The Buzz: From Tusk Till Dawn; A Trip to Gotham at the Edge of Tomorrow {MotH Original}

{Originally appeared in Man of the Hour Magazine on September 27th, 2014}

Here we are, folks. The final week of sci-fi month. It’s been a great run with countdowns, shorts and blu-rays, and we’ve got a little more coming your way before switching gears for October (which yields both horror films and Comic Con, so this writer’s going to be a busy man indeed). This week we take a look at by far the most divisive indie film of the year (perhaps the most divisive film in a while), examine a new Blu-Ray that’s bound to be a classic, dive into the depths of Gotham and look at our final sci-fi short.

Movie: Kevin Smith. Kevin “the Clerks guy” Smith. Kevin “the critic hater” Smith. It’s tough to discuss a director who’s more known these days for his outbursts than his work. Bursting onto the indie scene in 1994 with the game changer Clerks (a film he made for $27,575, and would gross over $3 million), he became one of the “indie brats” of the late 80’s, early 90’s, bunched in with Quentin Tarantino, Robert Rodriguez, Spike Lee, Michael Moore and Richard Linklater as one of these young kids with a camera and a vision at a time where big-budget weariness had caused studios to snap them up and make deals in a flash. While Quentin rode Palme D’Or success from Pulp Fiction (released the same year as Clerks, both by Miramax) into Jackie Brown and Rodriguez was crafting a sequel to his $7,000 action flick to the tune of $7 million, Kevin Smith took a deal with Universal Studios to make a teen comedy.

Even though Spike Lee had years prior fought bitterly with Warner Bros. over his epic Malcolm X, Smith was really the first of the indie brats to step into the seemingly welcoming arms of the big studio system and makeMallrats, a raunchy 80’s throwback for the flannel age which received a harsh critical drubbing (deservedly so) and sent Smith back to Miramax with his head hung. Feeling that “Clerks was overrated and Mallrats was underrated”, his next feature would be a personal, confessional film entitled Chasing Amy and would prove to be not only a career launcher for Ben Affleck but would earn Smith his best reviews to date (and a Criterion edition of the film), and allowed him the freedom to make the religious comedy Dogma, the Hollywood satireJay and Silent Bob Strike Back and what would be his career killer, Jersey Girl, a quaint, average rom-com that suffered from Bennifer fatigue (this was post-Gigli at this point) and a dreadful female lead.

Smith quietly railed against the critics for the hit he took with Jersey Girl, and earned sympathy from his massive fan base and after-the-fact reviewers who realized the film was unfairly judged. After Judd Apatow took Smith’s talk-dirty schtick and removed the heart to make films like Knocked Up and Superbad, Smith became determined to reclaim his crown as comedy’s enfant terrible with Clerks II and Zack and Miri Make a Porno beginning a downward spiral into Cop Out, which received such hate-riddled reviews (and rightly so) that Smith swore to retire from filmmaking and that he would start charging critics to see his movies. It was revealed that he and Bruce Willis had several spats on set, spurred by Smith’s frequent marijuana use, a habit he picked up from Rogen that he feels “helps his creative process”.

Well, after a small critical comeback with the horror film Red State and building a media empire of podcasts and TV shows (including AMC’s Comic Book Men which, full disclosure, this writer appeared on), Smith decided to take another crack at the filmmaking game he’d swore to leave behind. His newest project was inspired by an article he’d read during a stoned podcasting session about a man wanting to sew another man into a walrus suit. Getting the film on track and casting acting great Michael Parks as the lonely fisherman, it appeared this project could either be a brilliant piece of weirdness or an absolute pot-fueled mess, with not an inch of wiggle room between.

Which was it? That truly depends on who you ask. Though the reviews were good out of Toronto, the audience seemed mixed, and has continued to be ever since. It’s undoubtedly the year’s most divisive film, and passionately so, and the issue of personal opinion is significant. There’s little way to write objectively on the subject, beyond stating that it’s a very bizarre film, very graphic and not at all for everyone. This writer and a fellow critic saw it within a day of each other, and while its of this author’s opinion that the film is a success, he swore it was one of the all time worst films he’d ever seen in his entire life (and this is a man who argues the artistic merit of a majority of the Halloween and Friday the 13th franchises). Now, perhaps our perceptions of the film, as many would be, are tainted by our perceptions of the man behind it.

This other critic, well before this film, had expressed his disdain for Smith as a director and has an open hatred for the later work of the actor who plays manhunter Guy LaPointe (whose identity, for the sake of avoiding spoilers, we shall keep a secret from our readers), so some could argue he’s biased. Then again, considering not only this author’s vantage point as somewhat a minuscule part of Smith’s media empire, as well as Chasing Amy being one of this author’s all-time top 5 films, one could argue there’s a bias here as well (though this critic’s dislike of Mallrats, Jay and Silent Bob, Clerks II, Zack and Miri and Cop Out make it a fairly even 5/11 divide of favor towards Smith). It’s hard not to have a bias with a filmmaker who’s as well known for his words as his work, and such a bias is likely to effect how one views a film as bold, bombastic and absurd as Tusk. So let the reader beware, this author can only truly offer his own take (and can redirect those inclined towards the opposite perception), so take such a review with as much or as little value as you choose to place upon it.

For this writer’s money, Tusk is a terrific experience. It’s reminiscent of They Live or the Japanese cult classicHouse. It’s a silly film, no doubt, but it’s sincere in it’s silliness. It doesn’t attempt to skewer or parody the horror genre. It doesn’t go for outright laughs. Like The Rocky Horror Picture show (whom it could easily join on the midnight movie circuit), Tuck just gets weird. Really, really weird. Michael Parks makes a masterwork of such a bizarre and quirky character as “Howard Howe”, a sad, lonely retired seaman seeking companionship, into whom Smith manages to infuse a tragic and true-life backstory that, if the film does nothing else, should shed light on a horrific part of Canada’s history. Justin Long and Haley Joel Osment do their part to move the film along, and Genesis Rodriguez takes what would otherwise be a minor role and commits to it with everything she’s got, selling it as seemingly no one else could (a surprising stand out is Smith’s daughter Harley Quinn, whose small part in the film is performed much better than one would expect from an amateur. It will be interesting to see how she does taking the lead in the film’s follow-up, Yoga Hosers). The story is admittedly strange, and goes all out, even putting Long in the ridiculously false-looking walrus flesh suit. It’s absurd both in its look and it’s cheesy 70’s zoom shooting, but that just adds to the fun of this quirky film.

It’s a mishmash of ideas, yes, including some that don’t work (an attempt at a Tarantino-like exchange between Parks and Guy LaPointe falls flat, despite Parks giving it his all, and the film tries to hide the blatantly obvious identity of Rodriguez’s “other man”, but infusions of Guy Madden-esque flashback sequences in tribute to it’s Northern setting and Coen Brothers style dialogue segments like an explanation of “Canando’s and Canadon’ts” are strange enough to keep this fascinating little curio on track. One couldn’t exactly expect high art from a plot involving a walrus suit (though some will suggest the film is indeed “high” art), but what one could expect, and one gets, is something unlike you’ve ever seen before. At it’s core, the film is an odd, abstract little affair, not Oscar worthy by any means, but for those who’ve grown weary of by-the-books fare like No Good Deed, A Most Wanted Man or the countless “guy with gun” crime films available in theaters today, Tusk is a breath of fresh air (typical of its distributor A24, who also brought us Under the Skin and Spring Breakers), a palate cleanser, and a reminder that films can break the mold. Whether you love it or hate it, it’s definitely good to know other options truly do exist beyond the sequels, reboots and knockoffs.

——

Upon it’s release, Edge of Tomorrow didn’t get its due. Despite acclaim, it lost out at the box office to The Fault In Our Stars, which captured the hearts of tweens and young adults everywhere. For everyone else,Edge of Tomorrow proved itself to be a thrilling, smartly written and brilliantly composed sci-fi thriller, in line with Minority Report and The Matrix. Or it would have proved that, if anyone had bothered to see it. Like John Carpenter’s The Thing before it, some cutesy, cloying crowd-pleaser bumped a brilliant sci-fi narrative out of the public eye, and hopefully (in spite of the inexplicable IMDB title change from Edge of Tomorrow to Live. Die. Repeat. and back) it too will find a new life and fan base on Blu-Ray.

This story of a recruitment agent sent out onto the battlefield of a human war against a strange alien species who, when he does, is sent back to relive the same day again, is equal parts action and comic relief, balancing Halo-like combat scenes and Groundhog Day humor brilliantly. Tom Cruise, like always, commits to the role with every fiber of his being, and plays well off of a stone cold Emily Blunt. The intricacies of the screenplay alone deserve special recognition, twisting and turning in ways even the most jaded viewer will be delighted by. It’s a must see, indeed a must own, and deserves the second life on Blu-Ray. Much like it’s protagonist, Edge of Tomorrow needs another shot at life to do what it couldn’t before.

——

TV: Anybody but the most ardent fanboy will admit that perhaps enough has been said about the billionaire playboy with the penchant for bats, so the prospect of Fox cashing in on the comic book craze wasn’t exactly a bright one. When it was announced it would be a prequel series, even more groans were evoked. Indeed, this critic had intended, after reviewing The Flash and Arrow ahead of premiere already, to avoid the comic book genre altogether for fear of avoiding other interests (though admittedly with Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., The Flash, Arrow, Constantine, Gotham, Agent Carter and Daredevil all set to premiere this season, as well asTeen Titans, Supergirl, Luke Cage, Iron Fist and Jessica Jones also in development, avoiding the genre is proving to be difficult indeed). This author watched both the first two episodes of ABC’s Forever and the premiere of Selfie, intending to review one of those two (and those reviews will come in the following weeks), viewing Gotham only as a passing interest. Yet, after such a compelling, brooding and pulse-pounding premiere, the show quickly became a must-watch.

The show recognizes several of the issues of the Batman mythos and resolves them. Mainly, whether intentional or not, it acknowledges that Batman, as a character, isn’t nearly as interesting as his villains. Like almost every other take on Bob Kane’s creation, the show begins with the death of Thomas and Martha Wayne, but decides to stay there, not zip 20 years in the future. How it presents the death is new for the medium, treating it like the typical episode starting homicide and nothing more, reminding us that this isn’t a Bruce Wayne show, it’s a Jim Gordon procedural. The show takes opportunities to show us the beginning stages of iconic villains with varying degrees of success, as the stammering suck-up Penguin can be a bit grating, but the sparsely and therefor brilliantly used Edward Nigma (later The Riddler) as a forensic scientist with a penchant for puzzles works well.

At its core, though, is Jim, a good cop in a bad city, trying hard to get by without compromising his values. Doing so becomes a lot harder when his partner Bullock introduces him to crime middleman Fish Mooney, a woman who tries to impart on Gordon how things are meant to be run in the city. The production design is stellar, as it keeps Gotham more grounded than Tim Burton’s world, but much more stylized than the Nolan-ized grit. It’s Gotham noir, or DC-CSI, but the standard cop drama stories infused with the comic book world work wonders together, making for a show that plays like Dick Tracy meets The Wire. It’s a truly enjoyable drama, fun for even the anti-comic book crowd. Check it out Monday nights at 8pm/7pm central.

——

News: True Detective season 1 was a massive success, both in viewers (crashing the HBO Go website during its finale) and in capturing the public imagination (leading to Bill Hader asking Matthew McConaughey who the Yellow King was at the Independent Spirit Awards). Since its (some would say anticlimactic) finale, many have been wondering what mysteries would lie in the second season. Since the show is an anthology series, much like American Horror Story, the show will not feature one continuos narrative, but rather a new story and new characters each season. However, unlike the repertory cast of the former series, True Detective will feature all new actors in these new roles as well. Once the word got out that the show would feature one female lead, focus on the transportation system and be set in California, fans and journalists alike were chomping at the bit to know who was on board. Now a little bit of info has trickled out, and it involves a horrible boss and a swinger.

Yes, it’s been officially announced that Colin Farrell and Vince Vaughn are going to be in the cast of the mystery show’s second season, though their roles are unclear. Of course, Colin Farrell is best known as a dramatic actor, and his casting should come as no surprise, his versatility on display in both bawdy comedies (Horrible Bosses), intense drama (Alexander) and a dark mix of the two (In Bruges). Vaughn, however, will seem to many a surprise, known best for his frat pack endeavors like Dodgeball and Wedding Crashers. In fact, to most audiences, the most imposing or villainous Vaughn has ever been was as Ron Burgundy’s rival in Anchorman. Yet, don’t count him out just yet. True, his recent films have all been flops, but delve into Netflix in the coming weeks and you’ll see some stellar dramatic turns, both small (Wayne Westerberg in Into the Wild), large (Edward Baines in Tarsem Singh’s surreal The Cell) and extremely underrated (the only redeemable feature of Gus Van Sant’s painful remake of Psycho is Vaughn’s performance). Though it seems that the female role will be the lynchpin of the series, for now we can rest easy knowing that at least two of the roles have actors who are able to tackle anything.

——

Short Film: It felt only fitting to conclude Man of the Hour’s Sci-Fi month with the very first science fiction film. Created in 1902 by the first true master of cinema, George Melies, A Trip to the Moon (or Le Voyage dans la Lune) was an absolute game changer, and continues to be revered to this day, ranking as the 84th greatest film of the 20th century in The Village Voice and influencing everything from 1956’s Around the World in 80 Days and Martin Scorsese’s Hugo (which feature Melies as a character) to the memorable music video for Smashing Pumpkins “Tonight, Tonight”. It’s special effects were groundbreaking for it’s day, and it’s image of the rocket in the eye of the moon is perhaps the most iconic image in all of cinema. This was one of the earliest narrative films (before which there were but realistic documentations of weight-lifting, dancing and most scandalously a kiss), without which there would be no D.W. Griffith (who claimed to “owe everything” to Melies), and thusly virtually no cinema as we know it. The importance of the film is undeniable, yet there are plenty of important films that are practically unwatchable now, not aging well either from its poor production quality by today’s standards or (in the case of some of the aforementioned D.W. Griffith’s work) socially unacceptable depictions. So does A Trip to the Moon hold up?

The answer is: remarkably so. Melies films fair much better in the test of time because of their imagination and their ambition. They’re a visual delight, full of hope and joy, embed in every jaunty, theatrical movement of the characters and the stylized, hand painted set pieces. Unlike so many films, where the technical constraints date the film and damage the suspension of disbelief, Melies’ work was so inventive and so unique in its look that they still embrue the scene with a sense of wonder and whimsy, particularly watching the men construct the rocket ship that looks so much like a painted flat surface that even modern viewers recoil a moment in surprise as the old men (who may indeed also be wizards) climb inside. Yes, true, the most jaded modern viewer can find things to nitpick (it’s hard in such a modern, fact-based sci-fi viewing world not to go full geek and go “Well, what threat do the moon people really pose if they can be turned into smoke by hitting them?”,  but even the most jaded viewer with even a modicum of love for the medium would be hard pressed not to take joy from the brief flicker of fantasy set upon the screen.

It’s a testament to the film’s imagination, quality and pure vision that nearly a century later, Gen-X-ers would marvel as Billy Corgan sang amongst the stars in a video deemed “cutting edge” and “inventive” whilst just replicated Melies original to a T. The endurance of A Trip to the Moon is astounding, well earning its ranking amongst the “1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die” (a film reference book most recently published in 2012, itself guilty of some questionable choices), and never ceases to amaze with its inventiveness and indeed incite, with its strangely prophetic third act (ok, minus the dancing moon person). It’s a must watch for any lover of cinema, and a perfect way to round out the sci-fi month.

Headphones: Prince & The Veronicas in "The 'Madness' of a Free U2 Album" {MotH Original}

{Originally appeared in Man of the Hour Magazine on September 24th, 2014}

So much to cover this week, from sitar sounds to J.Lo’s “booty”, and of course, the albums billions own without paying a cent. It was a fine few weeks for music, so without further ado let’s dive right in, give it a spin, and plug yourself in for some Headphones.

Album: Last week, Apple surprised all of its customers by announcing that every single user of an iPhone, iPad or iTunes would be receiving an album free. And now just any album, but beloved rock band U2’s newest release, Songs of Innocence. There was celebration, but also much outrage that Apple would fill people’s phones with a free album they didn’t ask for. Of course, whether such a thing is a justifiable complaint or a “first world problem” is really a matter of opinion. Yet those who refused to listen to the album and just wanted it gone can’t help but seem little bit like entitled millennials who’d rather bash something because its trendy to do so than actually form their own opinion.

That said, we’re all busy people. So maybe you don’t have the time to listen to the album, and you wanna decide if its a keeper or not. While we can’t promise 100% universal agreement, we here at headphones have decided to give a breakdown of the album, track by track, and discuss it, letting you know what’s worth having (since chances are you already have it). You ready? Then let’s dive into this for-some-reason controversial album:

1.  The Miracle (of Joey Ramone): Odds are, if you’ve heard any track from this album already, it’s this lead single, which has been used in Apple advertisements for the past few months as a form of foreshadowing. The truth is, it sounds more like a Lumineers-esque indie track with it’s chant-like intro before Bono’s voice kicks in. It’s the kind of track that, if you’ve ever seen U2 live (and they really must be seen live), you know is going to be a killer track in the set list. However, in its recorded form, neither the verse nor the chorus is honestly catchy enough to make it memorable. Better to wait until the inevitable live bootleg when the quality beat won’t be drowned out in so much production. VERDICT: Ditch it

2.  Every Breaking Wave: More in line with the low-key ballads typical of the band in the 80’s, "Every Breaking Wave" is a mellow and pleasant track. The chorus is a vast improvement on the previous track, and over all is a thoroughly enjoyable tune to just kick back to. VERDICT: Keep it

3.  California (There Is No End to Love): …alright, U2. We get it. You wanna pay tribute to the Beach Boys, but the "Barbara Ann" homage didn’t quite work. Set that aside, "California" is a great track. Musically, it’s one of their better tracks in recent years, so just enjoy the Beach Boys influence on the track, and ignore the “homage” at the start. VERDICT: Keep it.

4.  Song for Someone: A calm melody that builds up to a typical U2 power-ballad chorus. The Edge is never better than when he’s playing some triumphant hook. VERDICT: Keep it.

5. Iris (Hold Me Close): From the title, you’d think thous would be a Bono-led cover of the popular Goo Goo Dolls track, and quite frankly, that would be better (it really would be sick, wouldn’t it, though? Hearing Bono wail on that chorus?). What you get is one of those low-octave U2 tracks that does nothing with their lead singer’s vocal talent on the melody, and only a little bit on the chorus. The track at beast just sits there, at its worst drags. VERDICT: Dump it

6.  Volcano: You can’t really name too many U2 tracks that start with a bass riff, so that alone makes "Volcano" stand out from the beginning. It’s slightly triply, stripped down style also makes it stick out, feeling more in line with the Edge/Bono Spider-man soundtrack (oh yeah, that happened) than anything in the U2 catalogue. It’s a catchy track, but it’s definitely more notable for its unique-ness. VERDICT: Keep it

7.  Raised by Wolves: The clearly pronounced lyrics and buried down instrumentals indicate this is the “political message” song of the album, but it’s not terribly clear what the message is. It’s certainly an enjoyable track to listen to, and perhaps opinions on it may change once it’s clear what subject the band is tackling, but for now it’s worth listening to and swinging your head to the drum-heavy chorus. VERDICT: Keep it

8.  Cedarwood Road: The heavy guitars at the intro to the track makes the track stand out, and compositional the track is really great. Unfortunately, it’s a great song that U2 isn’t great for (even if they did write it). Give it a listen, definitely. You’ll hear what a killer track it would be for a more bluesy, stripped down artist, like Jack White. As it is, however, it feels off.VERDICT: Keep it for the song, not for the recording

9. Sleep Like a Baby Tonight: It’s very strange to hear U2 do a synth-pop track, and the combination probably should work. Unfortunately, in this case it doesn’t, and proves to be overly-long for a pop-track, too pop for an ambient track, and overall misses the mark, resulting in something boring without the trance-like calmness it should evoke. VERDICT: Dump it

10.  This Is Where You Can Reach Me Now: By far the most forgettable track on the album, it’s just too generic a sound to really land, without any of the grit or edge (no pun intended) of a classic U2 track. VERDICT: Dump it

11. The Troubles: The album closes with one of the more interesting tracks, opening with an ethereal female vocal which leads into a really satisfying finale. Different enough, while still retaining the elements of U2 that make it feel so right. Though it’s been a bit of a rough sonic journey at parts, Bono and co. send us out right. On it’s own, maybe it doesn’t land as well, but coming at the end of an a bum, it’s a fitting final track, in line with Ziggy Stardust’s “Rock and Roll Suicide” or American Idiot’s “Whatsername”. VERDICT: Keep it

So, there you go. Minus a few missteps, Songs of Innocence is definitely worth keeping around. But don’t just take our word for it. Give it a spin and see which tracks click for you. Just go in with the knowledge its not nearly the mp3 plague your hipster friends want you to think it is.

Single: “Funknroll”- Prince

The master has returned in this mind bending, sound wave shredding funk jam off of one of his two albums due to be released on the same day. In the 80’s and early 90’s, Prince was god, and “FUNKNROLL” shows he’s still got it. Maybe teaming up with Janelle Monae on her last album gave him a creative recharge. Hell, the backing vocals even sound like her, blended with a pitch-tweaked Prince spouting his usual half-sung half spoken, funkily poetic lyrics. Of course, we’re all in it for the guitar, and the man doesn’t disappoint. Even in a track so heavily electronic, he still crafts a great hook and an infectious solo that solidify his title. If this track doesn’t wet your appetite for Art Official Age, you oughta get your head checked out. And when you call up that shrink in Beverly Hills, you know the one, Doctor Everything Will Be Alright? You know the one Dr. Everything'll Be Alright, Instead of asking him how much of your time is left? Ask him how much of your mind, baby. 'Cause in this life things are much harder than in the afterworld. This life you're on your own

Music Videos:

Electronic: “The Sound of the Sitar”- G. Bonson

G. Bonson channels the 70’s cop flick vibe of the Beastie Boys “Sabotage” and transplants it into modern Eastern setting with this bizarre and weirdly entrancing video.

Hip-Hop: “Lemme Freak”- Lil Dicky

Lil Dicky has been in the comedy rap game for a while now, but “Lemme Freak” stands out as both a humorous skewering of a hip-hop lyrical cliche and a genuinely catchy tune. Plus, we can talk about how “real” guys like Kanye or Kendrick are, but no rap lyric feels more honest than the exchange about the declined card with the bartender.

Pop: “You Ruin Me”- The Veronicas

These Australian twins have been in the dark corner of pop music since 1999, but this gorgeous melody mixed with a fascinatingly cinematic video should hopefully put them on the map here in the U.S. of A.

R&B: “Booty ft. Iggy Azalea”- Jennifer Lopez

Realistically, the video for this new JLO single isn’t well-made in the technical sense. It fact, it does nothing but highlight the titular attribute of its two performers for almost the entire duration of the video and let’s be real here you stopped reading this a while ago for that very reason.

Rock: “Madness”- Crossfaith

Ever hunger for the nu-metal sounds of your misstep early 2000’s youth? Pop on the totally Korn-esque new video from Japanese rock band Crossfaith to take a trip back in time. You can practically smell that hint of weed from your older cousin’s bedroom while you sneakily watch a South Park VHS in a Rock t-shirt.

The Top Ten Roles of Robin Williams {MotH Original}

{Originally appeared in Man of the Hour Magazine on September 24th, 2014}

A little over a month ago, the world lost one of its most under appreciated talents with the death of Robin Williams. The Julliard alum never truly got the credit he deserved as a performer, even when he received his Academy Award, he was still recognized as a manic comic, his style aped and satirized while his dramatic work mostly fell to the wayside. He delighted millions, but suffered many personal demons, and his immense legacy, while wonderful, still doesn’t feel like enough. Man of the Hour has chosen to recognize this one of a kind individual by highlighting what we believe are his finest films. Ranging from bawdy comedy to intense drama to even a very minor role in a gargantuan film, below are the films we suggest be sought out for those feeling that voiding and wishing to remember the man who made all of our lives a little brighter and our souls a little richer.

10) Hook (1991)

What it’s about: “When Captain Hook kidnaps his children, an adult Peter Pan must return to Neverland and reclaim his youthful spirit in order to challenge his old enemy.”- via IMDB

Who Robin played: Peter Banning, the grown-up Peter Pan.

Why it worked: Because Williams managed to bring a humanity to an otherwise absurd movie. The film doesn’t work beyond a silly Spielberg flick if not for the incredibly nuanced performance from the man who took every role seriously. In Peter, Williams created a marvelously complex and sympathetic character, and took the role in a direction no other could have.

9) Hamlet (1996)

What it’s about: “Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, returns home to find his father murdered and his mother remarrying the murderer, his uncle. Meanwhile, war is brewing.”- via IMDB

Who Robin played: Osric, a fencing official who brings Hamlet to Laertes for a match

Why it worked: Because seeing Williams in such a small role proves he could be a cog in the machine instead of just the manic scenery chewer he was always painted as. Williams never really got to use the classical training he gained at Julliard (beyond lampooning The Bard in a madcap improv on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson), and Hamlet not only showcased his ability to truly perform in the classical tongue, but how seemlessly he could fit into an ensemble and be a "traditional" actor.

8.) World’s Greatest Dad (2009)

What it’s about: “When his son's body is found in a humiliating accident, a lonely high school teacher inadvertently attracts an overwhelming amount of community and media attention after covering up the truth with a phony suicide note.”- via IMDB

Who Robin played: Lance, a failed writer who achieves success through his son’s death

Why it worked: Because it hit close to home, I’d imagine. Williams never felt like he achieved what he had hoped, and he channeled that through Lance, making the audience connect to and relate to a rather despicable character, when looked at objectively. Easily the best film in director Bobcat Goldthwaite’s filmography, he owes it all to Williams.

7) Mrs. Doubtfire (1993)

What it’s about: “After a bitter divorce, an actor disguises himself as a female housekeeper to spend time with his children held in custody by his former wife.”- via IMDB

Who Robin played: Daniel Hillard/Mrs. Doubtfire, a man trying to reclaim his kids and his British nanny alter-ego.

Why it worked: Because Robin had a hand in making it. Not only did he endeavor to make the film relatable to divorcees and their kids (particularly that his romantic rival, Pierce Brosnan, plays an all around good guy), but he actually changed the ending to the now famous film. Whereas the original script called for Robin and Sally Field to get back together, Robin instead demanded he got to make the beautiful speech which nearly concludes the film wherein “Mrs. Doubtfire” explains that parents getting divorced doesn’t mean they don’t love their kids.

6) Good Morning Vietnam! (1987)

What it’s about: “An unorthodox and irreverent DJ begins to shake up things when he is assigned to the US Armed Services Radio station in Vietnam.”- via IMDB

Who Robin played: Adrian Cronauer, a military radio broadcaster who takes a stand

Why it worked: Because Williams got to show his range a bit. Yes, the role called for the sort of manic improv and rapid-fire joking that Mork from Orc was beloved for, but there were moments of sincerity and dramatic tension that Williams proved just as adept at. This proved to be the first of his four Oscar nominated roles, putting him in the same category as no less than Jaack Nicholson Michael Douglas, Marcello Mastroiani and William Hurt.

5) The Birdcage (1996)

What it’s about: “A gay cabaret owner and his drag queen companion agree to put up a false straight front so that their son can introduce them to his fiancée's right-wing moralistic parents.”- via IMDB

Who Robin played: Armand Goldman, a nightclub owner whose son becomes engaged and begs him to hide his work and lifestyle for the sake of the other family’s conservative image.

Why it worked: Because while many other characters in the film are blatant stereotypes, Williams kept Armand grounded, believable and relatable. Williams seems to focus not on the gay aspect, but rather just the story of a father facing the fact that his son is all grown up, and that’s what made the character so human, so relatable and in a way so progressive.

4) The Fisher King (1991)

What it’s about: “A former radio DJ, suicidally despondent because of a terrible mistake he made, finds redemption in helping a deranged homeless man who was an unwitting victim of that mistake.”- via IMDB

Who Robin played: Parry, a delusional homeless man in search of what he believes is the Holy Grail.

Why it worked: Because Williams was fearless in the role, not just physically (stripping down naked for an extended scene in Central Park) but committing to every scene, no matter how absurd it must have seemed on paper, and crafting something truly remarkable. This role would be his third and final nomination in the Best Actor category at the Oscars, this time in the company of legends such as Robert DeNiro, Warren Beatty, Nick Nolte and Anthony Hopkins, solidifying he himself as one.

3) Dead Poet’s Society (1989)

What it’s about: “English teacher John Keating inspires his students to a love of poetry and to seize the day.”- via IMDB

Who Robin played: John Keating, an English teacher whose unconventional style encourages a group of students to discover poetry, to discover life and ultimately find themselves.

Why it worked: Because it was iconic and inspirational, enough to live on in parodies, homages, and commercials. Enough that upon receiving the news of Robin’s passing, Jimmy Fallon stood atop his late night desk and exclaimed “Oh Captain, my Captain”. Because it continues to be shown in classrooms across America, continues to inspire so many to read, and so many to seize the day. This, his second Oscar nominated role, would put him alongside Morgan Freeman, Tom Cruise, Kenneth Branagh and Daniel Day-Lewis.

2) Aladdin (1992)

What it’s about: “Aladdin, a street urchin, accidentally meets Princess Jasmine, who is in the city undercover. They love each other, but she can only marry a prince.”- via IMDB

Who Robin played: The Genie, a supernatural being freed from a lamp to help Aladdin win the princess.

Why it worked: Because this was Robin at his most playful, this most inventive and his most manic. This film introduced many young viewers to Williams, defined many a childhood (this author’s included) and was Williams at the peak of his comedic brilliance.

1) Good Will Hunting (1997)

What it’s about: “Will Hunting, a janitor at M.I.T., has a gift for mathematics, but needs help from a psychologist to find direction in his life.”- via IMDB

Who Robin played: Sean Maguire, a therapist at a local college who helps Will accept who he is and the life laid out for him.

Why it worked: Because this, this here was Williams at his most extraordinary. Funny, but with a heart. Improvising, but in a way that brought more humanity (a la the “wife farting” speech). He was the anchor in a film that without it would have been cast aside, the strongest performance in a film full of powerhouses. It was for this film the man would finally win the Oscar he long deserved, and recognition he longed for (but still never truly believed). It is for this role, amongst and above countless others, for which he will be remembered most.