There's very few things in life as enrapturing as a good movie. However, with each passing year it seems filmmakers have forgotten how to make something memorable in the age of commercialism and "cinematic universes." I suppose we're all partially to blame because we keep giving them money. But it got me thinking about the movies which had a profound affect on me, and how varied they were in setting and style. I originally had a list of nine, but I was able to narrow it down to five movies I consider to be really good.

6. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) Keir Dullea, Gary Lockwood, directed by Stanley Kubrick

I got to rewatch this the other day with my brother, and I was astonished at how slow it was. I mean, I knew it was a movie that took its time, but over the years, I'd forgotten how much Kubrick asked of his audience. It's slow, almost mundane, giving off this "business as usual" feel to a lot of the movie. So it's a whole lot more striking when Bowman is going through the famous "stargate sequence." Honestly this movie stoops down and rises all the way to the top between shots it feels like. Goes from "neat" to "what the hell is happening?" more times then any other movie on this list. Even if you aren't into the story though, the movie's pure eye candy. Nothing about this movie looks like it was filmed in 1968, except some of the shots of the ships and space stations. Kubrick wisely built actual sets allowing his movie to endure for as long as possible. He also does a lot of interesting things with the cameras, making you feel how up is down and down is up in space. The best example is in the scenes with Dr. Floyd on the station. In almost every scene, you can see Earth spinning from a central point, while the characters remain upright. A clever reminder that no only does this station spin, but in 2001 they have the technology to mimic gravity, like on Earth. All of this comes together in a very Kubrick way to describe the ascension of mankind.

5. Chimes at Midnight (1965) Orson Welles, Keith Baxter, John Gielgud, directed by Orson Welles

I consider this to be Welles' best movie. Maybe it's because it plays to my own heart, as I have an obsession with Shakespeare, much like Welles did himself. This is often considered the greatest Shakespeare movie of all time, and its development couldn't have been more Shakespearean in nature. Nobody gave them any money to make it, but they still found a way for the show to go on. It has one of the most groundbreaking battle scenes of all time, influencing such movies as Saving Private Ryan. It's gritty, dirty, and was filmed with the intention of showcasing the death of chivalry.

Of course, you can't talk about this movie without talking about the two stars, Hal (Baxter) and Jack Falstaff (Welles). You can clearly tell these two have a reverence for the material. From Hal's playboy confidence in the beginning to his shaky but "kingly" rejection of Falstaff towards the end, Baxter knew exactly what to do with Prince Hal. But let's be honest, the real star here is Falstaff, and Welles is hands down my favorite Falstaff. I think Roger Allam is quite good too, and Robbie Coltrane's (Hagrid to all you Potterheads) is very underrated. But Welles lived and breathed this character, saying Jack was his favorite Shakespeare character. He was the right weight (the fatter the Welles got the better his movies got in my opinion), had the booming voice and comical camera work to really exaggerate how huge Falstaff is. There simply wasn't anyone else more capable then Welles. But there's a question I have after the movie: who is kind Jack Falstaff, fat Jack Falstaff? Is he the embodiment of Merry England as Welles held? Is he the hulkish heart of an entire England? Is he Prometheus, giving laughter and joy to the world and being punished by breaking that which defined him, his heart?

4. Solaris (1972) Natalya Bondarchuk, Donatas Banionis, Anatoly Solonitsyn, directed by Andrei Tarkovsky

Honestly, I feel like you could put Solaris and 2001 in either place and I'd understand. I struggled for awhile trying to decide which one I preferred. They're both as close to perfection as you can possibly get. I guess I prefer this one because on the whole it's a more personal story. It's science fiction concerned with the individuals stuck in its world. It's about one person really, Kris Kelvin, whereas 2001 is the story of mankind as a whole. This one seems more concerned with the "religion" of science fiction. It seems to me better defined as "philosophical

3. No Country for Old Men (2007) Javier Bardem, Josh Brolin, Tommy Lee Jones, and Kelly MacDonald, directed by Joel and Ethan Coen

It's hard to think of any other directors as versatile as the Coen brothers. When they aren't adapting a Hellish Cormac McCarthy novel about an agent of death with a cattle stungun trying to track down a suitcase full of money, they're making The Big Lebowski, a zen-comedy about a man and his rug. Anton Chigurh (Bardem) plays a unsettling force of nature, believing himself to be a kind of courier of death, thus he's refused all responsibility for his actions, which is perhaps the most terrifying thing about him. What's even more terrifying is seeing all the other evil in the world, we as viewers have to either be okay with calling Chigurh's actions evil and ignoring the hypocrisy of saying that or admit that maybe the torrent of evil in this old Country is unconquerable. Tommy Lee Jones' character says it himself "I feel over matched" to his brother Ellis, played by Barry Corbin. It's scenes like this where you see the mastery of this movie. Corbin's given about five minutes to make a character that the audience is supposed to be taken as a serious warning, and he has to share it with Tommy Lee Jones, and ya know what? He nailed it. But that feeling of being "over matched," who hasn't felt that? Felt that no matter what they do, they'll always come up short. Too afraid to see what's on the other side of that cliche, satisfy yourself knowing you bowed out at the right time. Who knows, maybe you did? The thing about movies though, the story tellers often don't allow their characters to do that. They have to rise to the occasion or die trying. Not so, in No Country for Old Men. Here, the old men bow their heads to unstoppable evil, some in prayer, some just so they don't have to see it, waiting for who knows what.

2. Apocalypse Now (1979) Martin Sheen, Marlon Brando, Robert Duvall, and Dennis Hopper, directed by Francis Ford Coppola

I gotta be honest, I had to restructure this list a few times, and I had a lot of trouble deciding between Apocalypse Now and No Country for Old Men for the number 2 spot. I give it to Apocalypse Now, not only for its psychedelic depiction of Hell, it's acting (Marlon Brando managed to be more of a presence in five minutes of screen time then a lot of actors are able to manage in 2 hours), Martin Sheen, the soundtrack, its ending, basically everything about this movie is memorable and terrifying. But I think it earns its stripes for being, elusive, for lack of a better word. This isn't really about Vietnam. It concerns a small group of people, going behind "enemy" lines, down a river, to take out a rogue decorated American soldier. It's not about the war, it's about showing the progressive descent into the "Heart of Darkness," the novella by Joseph Conrad in which its based. It's about which characters lose their grip on reality as they travel further into the madness of war, and which ones survive, hollow, more encompassing then before.

I know of three other really good Vietnam movies (Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, The Deer Hunter) and I guess that part in Forest Gump counts too (but to put it in the same list as these four movies seems insulting). Somehow, they're all really different, exploring different parts of the war while maintaining identities of their own. Yet Apocalypse Now is king when it comes to movies about Vietnam, the greatest war movie ever made, and it's for the same reason The Dark Knight is the greatest comic book movie of all time: both don't go anywhere near there genre conventions. Dark Knight is a crime thriller about corruption, greed, and vigilantism. Oh, and Batman happens to be in it. Apocalypse Now is about... kinda everything, if you think about it. War, religion, alcoholism, death, etc. Vietnam is just the medium by which the story is told. It's about how these characters get to their different states of madness, and what they find at the end of it: horror.

1. Blade Runner/2049 (1982 & 2017) Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer, Sean Young, Edward James Olmos, Ryan Gosling, and Ana de Armas, directed by Ridley Scott (1982) and Denis Villeneuve

Okay, I'm kinda cheating here, because I haven't made up my mind which of these two movies is better. On the one hand, the original had a, frankly, awful first cut. It wasn't until the director's cut and final cuts of the movie that it became this classic science fiction masterpiece, doing away with that God awful Chandler-esque narration and cutting to credits at a more appropriate time. Needless to say, it took awhile for people to "get" the original Blade Runner, and that's because it was a monster of a movie that was treading new ground and it wasn't able to nail it at first.

On the other hand, Blade Runner 2049 was far and away the best movie of 2017, with its first cut. Nearly every discernible thing points to 2049 being the superior movie (except the music. Vangelis' score is iconic, while Zimmer and Wallfisch is just really good). Every one on the cast does a great job (this being Ford's best work in my opinion), the plot is interesting, although it's a bit more of a McGuffan to explore the concepts Villeneuve seems more interested in. The acting is a lot better, and I really think making fun of Gosling's stoic "emotionless" acting is really cutting it short. He's a replicant. He's on the verge of his whole existence falling apart, getting closer with every passing scene. I don't know if he's as engaging as Rutger Hauer's Roy, but he's certainly as complicated.

I really think the differences come down to scenes. There are scenes in the original that will live on forever, and there are moments in the sequel that will no doubt be remembered for their originality. Some that spring to mind are the "Sea Wall" scene, the casino scene (really every scene with Officer K exploring Deckard's abandoned hideout), etc. But I don't know if they reach the same level as the dollhouse scene from the original, the Zhora shootout, Deckard's apartment, Edward James Olmos' haunting presence throughout the whole thing as a vessel that knows way more then any of the other characters or the audience, I could go on. That's another thing, how criminally underutilized was Edward James Olmos in 2049! I'd be curious to see if there's a cut where he played a greater role and whether it would have made an already incredible movie even better.

That isn't to say there isn't clearly a better looking movie. 2049 has some of the best cinematography of all time and easily its universe is more realized and stunning then the original. Of course, the original has its charm, and spearheaded a genre and art form with its release, but I don't think there's any question that everything looks so much more dreadful, harrowing, beautiful, etc. I mean, just go look at the scene where Officer K is talking to a giantess hologram in the rain. Seriously inspiring stuff.

But I guess the one scene I always go back to, the one gust of wind that just sweeps away any paper mache "decision" I've made about which I think is better, is of course, the Tears in Rain monologue. I mean, really, is there a more iconic monologue in all of science fiction? In all of cinema? I don't know. I don't want to have to answer that. I can say that, for me, very few monologues get even close to that 2-3 sentence monologue, where we get to see Hauer masterfully go through the 5 stages of grief with Roy (denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance). I'd love to do an article just ripping that scene apart and why it's so good, but I don't think I'd ever do it justice. It's where everything in the two movies comes together and makes sense. The desire for created things to live, to take ownership of their existence, and that memories, might be the only thing we really have.

Well, there's six really good movies. Honestly, I could justify putting any one of these movies in a different spot, but this is the order I chose for this article. It's certainly not the perfect list, but I think I got a pretty wide range of genres.Hopefully one of them speaks to you. Thanks for reading.