Hot Fuzz (2007)

Director: Edgar Wright

Cast: Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Jim Broadbent, Timothy Dalton

Have I Seen it Before: Oh, sure.

Did I Like It: I’ve always thought it was a fair bit less than Shaun of the Dead (2004), but that may be too quick of a judgment. For one thing, Timothy Dalton is in the movie, and I’ve long since stopped pretending that every movie he appears in isn’t great. Doubly so for any film in which (spoiler) he’s the bad guy. Yep, I’m counting both The Rocketeer (1991) and the 2009 Doctor Who Christmas special.

Maybe the film grew on me after I finally saw The Wicker Man (1973), because as much as this film owes a debt to movies like Point Blank (1991) and Bad Boys II (2003), it’s entire structure owes far more to that singularly British horror film. I think it has far more to do with the fact that it becomes far more resonant with American audiences not because it plays with the fundamental imagery and impulses of the Western, but more that the deep, evil at the core of Sandford is about preserving some kind of image that the Chamber of Commerce has for the town. It’s going to be a long, long time before anyone uses the syntax “Make (blank Great Again” and any American evolved beyond single-cells doesn’t laugh with derision. Doesn’t matter if the film pre-dates the dark times by a decade.

The most likely, answer, however, is that I really don’t want to make the kind of comparisons that rank trilogies—even loose ones—and series. Just because Shaun caught everyone by surprise, doesn't mean that Hot Fuzz is less. It still has pop culture awareness to spare, while still offering a dynamic enough story, the hallmark of Wright. It still has pitch-perfect performances by both Pegg and Frost. There’s nothing more one should try to expect from a film.

Gangs of New York (2002)

Director: Martin Scorsese

Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Daniel Day-Lewis, Cameron Diaz, Jim Broadbent

Have I Seen It Before?: Never. I’ve been kind of on a Scorsese jag lately. Thanks, Joker (2019), I guess.

Did I like it?: Yes, but to qualify that statement I will say I watched during spare moments on my phone. Thus, I’m almost entirely sure that I did not watch the film in the way Scorsese intended to take it in, nor can I weigh in as to whether or not the movie is too long.

I’m a bit awestruck that this film ever got released. It is the meeting point of three of the most wildly controlling forces in American cinema, director Scorsese, star Day-Lewis, and producer Harvey Weinstein*. That it was only delayed for a year is something of a small miracle. That most—not all, mind you—of those delays owed to 9/11 is utterly flabbergasting, especially when one considers that there’s only a single shot that could be thematically related to the incident.

Does the end product end up compromised? No, not for the most part. Day-Lewis chews through every scene he has, and as I imagine with every film in which he has appeared, he is allowed to do whatever the hell he wants. The tone of the movie around him, however warbles between the kind of deliberate crime drama Scorsese has made his life’s work, and the kind of four-quadrant easily digestible pablum dressed up in the disguise of prestige drama that was Weinstein’s second favorite hobby. It’s designed so meticulously constructed toward the goal of evoking the history it fictionalizes that one can’t help but admire and often awe at the craft on display. And yet, the music feels so all over the place in a desperate attempt to nab one more nomination for best song for Miramax’s campaign money.

Legend has it that a work print/director’s cut exists and that it allegedly feels more focused. Scorsese insists that the final cut is his director’s cut. This may be one of the only times in his output that I wish for the former, but begrudgingly accept the latter.

*Naturally, Weinstein has plenty of problems other than being a control freak, but I can’t be the first one to tell you that, right?