyptic scenarios and subtextual parallels. After Lucas mashed up spaceships and swashbucklers, sci-fi was never the same.

Because here's the thing: Science fiction is the genre of "what if." Fables, going back to Aesop, are "what if" stories. The Sci Fi Channel, back before it sucked, even used "what if?" as its tagline. What if a friendly alien came to Earth and was attacked by the Army? What if someone invented a serum that made morons geniuses... but only for a month? What if eugenics and mass media were used to dominate society? The useful thing about "what if" scenarios is you can use them as a funhouse mirror to reflect your culture back at itself, highlighting certain things and diminishing others. Science Fiction is useful as social inquiry. Science fiction is useful in exploring ideas. Science fiction is exploring new worlds and seeking out new civilizations, boldly going where no man has gone before.

Jules Verne was out there for the time. HG Wells? Morlocks and Eloi were all about class discussion. The invisible Man is a riff on Faust. Even Jack London's Big Red One is an exploration of class. And this is what sci fi was doing... up until 1977.

Ever seen Logan's Run? You should; it's pretty much the quintessential sci fi up to Star Wars. How 'bout The Man Who Fell to Earth? One is disco as fuck but poses the question "What if everyone were killed when they turned 30?" The other is brooding and dark and poses the question "what if an idealistic alien were exposed to our consumer society?" Logan's Run came out 11 months before Star Wars; Man who Fell to Earth was 14. But after Star Wars...

Whelp, Close Encounters came out about five months after. It basically established the Spielbergian paradigm of "fuzzy special effects that love us." But there's no "what if?" to it. Alien and Black Hole managed to get out; they were shooting while Star Wars was in wide release. But after that, sci fi was "B movies" and "gigantic blockbusters by George Lucas." A lot of those b movies were ripoffs of gigantic blockbusters by George Lucas. There was no point in making something unless it was a cheap-ass movie or a summer blockbuster and there are only so many summer blockbusters.

I've been in these meetings, with these producers, having these discussions, and ten years ago, the rule of thumb was that sci fi needed to be $2m or less or $100m or more. You'll notice that those two budgets basically eliminate anything of quality. Hollywood learned that you could take a samurai film and put lasers in it and sell it for a billion dollars, so that's all they did from that point forth.

It might be worth it to you, at some point, to check out Harlan Ellison's I, Robot screenplay. It was a big budget adaptation of the book, by Asimov and Ellison, that died an ignoble death as soon as it became clear that science fiction was gonna be 100% a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. And all those "what if" questions were now going to be "who cares."

We got our I, Robot eventually. But it was a spec script by Jeff Vintar called "Hardwired" that had the three laws of robotics welded onto it. Our tastes for "science fiction", you see, have been so shaped by Star Wars that nobody figured the actual I, Robot could make any money. After all, they made Patch Adams into a robot and it lost a shit-ton of money.