(I hadn't used that post title in a while.)


Seeing a handful of movies this summer, mostly thanks to Netflix, I didn't wanna make sitting on my ass for 2 hours a completely brainless endeavor, so I decided to call on my amateur critic and did little reviews for each new movie I watched. Since a WordPad file has a limited audience, I figure posting them here might serve some purpose. Your reaction / participation is of course welcomed.

For the record, if judging only by star ratings:

Less than a 2/4 = Not recommended watching.
2/4 = See if you have nothing else.
2.5/4 = More flawed than good, but there's something here potentially worth your time.
3/4 = Not without errors, but the successes do outweigh the failures.
3.5/4 = Highly encouraged for the next time you need something to watch.
4/4 = (I've always thought it was best that critics avoid using 4 stars as often as they do.) Get this movie now.




Anatomy of a Murder (1959)--At 2 hours and forty minutes, Otto Preminger's court-room drama unfolds with a bit of length, but enough well-written legal play manages to maintain suspense; in addition, that time is used efficiently to draw out the story and characters in a clever and even-handed manner. With a majority of the movie solely taking place in a Michigan courtroom, sly stylistic direction and the cast's performances fortunately are able to sustain an ideal focus. That cast is particularly prominent as led by Jimmy Stewart, sardonic as ever, and George C. Scott, big-city sophisticated, in a display of divergent eras of acting, effective each in their own way. Duke Ellington's enthusiastic score is also notable. 3.5/4

Big Trouble in Little China (1986)--Calling this movie "zany" doesn't cheapen it, nor is it meant to. John Carpenter directs here with the camera sitting right next to his tongue planted firmly in cheek. Lead by an intolerable smart-ass Kurt Russell, we're taken on a dizzying trip through Chinatown, complete with an array of ahead-of-the-curb 1980s special effects and strong comedic irony. Excusing a rather ludicrous storyline and a plot that while it doesn't pander, isn't exactly a game of Operation, the sarcastic and slapstick happy tone of the film, matched with a racing pace and supernatural attraction, is consistently thrilling. (Note: Victor Wong bought used clothes from a garage sale at my house once.) 3/4

Bottle Rocket (1995)--Wes Anderson's debut feature length is a lighthearted look at a gang of friends who make up for their criminal naiveté with loads of effort. For much of the film the characters seem to be repeating the same pratfalls from an earlier scene, so one's enjoyment rests upon wanting to like the leads. Fortunately, Owen Wilson's motivated Dignan is the right face and pitch for a spirited wannabe lawbreaker. And though it seems like Luke Wilson is capable of only slight variation on his usual affable but desperate tone, it fits here. Low-key but charismatic enough to be appealing, the signs of Anderson's later delivered-upon promise are visible through whatever sluggishness may lie in the way. 2.5/4

Bring Me The Head of Alfredo Garcia (1974)--Having regrettably sat through Straw Dogs on an earlier occasion, it was encouraging to find a Peckinpah picture that could deal with its subject passionately and violently without being agonizing. Comparatively more peaceful and slower-paced, the first third falters a little, but once on track, it delivers. Demonstrating a palpable thirst for vengeance, Warren Oates is the perfect lead, equally cool and frenzied. And even though his girl is no acting miracle, as the love that inspires his extreme lengths, she and the story prove more than convincing. Less grand in scope than The Wild Bunch, with patented slow-mo violence, an unusual and effective prop, and some convincing emotional play, this is elevated above standard revenge movie fare. 3/4

California Split (1974)--Light on story, Robert Altman's underappreciated 1974 gem more than makes up for the absence of any specific plot with loads of character and a well-told representation of the world of gambling. It's not so much a hard-edged look at the life of high-stakes betting as it is a very loose but genuine portrayal of those racetrack mainstays, card club regulars, and point spread amateurs. Heavily improvised, charismatic and humorous, George Segal and Elliot Gould are the ideal oddball buddy pair of addicts on the inevitable road to Reno. In line with Altman's fluid direction and attention to detail, this honest and accessible approach to gambling and filmmaking is not to be overlooked. 3.5/4

Contact (1997)--Having received mostly poor grades in high school science classes, I can't validate one way or the other if the technical aspects of the story here are legitimate. However, a good percentage of the narrative portion of the film would be clear to all as emotionally manipulative and cloying. For example, overwrought and underdeveloped, Jodie Foster's proposed relationship with Matthew McConaughey is hardly convincing. These errors aside, Foster's confident performance, a few well-produced and purposeful special effects sequences, and the ideological center of the film more than do the story justice. The fundamental philosophical elements at present are worthy of production and dealt with in a reputable fashion throughout, save for the occasional lapse into sentimentality. 2.5/4

Crash (1995)--Controversial director Cronenberg has picked up on a community of fetishists but managed to forget that a premise is still not a plot. Crash is at first an interesting look at a peculiar subculture, but it eventually feels more superficial than fully developed. After the initial introduction, it's just the same couple threads of the story on repeat. The same sexual oddities reoccur but never reveal themselves. Paper-thin and one-dimensional, everything from the story to most of the acting fails to make such a unique subject ever feel compelling. A couple of scenes and some well-done makeup effects still are not enough to salvage a bland and incomplete depiction of a disturbed but distinct world. 1.5/4

The Croupier (1997)--While producers were discussing the next actor to play James Bond, Clive Owen's name was kicked around as a candidate. Judging from his BMW shorts, this would've been a wise decision, but with The Croupier in mind, Owen doesn't appear capable of even sounding out the secret agent's name. However, maybe any displeasure here is more the fault of director Mike Hodges. Hodges' Get Carter, from twenty-six years before The Croupier's production, remains a more daring and persuasive look at a side of the British underworld--perhaps he just lost his edge with age. His comeback with a boring film and a blonde Clive Owen are both equally forgettable. This is a rather flaccid take on a presumably interesting life. 1/4

The Dancer Upstairs (2002)--John Malkovich sets aside acting for a methodical approach to terrorism Latin American-style. Creating atmosphere so finitely through a capable control of cinematography and on-screen violence, the film's mood is as absorbing and evocative as any role Malkovich the actor has managed. Too is he able to call on a restrained but acute performance from his lead, Javier Bardem. However, the narrative is let down by being rather flat at times, failing to capitalize on the suspense the story should have been capable of. Emotionally underdeveloped characterizations disappoint the film's potential as well. While he doesn't quite prove himself complete yet, Malkovich's directorial skills need not be doubted. 3/4

Dead Again (1991)--Certain ways of presenting a movie have worked to a greater extent during one time period than they have later in history. For example, Kenneth Branagh here alternates between flashbacks to present tense, from the 1940s to the 1990s, utilizing older filmmaking techniques in both past and present times to varying degrees of success. Primarily based around allusions to Hitchcock films, while the overstated acting and operatic Herrmann-esque score are fitting for the black and white days, they are touches that can appear disjointed and heavy-handed in the modern era. Fortunately, some balance is achieved, the unpredictable nature of the story creates suspense, and a well-intentioned homage gets its influences right, all the way down to the surreal Spellbound climax. 3/4

The Devil's Advocate (1997)--About as subtle as a school bus heading straight on for a semi, it's in these over-the-top moments that all involved meet their high water mark. For instance, Pacino thrives in a role of epic proportions, interjecting a wry sense of humor fitting for his character. Likewise, establishing a few moments of levity, director Hackford maintains an energy level that never allows his film to completely choke on its own grave nature. All this alongside rich cinematography and a script full of lively dialogue, though the on-screen action is often dense, it never manages to becomes too clumsy. The ending is the least graceful portion of the whole showy affair, but entertainment here is not to be derived from delicacy. 2.5/4

The Driver (1978)--Seven minutes into this movie awaits one of three total scenes focused solely on driving, and it succeeds for several key reasons: the point-of-view car shots lend a distinct visual style; extended takes demonstrate choreography that elevates above choppy editing approaches to filming; a silent Ryan O'Neal, acting within his range, and the cool blues of the city lights at night add a polished pitch to the proceedings. Yet, outside of this action, the film does suffer when a plot is feigned and dialogue introduced. Also, the characters' constrictive, no-nonsense tones make for a product that's at times too rigid. However, these in-between moments are bearable enough to wait for the remarkable driving sequences that follow. 2.5/4

Escape From New York (1981)--John Carpenter makes fun movies--and I mean that in the least belittling sense possible. However, while remaining a fun picture, Escape From New York is rather like science-fiction for people who read at a 5th grade level. Furthermore, the action here unfolds in a very loose manner, unable to take advantage of opportunities of suspense because of its laidback style. That being said, it still manages to be a curious watch, full of comic-book machismo and a stern presentation of a futuristic nightmare. A novel premise, Kurt Russell's tough guy with a wink, and a vintage score by the director himself add to the entertainment. 2.5/4

Hard Eight (1996)--That Hard Eight is also known under the title of Sydney, the name of the main character (Phillip Baker Hall), is especially fitting. The man and the movie are one in the same, their weaknesses and strengths shared. While at once deliberate, understated, and knowledgeable, at times these qualities can transform into something too mysterious, too slow, and too distant. And though a plot is hard to come by at first, there are enough twists here to not underwhelm the patient viewer. However, beyond Anderson's solid direction, the real key to any success this film enjoys is courtesy of the precise acting on display. 2.5/4

Have Gun - Will Travel: The Complete First Season (1957)--TV series. Richard Boone's western loner Paladin recites Shakespeare with the same dexterity that he draws a firearm. Literate and culturally astute at once, while still a man in black with deadly aim, his lead is equal parts dashing and dangerous. Through well-paced episodes approximately twenty-five minutes in length, Paladin is hired in a number of various occupations, all requiring his precision with a six-shooter and dedication to the job. The occasional datedness aside, tightly arranged action is highlighted by a slew of competent guest stars (Charles Bronson, Angie Dickinson, etc.) and a subtle wit beneath the gunplay. 3/4

Kalifornia (1993)--Brad Pitt would hardly be confused for Brando, and though his accent sounds forced at times, he proves himself a decent actor and should be, in part, commended for not merely taking cookie-cutter roles, especially earlier in his career. However, a strong recommendation cannot be carried over to this movie. Kalifornia is a filled with uneasy violence and uneven direction. While containing some lucid camerawork and a good effort to capture Terrence Malick's America, it doesn't really know if it's a bloody serial killer film or an intellectual's attempt to comprehend murder. It tries to take the latter route through a series of pretentious and dry voice-overs but doesn't have the courage or know-how to stay on track. 1/4

The Killers (1946)--As a small but shadowy crowd gathers around the grave of an ex-boxer turned illegal named The Swede, in front of an surreal backdrop of gloomy clouds, Robert Siodmak hits a quintessential film noir note. Cast in expressionist lighting, this tale of want and will is cleverly told through a series of flashbacks, letting the mystery and anticipation build along the way. Weighed down momentarily by an occasionally dull sequence in the middle that can't keep up with the brilliant opening scene and pales in comparison to the tightly-wound finale, a brash Burt Lancaster, graced by an ever-striking Ava Gardner, are moving enough to overcome whatever lulls there may be. 3.5/4

Lady Snowblood (1973)--Gaining its most recent notoriety because of Tarantino's work, while Lady Snowblood is a female-led, red-soaked revenge tale separated into chapter structure, it is not the same film as Kill Bill. More emotionally resonant, the tragedy here of a woman hell-bent on blood is a sobering study of vengeance. However, its frequent forays into stylized filmmaking (jump cuts, comic panels, non-linear sequencing, freeze frames, etc.) interrupt the studied tone and hinder pacing. In addition, narration cheats the plot and further stifles momentum. Fortunately, a strong lead, well-performed action scenes, and an absorbing story do their best to escape the technical excesses on display. 2.5/4

The Last Boy Scout (1991)--Here are a couple of adjectives: over-the-top, cheesy, formulaic, vulgar, entertaining. Shane Black's multi-million dollar script is complete with self-aware dialogue that often fails to amount to more than four-letter word contrivances. While plot holes abound, its lunacy of a story hijacks a page out of the buddy black-white movie genre. Similarly flawed, Tony Scott's bludgeoning direction aims for body count more than suspense. However, though try as one might to avoid its pandering charm, a slew of fantastic action scenes never allow the viewer a moment to think straight. Bruce Willis is a step below his brilliant John McClane, and the film is a couple rungs below Cro-Magnon man, but pure adrenaline alone makes for an entertaining time. 2.5/4

Last Life in the Universe (2003)--Christopher Doyle's textured cinematography presents meditative visuals, but in spite of its quaint attributes, the entire film dissolves from initially conjuring curiosity to later exposing itself, by its own vague sensibilities, as hollow. The story doesn't explain itself logically nor really seem to mind this. It's all just window-dressing for two offbeat leads. However, the Oscar and Felix pairing of the main characters offers nothing new or of particular interest. Despite apt actors, brilliant photography, and even the potential for an appealing set-up, all the elements at work seem to be conspiring against each other. While it may be a film of understatement, a two hour exercise in lighting and mood can't justify hopeless meandering for a self-indulgent sake. 2/4

Lone Star (1995)--At first John Sayles seems to be leading a messy lecture on race and ethnicity, complete with broadly drawn depictions straying far from authenticity. Thankfully those characterizations become more genuine and fully realized as the film soon finds a sophisticated rhythm and its ideological focus. By successfully weaving an ensemble cast representing the many sides of multiculturalism, Sayles creates a view of modern America that has a slant but enough substance and story to back it up. Seamless direction that easily transitions from present day to flashbacks, cinematography that takes full advantage of its Southern location, and a satisfying enough conclusion underscore a surprising mystery about the core experiences we each share in common. 3.5/4

Palookaville (1995)--Not the greatest ending ever but proved generally on par before that point. The admirable story of ill-fated, bumbling petty thieves is note of the route Woody Allen would have been wise to take with his Small Time Crooks. Regardless, this picture is authentically acted and at a length to know that the same note it hits throughout shouldn't be stretched too far. While the three leads are of the pathetic type, the film doesn't so much mock them but rather embraces their condition in a light-hearted and charming way. Funny and charismatic enough that an almost-syrupy conclusion doesn't subtract too much. 2.5/4

The Red Circle (1970)--An air of inevitably haunts the action in this masterpiece from director Melville. Muted in color and minimalist in its composition, each scene unwinds with a calculated expertise. Clocking in at about 2 hours and 20 minutes, with long takes and silence emphasized over dialogue, the story unfurls quite deliberately, managing however to never stall suspense. It is the control and understanding exhibited by the veteran behind the camera that makes this story of a heist something more than just cops and robbers. There is an intangible character that elevates action to tension and cool to poise, that gives the characters their dignity and the story its soul. 4/4

Red Rock West (1993)--The famous film prescription of "a girl and a gun" has resulted in its share of movie miracles and mishaps. While John Dahl's neo-noir features enough moderately successful gunplay, the girl portion of the equation isn't able to hold its weight. The female, in this case Lara Flynn Boyle, comes off unconvincing, like a child showing her limited size by being drowned in adult clothes. This inadequate presence hinders the generally skillful way in which the story builds tension and delivers a series of surprises. However, even those surprises come about as the product of action that doesn't hold up to close inspection. Sleeper pick with stylish cinematography and an ultimately disappointing conclusion. 2.5/4

The Right Stuff (1983)--Despite being over 3 hours long, Phillip Kaufman casts aside doubt about the grand scale of his picture with a creative and gripping look at the evolution of the space program. Visually imaginative, the director's lens easily captures the magic of a jet's flight, a rocket's launch, and the open sky. In addition, the narrative is able to effectively weave in decades of change to present a balanced story not only of the pilots but of their wives too. With a surprising sense of humor and a uniformly adept cast, this is both a courageous historical tale and a fitting tribute to American aeronautics. 4/4

Say Anything (1989)--As an authentic picture of teenage love is marred by most else, Cameron Crowe's directorial debut is an exercise in ups-and-downs. For instance, the touching and now classic scene featuring a blaring boom box held over John Cusack's shoulders is unfortunately followed by an absurd and poorly-developed tangent of a plot thread involving Ione Sky, John Mahoney, and some outlandish distraction courtesy of the IRS. While the romantic angle between the outsider and the high school valedictorian excels, especially thanks to the never-better Cusack, it is weighted down by being stuck between a bland and feeble side story of money laundering and father-daughter relations. 2.5/4

She Hate Me (2004)--Scattered and rambling, Spike Lee mixes the mob, lesbians, and insider-trading in an incoherent tale of I'm not quite sure. At once he's striking out against Enron corporate greed, then leaving that portion of the plot alone to zoom in on gay women being impregnated by a single man for money. Unfocused attempts to portray a crime family and a broken family, homosexuality, race relations, and the heroism of whistle-blowers all fail. While thematically it may come down to a simple morality tale, impaired by his own intolerable crotch-driven bravado and a narrative recklessness apparent everywhere, Lee's unique beginnings end in a disappointing and confusing mess. Awkward dialogue and stilted performances don't help out the cause either. 1/4

Sid and Nancy (1986)--Ugly and destructive, this Romeo and Juliet tale of guitars and hard drugs is brutal. For the first half of the film, until the Sex Pistols meet their inevitable split, Cox shows an almost playful story, full of his usual offbeat, sly sense of humor and control of a scene. However, as the title duo dissolve into disillusion, the movie takes on a tougher and gritty, almost unbearable tone. At times the constant screech of Chloe Webb as Nancy, mixed with the sadistic vision of heroin and punk rock cacophony, is a little overwhelming. Fortunately, a fully-realized Gary Oldman and an intense portrayal of desperation should be enough to entice the reluctant viewer. 3/4

Spanglish (2004)--Caught between melodrama and sitcom, marooned by its own cluttered mess of go-nowhere plot strands, even the alcoholic grandma or the predictable bilingual jokes can't muster enough charm to give this one a pass. The across-the-board over-acting is in keeping with a narrative that's as every bit outlandish as it is inane. Lacking focus to showcase just one of its many contrived notions of a movie, Brooks instead has chosen to clumsily present all of the absurdity that the carelessly written script has provided. Usually there is enough grace and balance to the director's vision, but here he's off-kilter and at the wrong pace and tone throughout. 0.5/4

Spartan (2004)--In a David Mamet movie, one should expect two things: a certain cadence fitting his patented language; and plot twists and coincidences that might ask for the audience to momentarily suspend belief so that the action unfolds as he has planned it. Mamet doesn't necessarily cheat corners or make for a tedious tone to his words, but he is more demanding than most directors because his world requires it. Spartan unfolds in such a world, where government, duty, and family all run separate of each other it seems. For a willing audience, there awaits a challenging but constant thriller, a series of sudden turns, stylistic dialogue, and an air of mystery that is clearly the director's own. 3/4

Star Wars: Episode III (2005)--A weak first act, sabotaged by unsurprising special effects sequences and dialogue reminiscent of refrigerator poetry, gives way to a worthy entry into the series. George Lucas has gathered his wits and the reins of the franchise to create a melodramatic opera of Jedi's and Sith's. Hundreds of computer-generated postcards, highlighted by the visual showcase of otherworldly landscapes, and a dark tone, in color and narrative, create a comfortable fit for a galaxy on the edge of peril. While the characters are compelling enough to move the action along, overall the battles this time appear less for show and more integral to the story. 3/4

Three Days of the Condor (1975)--Women--can't live with them and apparently you can't make movies without them either. It's not that the ever-graceful Faye Dunaway is unnecessarily thrust into this great tale of post-Watergate paranoia; on the contrary, she's integrated into the action quite convincingly. However, the extent to which her relationship with the appealing Redford evolves so rapidly strikes a little on the gratuitous side. Fortunately, avoiding much sentimental schmaltz, it doesn't serve as a great distraction. Pollack's smooth direction is able to balance that aspect of the plot well enough, but it's in the suspense he creates where the film soars. Dialogue with a poetic twist, a sparse '70s funk score, and Max von Sydow, as the learned assassin, also prove quite effective. 3.5/4

They Live (1988)--Taking pot shots at the capitalism of the Reagan era, John Carpenter's politics are similar to his special effects: simple-minded and cheesy, generally devolving into cliché but occasionally inspiring a sarcastic chuckle. His none-too graceful attack on consumer culture reeks of the same kind of short-sighted ranting you'd expect to hear at a liberal arts school freshman dorm room. All ideological aspects of the film aside, it has that renowned Carpenter B-movie feel, complete with a charismatic WWF wrestler (Rowdy Roddy Pipper) and Keith David in the leads, a couple lines of memorable but blatant dialogue, and a fight scene that's so tedious it's terrific. 2/4

Tigerland (2000)--An impressive Colin Farrell, matched every step of the way by Mathew Davis in a less glamorous role, is caught between the Louisiana wilderness and the Vietnam battlefield. Low-budget and filmed in a grainy fashion, even if this choice by Batman Returns director Joel Schumacher reeks of art-house pretensions, the documentary, old-school approach to such a stark subject as war is both justifiable and effective. While the visual style acquits itself well enough, the story here doesn't work to the same degree. Ambiguous and rather pedestrian, the plot produces no new revelations or spin on old war-movie clichés. However unsure of its politics and direction, Farrell and the convincing ensemble cast do their best to offset these shortcomings. 2.5/4

To Have and Have Not (1944)--Less known for its cinematic quality and more so steeped in the romantic notion of being the project where Bogart and Bacall first fell in love, luckily there is more here than mere Hollywood nostalgia. Yes, Howard Hawks' straight-forward but clear direction does delight in watching the natural chemistry between the leads unfold: Bacall's entendre-laden sexuality and the timeless note she strikes with Bogart, the ironic hero, laced with coy dialogue, is the stuff of lore. But even more than just simple flirtation, the larger smoky atmosphere of attraction and charm is the star. A lightweight setup that feels too reminiscent of Casablanca manages to put just the slightest of crimps in this classic affair. 3.5/4

Two-Lane Blacktop (1971)--As a road-picture with a existentialist slant, though the story can be too car-centric for audiences uninterested in that life, this is more a movie about estrangement than engines. With a mystery that's sometimes advantageous, for stretches the aloof qualities can also be too vacant to compel. Nevertheless, Warren Oates and the photographic quality of the open road are strong enough to offset the empty spaces in the narrative and the lead performances of musicians Dennis Wilson and James Taylor. With a philosophical tone of alienation that has remained relevant, it holds up better than other counterculture films of the period. 3/4

Wacky Races: The Complete Series (1968)--TV series. Each episode lasts about ten minutes, ends with the maniacal but myopic Dick Dastardly falling victim to his own schemes, and offers the same contestants in a cross-course trek for cartoon glory. With all this in mind, amazingly the show manages never to get stale. Featuring well-orchestrated set design and playful writing with a penchant for puns and alliterations, this Hanna-Barbera screwball series proves a classic. Quite resourceful on their part, the teams of writers and animators continually keep each set of characters unique and with their own distinctive quirks, while the material and gags are paired with enough creativity and fun. 3/4

The Wanderers (1979)--While comparisons to Walter Hill's 1979 take on New York gangs, The Warriors, are natural, it wouldn't be accurate to consider these two movies one in the same. Though not faulting Hill's film--because what works there works there for a reason--Kaufman's version of N.Y. street life ultimately, and successfully, turns down camp in favor of a surreal streak and turf battles for a look into the loss of innocence, courtesy of 1963. Rival gangs and some satirical depictions aside, the focus here is more on the uncertainty that waits at that threshold between being a school kid and something else. A period soundtrack, an effective comical streak, and the director's usual thorough eye all have aged well. 3.5/4

Wattsax (1973)--Documenting the 1972 concert, the music on display, uneven in quality, relishes with groups like The Staple Singers or The Bar-Kays on stage, but otherwise flounders with performers who since have faded to record bin obscurity. The editing is brisk enough, and the main purpose served is not to showcase the Stax record label, but rather focus on commemorating the passing of time since the 1965 Watts riots. Comprised of a series of interviews with locals and informal commentary from Richard Pryor, a picture of urban America in the early 1970's is constructed. However, with a rather nonchalant presentation of what was a powerfully important time in America's history, the movie cheats itself and its subject a little. 2.5/4

The Wedding Crashers (2005)--The R-Rated summer comedy has returned with a solid cast in place, a wholly unoriginal story, and enough efficient comedy to make it all work. Appearing as if the filmmakers decided that once a quirky premise and the duo of Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson were in place that their job was done, while Vaughn in particular excels with his trademark brand of shtick, worn-out side characters and a predictable romantic arc threaten to frustrate between laughs. Energetic musical montages, off-the-cuff dialogue, a late-reel cameo, and chemistry shared by all the leads, especially thanks to the performance of 'it' girl Rachel McAdams, are enough to get through the various creatively deficient decisions and dry spots around. 2.5/4

With revisions to match a modified view of movies, it's that time again. I had been meaning to update the list complete with a thorough explanation of why certain titles made it and others got removed, but I never could find the proper time or approach to do so. Basically the main differences come down to me having seen more movies than I had the year previously, and being an impressionable 19 year old versus being an impressionable 20 year old. Anyway, here are "the 100 greatest films of all-time (according to a snot-nosed kid)."


01. Contempt (1963)
02. Citizen Kane (1941)
03. The Godfather II (1974)
04. Battle of Algiers (1965)
05. Sunrise (1927)
06. The Apartment (1960)
07. M (1931)
08. Notorious (1946)
09. Rocco and His Brothers (1960)
10. Once Upon a Time in the West (1968)
11. 8½ (1963)
12. The Wages of Fear (1953)
13. The Big Sleep (1946)
14. Dr. Strangelove (1964)
15. Touch of Evil (1958)
16. The Godfather (1972)
17. Rear Window (1954)
18. L' Avventura (1960)
19. Breathless (1960)
20. Casablanca (1942)
21. The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)
22. Throne of Blood (1957)
23. Rules of the Game (1939)
24. Sweet Smell of Success (1957)
25. The Great Silence (1968)
26. Dumbo (1941)
27. 400 Blows (1959)
28. Persona (1966)
29. The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928)
30. 12 Angry Men (1957)
31. Rashômon (1950)
32. The Night of the Hunter (1955)
33. Taxi Driver (1976)
34. Spirit of the Bee-Hive (1973)
35. Nashville (1975)
36. Week-End (1967)
37. Raging Bull (1980)
38. In a Lonely Place (1950)
39. Yojimbo (1961)
40. McCabe & Mrs. Miller (1971)
41. Force of Evil (1948)
42. Tristana (1970)
43. Network (1976)
44. Le Samouraï (1967)
45. Vertigo (1958)
46. The Searchers (1956)
47. The Maltese Falcon (1941)
48. His Girl Friday (1940)
49. Goodfellas (1990)
50. Pather Panchali (1955)
51. Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
52. Gimme Shelter (1970)
53. North by Northwest (1959)
54. M. Hulot's Holiday (1953)
55. Chinatown (1974)
56. The Asphalt Jungle (1950)
57. The Wild Bunch (1969)
58. The Conversation (1974)
59. On the Waterfront (1954)
60. My Darling Clementine (1946)
61. City Lights (1931)
62. Bringing Up Baby (1938)
63. Seven Samurai (1954)
64. The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (1966)
65. The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (1943)
66. Shadows of Our Forgotten Ancestors (1964)
67. La Dolce Vita (1960)
68. The Bicycle Thief (1948)
69. Manhattan (1979)
70. The Red Circle (1970)
71. The Hustler (1961)
72. Stalag 17 (1953)
73. Fantasia (1940)
74. The Wizard of Oz (1939)
75. Annie Hall (1977)
76. Kiss Me Deadly (1955)
77. Psycho (1960)
78. All That Heaven Allows (1955)
79. Modern Times (1936)
80. The Naked Spur (1953)
81. Amarcord (1973)
82. The Lady from Shanghai (1947)
83. Do The Right Thing (1989)
84. Metropolis (1927)
85. Rio Bravo (1959)
86. Pinocchio (1940)
87. Mildred Pierce (1945)
88. The Third Man (1949)
89. Out of the Past (1947)
90. Pulp Fiction (1994)
91. The Mirror (1975)
92. Rope (1948)
93. Imitation of Life (1959)
94. Double Indemnity (1944)
95. Night at the Opera (1935)
96. Singing in the Rain (1952)
97. Woodstock (1970)
98. Stagecoach (1939)
99. The General (1927)
100. The Red Shoes (1948)


to see the previous version of this list:
http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=23&topic_id=21924&mesg_id=21924&page=2

------------------------------

17x NBA Champions

But it's the only movie that wowed me, in a good way, the first time through and did so on repeated viewings. Godard is a very audacious director, and sometimes that can lead to some failed excesses, but here all his radical decisions, those that kinda seem to be flipping of normal film conventions, work out for me: the credit sequence, his use of Bridgette Bardot, the dance hall scene, the ending. The technical greatness it has too, from the large and beautiful Cinemascope feel to the memorable score, all are masterful. I like its bitter point of view. It presents a worthy idea of the nature of filmmaking, with enough human story to parallel and compel; it's a movie about a movie, but even in looking at its representation of the artistic process it has something greater to say. Jack Palance and Fritz Lang are noteworthy as well. However, I understand why it can all be seen as indulgent and tedious too, but I just don't agree. It's my favorite great film.

that one looks different, maybe

I looked EVERYWHERE for Weekend... now it's no. 36!

On The Waterfront blasts its way into the top100... i bet it cracks top 20 next year
on the Kazan tip, you should also check East of Eden

have you seen The Bronx Fort Appache and Smoke yet? (though i only saw TBFA once, i might be wrong about how good it is

edit: oh and I didn't like Notorious that much. i think i would rate the Hitchcock films i've seen

1. rear window
2. the birds
3. rope
4. vertigo
5. foreign correspondant
6. strangers on a train
7. psycho
8. shadow of a doubt
9. frenzy
10. notorious
11. marnie
12.spellbound

i was too young when i saw 39 Steps and North By Northwest to judge them now, but they can't POSSIBLY be worse than

15. Topaz

--------------------
Why do you choose to mimic these wack MCs?
Why do you choose to listen to R&B?

"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to." Leela

*puts emceeing in a box*

I didn't like it that much.. but I digress

>that one looks different, maybe
>
>I looked EVERYWHERE for Weekend... now it's no. 36!

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0009NZ6RA/qid=1124068078/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-7899417-0456968?v=glance&s=dvd

And I'm sure there's some release to satisfy UK audiences.

It fell to 36 just because I couldn't justify putting 3 films of Godard in the top 25. It made my jaw drop repeatedly when I first watched it, and the second time through I still liked it very much, but my jaw didn't continue to drop, so I had to bump it just a little.

>On The Waterfront blasts its way into the top100... i bet it
>cracks top 20 next year

So I guess I left it off the list last time? That's only because I had, for some reason, managed to let it slip my mind. I remembered this time around--haven't actually seen it in a while--and thought to put up . . . with room to grow.

> on the Kazan tip, you should also check East of Eden

Saw it a bunch of years ago and really only remember Dean and being told of its biblical subtext.


>have you seen The Bronx Fort Appache and Smoke yet? (though i
>only saw TBFA once, i might be wrong about how good it is

You mean Fort Apache the Bronx ? Haven't seen it, and I plan to get Smoke soon.

>edit: oh and I didn't like Notorious that much. i think i
>would rate the Hitchcock films i've seen

Notorious has my favorite ending of any Hitchcock film, and of course Grant.

>1. rear window
>2. the birds
>3. rope
>4. vertigo
>5. foreign correspondant
>6. strangers on a train
>7. psycho
>8. shadow of a doubt
>9. frenzy
>10. notorious
>11. marnie
>12.spellbound
>
>i was too young when i saw 39 Steps and North By Northwest to
>judge them now, but they can't POSSIBLY be worse than
>
>15. Topaz

Never seen Foreign Correspondent, Marnie, and only parts of Frenzy. Strangers on a Train was a let-down, though that was long ago when I watched it. The Birds is dated to me in story and special effects.

I'd rather watch Rear Window than Notorious, but that's mostly 'cause I'm a sucker for Grace Kelly.

And Family Plot is my least favorite Hitchcock.

>> on the Kazan tip, you should also check East of Eden
>
>Saw it a bunch of years ago and really only remember Dean and
>being told of its biblical subtext.
>

hmm, the film has some issues, like they haven't released it in its original aspect ratio, so it's hard to tell how good the cinematography is (though if it's as good as Kazan's work on "River Wild" (i think that's what it was called) then if should be great. Also the actress who plays the girl in the film is a bit annoying. However, i found it very powerful (it's a Steinbeck story)

>
>>have you seen The Bronx Fort Appache and Smoke yet? (though
>i
>>only saw TBFA once, i might be wrong about how good it is
>
>You mean Fort Apache the Bronx ? Haven't seen it, and I plan
>to get Smoke soon.
>

shit, maybe that's why I can't find that film... i've been getting the title the wrong way round

>>edit: oh and I didn't like Notorious that much. i think i
>>would rate the Hitchcock films i've seen
>
>Notorious has my favorite ending of any Hitchcock film, and of
>course Grant.
>
>>1. rear window
>>2. the birds
>>3. rope
>>4. vertigo
>>5. foreign correspondant
>>6. strangers on a train
>>7. psycho
>>8. shadow of a doubt
>>9. frenzy
>>10. notorious
>>11. marnie
>>12.spellbound
>>
>>i was too young when i saw 39 Steps and North By Northwest
>to
>>judge them now, but they can't POSSIBLY be worse than
>>
>>15. Topaz
>
>Never seen Foreign Correspondent, Marnie, and only parts of
>Frenzy. Strangers on a Train was a let-down, though that was
>long ago when I watched it.

i had the idea in my head that the whole thing was going to take place on a train... that would have been good

The Birds is dated to me in story
>and special effects.
>

i was young when I watched it, but i remember being terrified, and remember it much better than 39 Steps and NbyNW. Plus making BIRDS into a horrifying force of evil is pretty ingenious


>And Family Plot is my least favorite Hitchcock.

not seen it. Topaz appeared to be a thriller that mostly took place in offices. i don;t think i watched all of it

--------------------
Why do you choose to mimic these wack MCs?
Why do you choose to listen to R&B?

"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to." Leela

*puts emceeing in a box*

..that doesn't have a few goofy sentimental favorites in there. If a Goonies, Cloak and Dagger, Point Break, etc. can't crack your snobbery then I just am not buying it.

>..that doesn't have a few goofy sentimental favorites in
>there. If a Goonies, Cloak and Dagger, Point Break, etc.
>can't crack your snobbery then I just am not buying it.

This isn't a "my favorite movies of all-time" list. If so, Goonies would certainly be on it, as well as about 2 dozen more films from the 1980s and Home Alone. This is "the 100 greatest films of all-time" list, as if to set a standard. But that's not to say that I don't all like / love the 100 listed, because I do. However the list came about by me seeing all these storied works and thinking if on an artistic level (visuals, pacing, story, dialogue, etc.) that particular movie was at the highest caliber based on those qualities. I could sit here and tell you why I'm such a big fan of Home Alone, but I could also tell you why it's a flawed movie by judging it based on those artistic qualities.

So I have to like all 100 of those movies, but it's not based on any sentimental attraction as much as it is the movie passing a litmus test of greatness.

I don't know if that makes sense. It's not scientific.

But for me I'd rather the lithmus test be sentimental attraction. There are so many ways to judge movies, I just find issue with people taking the kind of clinical "These films are widely reknowned and meet the standards set by critics". I know all of those films are great, but I wouldn't watch or recommend many of them over The Princess Bride. It just seem hypocritical to me to say this movie is one of the greatest, but if you're not doing anything on a weekend night, pop in this other movie. Maybe its me.

Listing the 100 "Greatest" has been done time and again. Everyone can pretty much agree on the so-called Greatest, but for me its more interesting to ride for Goonies or A Few Good Men.

>But for me I'd rather the lithmus test be sentimental
>attraction. There are so many ways to judge movies, I just
>find issue with people taking the kind of clinical "These
>films are widely reknowned and meet the standards set by
>critics". I know all of those films are great, but I wouldn't
>watch or recommend many of them over The Princess Bride.

I don't like Princess Bride, but point taken.


>It
>just seem hypocritical to me to say this movie is one of the
>greatest, but if you're not doing anything on a weekend night,
>pop in this other movie. Maybe its me.

I have a cousin who, if we judge by society's standards, has basically been a fuck-up his whole life. And then take someone revered, like John McCain or somebody, who according to popular sentiment is "a great American." Now who would I want to run the country and who would I want over to my house for dinner?

Goonies vs. Contempt. Movies I both admire a lot. Would I rather watch Goonies? Sure. Would I say that Contempt is the better made film? Sure. Now who would I want to run the country and who would I want over to my house for dinner? I don't think that's hypocritical because dinner at my house and the highest political office in the nation don't require the same qualifications.

Does that make sense?

>Listing the 100 "Greatest" has been done time and again.
>Everyone can pretty much agree on the so-called Greatest, but
>for me its more interesting to ride for Goonies or A Few Good
>Men.

A. I never claimed to be the first one to do it.
B. I have a borderline obsession with making lists.

"Goonies vs. Contempt. Movies I both admire a lot. Would I rather watch Goonies? Sure. Would I say that Contempt is the better made film? Sure. Now who would I want to run the country and who would I want over to my house for dinner? I don't think that's hypocritical because dinner at my house and the highest political office in the nation don't require the same qualifications. Does that make sense?"

But we aren't talking about two different things like having dinner or running the country. A better comparison would have been: who would you rather have a President - John Kerry who has the required resume and background but not as much personality or John Edwards, who doesn't have the background but is much more likable and a more charismatic leader? I think this works with film because "film snobs" would take Kerry (Contempt), film fans would take Edwards (Goonies), and most of America would take George W. (Van Helsing)

Also, this brings up the purpose of movies. Should the first priority be to go out to make a movie that is well made or to make a film that people will like? It's a tricky question, and I don't know if I have an answer to it.

"B. I have a borderline obsession with making lists."

Well then let's see your favorite movies list (although I will admit that making a Greatest list is a lot easier because your favorites can change on any given day, any given mood swing.)

>"Goonies vs. Contempt. Movies I both admire a lot. Would I
>rather watch Goonies? Sure. Would I say that Contempt is the
>better made film? Sure. Now who would I want to run the
>country and who would I want over to my house for dinner? I
>don't think that's hypocritical because dinner at my house and
>the highest political office in the nation don't require the
>same qualifications. Does that make sense?"
>
>But we aren't talking about two different things like having
>dinner or running the country. A better comparison would have
>been: who would you rather have a President - John Kerry who
>has the required resume and background but not as much
>personality or John Edwards, who doesn't have the background
>but is much more likable and a more charismatic leader? I
>think this works with film because "film snobs" would take
>Kerry (Contempt), film fans would take Edwards (Goonies), and
>most of America would take George W. (Van Helsing)

Okay, but it takes close inspection to run the country, you need to meet a very stringent examination and be held up to high standard (all cynicism aside). In the analogy, some movies are better equipped because technically and artistically they have less flaws and hold up to that inspection. For dinner at my house, you just need to be family, flaws accepted because of the unique relationship shared. That's what I'm trying (and failing) to say.

>Also, this brings up the purpose of movies. Should the first
>priority be to go out to make a movie that is well made or to
>make a film that people will like? It's a tricky question,
>and I don't know if I have an answer to it.

That's a very big question. I couldn't say well enough now.

>"B. I have a borderline obsession with making lists."
>
>Well then let's see your favorite movies list (although I will
>admit that making a Greatest list is a lot easier because your
>favorites can change on any given day, any given mood swing.)

Give me 24hours.

for September 16th when Roll Bounce comes out.

doesn't have any documentaries on their list?

>doesn't have any documentaries on their list?

I got two.

And I haven't seen Night and Fog, which is what I'm guessing is the obvious pick.


(that other 100 list is forthcoming . . .)

>Also, this brings up the purpose of movies. Should the first
>priority be to go out to make a movie that is well made or to
>make a film that people will like? It's a tricky question,
>and I don't know if I have an answer to it.

... Is to look at it on a case by case basis. I try not to question the purpose of "movies", because that's just too broad of a brush to paint with. When I approach a movie, album, what have you, for the purpose of critique, the main question that drives my thinking is intent.

So it's not about the purpose of movies in general, it's more about the purpose of the particular movie I'm experiencing at the time. 1.) What is it setting out to do, and 2.) Does it accomplish its goal. That's about as objective as I can keep it, personally. I'm not using the same scorecard for Cloak & Dagger that I am for The Color of Paradise (Although if I did, Cloak & Dagger would still kick Color of Paradise's ass)

I think that's the best anyone can do to solve the problem.

>I don't like Princess Bride, but point taken.
>

__________________
http://twitter.com/theloniousfunk
http://havetravelled.blogspot.com
http://instagram.com/arsonwelles

“Be uncomfortable; be sand, not oil, to the machinery of the world.”
- Gunter Eich

>I don't like Princess Bride, but point taken.

I thought I was the only one. Did you watch it when it 1st came out or years later like myself?

>
>>I don't like Princess Bride, but point taken.
>
>I thought I was the only one. Did you watch it when it 1st
>came out or years later like myself?

I watched it about 8 months ago or so. Very underwhelmed.

And re-dub this the list of "100 Greatest films that are commonly viewed by American film students"

I'm not normally like this, but dammit, I hate seeing the films of entire countries like Iran and Taiwan get completely neglected

Otherwise, this is a reasonably solid list

Save Our Sonics!
http://www.saveoursonics.org/

We've already been over Last Life

You're dead wrong about Say Anything. I still maintain it's the last truly great American romance movie. The so-called distraction ties in well. It's a more true-to-life diversion, it works to help develop Diane's character, and it creates an obstacle for their relationship.. and really, it doesn't consume *that much* screentime.

The Killers deserves 4 stars for Ava alone. Really though, one thing I prefer about the remake is that the killers are doing the investigating as opposed to an insurance investigator. I'd say that's the one weak point of the original.

Wattstaxx is great

and They Live Rules!

back later

>We've already been over Last Life

for better or for worse

>You're dead wrong about Say Anything. I still maintain it's
>the last truly great American romance movie. The so-called
>distraction ties in well. It's a more true-to-life diversion,
>it works to help develop Diane's character, and it creates an
>obstacle for their relationship.. and really, it doesn't
>consume *that much* screentime.

Sleepless in Seattle >>>> Say Anything

Man, I slapped my head like "WTF" when the IRS showed up. Ione Skye and her side story with pops are so outta place and poorly done.

>The Killers deserves 4 stars for Ava alone. Really though, one
>thing I prefer about the remake is that the killers are doing
>the investigating as opposed to an insurance investigator. I'd
>say that's the one weak point of the original.

I don't know if I've seen the original. But this version had one of my favorite opening scenes.

>Wattstaxx is great

Unfortunately most of the music isn't.

>and They Live Rules!

Just 'cause it has Keith David?

>back later

>Sleepless in Seattle >>>> Say Anything

Say Anything = love story for the heterosexual male. Sleepless = not that there's anything wrong with that.

>>The Killers deserves 4 stars for Ava alone. Really though,
>one
>>thing I prefer about the remake is that the killers are
>doing
>>the investigating as opposed to an insurance investigator.
>I'd
>>say that's the one weak point of the original.
>
>I don't know if I've seen the original. But this version had
>one of my favorite opening scenes.

No, this is the original. The remake is with Lee Marvin, John Cassavetes, and Angie Dickenson. Oh and Ronald Reagan as the bad guy. It's pretty damn good.

>>Wattstaxx is great
>
>Unfortunately most of the music isn't.

kids today

>>and They Live Rules!
>
>Just 'cause it has Keith David?

I didn't even know who he was when i first saw it, but I don't really get your critique of it. Faulting it for its simplistic critique of consumer culture? it's a John Carpenter movie.

>>Sleepless in Seattle >>>> Say Anything
>
>Say Anything = love story for the heterosexual male. Sleepless
>= not that there's anything wrong with that.

If imagining John Mahoney unprotected in prison on tax fraud charges is a love story for the heterosexual male, I guess count me out.

>No, this is the original. The remake is with Lee Marvin, John
>Cassavetes, and Angie Dickenson. Oh and Ronald Reagan as the
>bad guy. It's pretty damn good.

Noted.

>>>Wattstaxx is great
>>
>>Unfortunately most of the music isn't.
>
>kids today

Like I said, The Bar-Kays and The Staple Singers = good. The Chicken Dance = watchable. Rest of the music = barely passable.

>>>and They Live Rules!
>>
>>Just 'cause it has Keith David?
>
>I didn't even know who he was when i first saw it, but I don't
>really get your critique of it. Faulting it for its simplistic
>critique of consumer culture? it's a John Carpenter movie.

simple-minded and clunky, even by Carpenter standards.

I know we've already been over Last Life, but come on: "Hollow"? "Self indulgent"? And I still don't really see what was so illogical about it.

And 2.5 for Say Anything? Wow.

I don't know, man. This post comes off like you're seeing films solely to analyze them, not enjoy them.




~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

The fruits of my DVD binges: http://www.dvdaficionado.com/dvds.html?cat=1&id=kurlyswirl

I be Scrobblin': http://www.last.fm/user/TasteeTreat/

>I know we've already been over Last Life, but come on:
>"Hollow"? "Self indulgent"? And I still don't really see what
>was so illogical about it.

Aside from looking at pretty pictures, I wasn't sure what I was getting watching it.

>And 2.5 for Say Anything? Wow.

More flawed than not, yes. There are about 4 scenes or so that I think are some of the best in a "relationship movie" but otherwise it's all average or IRS to me. Take the last bit of it for example. We see John Mahoney clumsily end up in prison, in a manner that's not very well-written or developed in full, and it's bad. Then you get the final plane scene which is borderline genius. And I kept thinking that the movie was constant battle between good idea / bad idea. Unfortunately, I think the bad ideas ruined whatever good there was. But it's not like I'm saying avoid it.

>I don't know, man. This post comes off like you're seeing
>films solely to analyze them, not enjoy them.

If I wrote a review on Home Alone by the same standards (and I reviewed Say Anything by the same general standards as The Red Circle), then I'd have to be honest and talk about its flaws too.

And I am judging the films ("analyzing" seems too scholastic), but if what I'm watching is well-done, then I get to enjoy them as well.

i looked at the back of the video box, however, and decided not to buy it. i don't think i'll bother now.

(the other "perfect film" was Toy Story)

--------------------
Why do you choose to mimic these wack MCs?
Why do you choose to listen to R&B?

"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to." Leela

*puts emceeing in a box*

>i looked at the back of the video box, however, and decided
>not to buy it. i don't think i'll bother now.

I'm not sure in what world Crash could ever be justified as perfect. As someone else said on these boards, it'd be much better as a short film, because it really doesn't have enough to deserve more than 15 minutes on screen.

>(the other "perfect film" was Toy Story)

That I can see much more.

the epitome of everything ppl really hate about Spike's other movies?

cause I'm trying to figure out why Spike catches so much flak off of the way he tells a story, not just for his directing talents

I dont normally like movies cause they're provacative but I did like She Hate Me. Some of those scenes were hilarious.

----------------------------------------------------------------
respect the gift.

I never had any attachment with the main character. And I know he loves John Turturro but having him play Monica Belluci's father was kind of ridiculous.

>the epitome of everything ppl really hate about Spike's other
>movies?

I'm a big supporter of Do The Right Thing, 25th Hour, and Clockers. And I even have generally positive things to say about Mo Betta Blues, Malcolm X, Summer of Sam, and Get on the Bus. I even like He Got Game.

But I think She Hate Me may be the epitome of Spike's weaknesses: doing little with attractive sets and shots, writing one-dimensional characters (caricatures), juggling too many plot points at once, not being able to create a decent female role, MESSAGE, and bad endings.

>cause I'm trying to figure out why Spike catches so much flak
>off of the way he tells a story, not just for his directing
>talents

He's a better director when he has a story in front of him, set out by someone without such a likely tendency to give into those weaknesses. Do The Right Thing is the fluke in his career I think then because his other great movies ( 25th Hour, Malcolm X, and Clockers) are all based upon someone else's story. Because his next movie lined up is being adapted from another source and written by someone else, it gives me hope.

>I dont normally like movies cause they're provacative but I
>did like She Hate Me. Some of those scenes were hilarious.

You know how pollsters sometimes will take a sample audience and give them some kind of mechanism to record to their second-to-second reaction to a politician's speech? If I had that kind of instrument, there would have been a big drop off in the late 40 minutes or so. Initially I was actually liking She Hate Me, thinking that people were once again hating on it 'cause Spike was being Spike and very provocative, as you say. However, by the time the second round of lesbians started, and most noticeably everything after Monica Bellucci, I was literally yelling at my TV to stop Spike from ruining his movie--he wasn't listening.

I haven't seen most of the movies you rated, but I did see Spanglish and I couldn't agree more. I was expecting it to be pretty good but was very disappointed. It kept changing its mind about where it wanted to go and the characters' personalities and actions were very inconsistant. I'm also really impressed by your memory. I guess the movies I saw this summer weren't that memorable because I could probably only name a few...

But I certainly wasn't watching it with the same critical eye Ricky seems to have given these films. It was more one of those things, where my significant other wants to see it, I had been walking around the whole week like "FUCK! I gotta go see Spanglish this weekend", and when I finally saw it and didn't vomit blood, it was a pleasant surprise.

>But I certainly wasn't watching it with the same critical eye
>Ricky seems to have given these films. It was more one of
>those things, where my significant other wants to see it, I
>had been walking around the whole week like "FUCK! I gotta go
>see Spanglish this weekend", and when I finally saw it and
>didn't vomit blood, it was a pleasant surprise.

Okay, but the not-so-critical company I was watching it with didn't like it either. I mean, I really would have to stretch to think of a positive quality it had. It's not like I'm some ogre living under a couch and waiting to shit on sunshine and comedies, but when appropriate, I'll play that part.

In fact I'd say your crit was pretty much on point, although the .5 stars thing is a bit extreme. There's a whole universe of movies more worthy of your venom, a few of them you appeared to have watched already.

>It's not like I'm some
>ogre living under a couch and waiting to shit on sunshine and
>comedies

This coming from the guy who doesn't like Princess Bride. HA! Couch ogre!!!

>In fact I'd say your crit was pretty much on point, although
>the .5 stars thing is a bit extreme.

It was originally a 1/4, but when I saw She Hate Me and decided that it should get a 1/4, I knew Spanglish had to be bumped down. I honestly would be hard-pressed to say a good thing about it.

>There's a whole universe
>of movies more worthy of your venom, a few of them you
>appeared to have watched already.

Hah . . .what do you mean by that?

>>It's not like I'm some
>>ogre living under a couch and waiting to shit on sunshine
>and
>>comedies
>
>This coming from the guy who doesn't like Princess Bride. HA!
>Couch ogre!!!

I expected to catch some hell for that. It's just that outside of Peter Falk and Andre the Giant, I didn't find anything too appealing. But it's not the first time I've got some flack for a not so positive view of Princess Bride:

HER: So did you like it?
ME: . . . No, not really.
HER: What?!
ME (for the next week): Hello? . . . Hello? . . .

*this has been a "in male-female relationships don't tell her you didn't like her favorite movie" PSA.

is not really a compliment to the movie. You thought it was okay cuz you expected to be disgusted, I didn't like it because I expected to like it.

good reviews, tho. and Last Boyscout is supremely entertaining, and has loads of replay value.

V.

---
http://confessionsofacurlymind.com
https://soundcloud.com/confessionsofacurlymindredux
https://soundcloud.com/generic80sbadguy
https://soundcloud.com/miles_matheson

DROkayplayerâ„¢

I really would've liked to be posting when it came out. The first 20 or so minutes are horrible and the dialogue was consistently awkward, but I don't let anemic acting disappoint me and the story and action sequences were above-par. Now in comparison to Episodes 4-6? That's a different story. But my miserly cheap ass didn't mind paying for a ticket when it was all over.

(as requested by SoulHonky)


To rank each movie, instead having to pass some kind of cinematic greatness litmus test, I simply answered the question "what which movie do I like the best?" It's basically a list of all those film with sentimental attachment for me, or just the titles that I think if stranded on a desert island (with a TV and DVD player), I could watch the most. You'll notice some movies appearing on both lists, more comedies, nothing foreign language, a bunch of 80s flicks, and a lot of movies that I saw before ever hitting puberty. This was actually slightly harder than the other list, and hopefully I didn't make any glaring omissions.


01. Home Alone (1990)
02. Repo Man (1984)
03. The Breakfast Club (1985)
04. Sleepless in Seattle (1993)
05. The 'Burbs (1989)
06. The Apartment (1960)
07. Goodfellas (1990)
08. Goonies (1985)
09. Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
10. The Rocketeer (1991)
11. Rear Window (1954)
12. Sixteen Candles (1984)
13. Planes, Trains, and Automobiles (1987)
14. The Big Lebowski (1998)
15. Die Hard (1988)
16. Diamonds Are Forever (1971)
17. The Godfather (1972)
18. Rushmore (1998)
19. The Beauty and The Beast (1998)
20. Breaking Away (1979)
21. Pee-Wee Herman's Big Adventure (1985)
22. Batman (1989)
23. Swingers (1996)
24. The Big Sleep (1946)
25. Ghostbusters (1984)
26. Boogie Nights (1997)
27. Dazed and Confused (1993)
28. The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (1966)
29. The Little Mermaid (1989)
30. Touch of Evil (1958)
31. Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (1971)
32. JFK (1991)
33. Jurassic Park (1993)
34. Toy Story (1995)
35. The Mighty Ducks (1992)
36. Annie Hall (1977)
37. Do The Right Thing (1989)
38. A Charlie Brown Christmas (1965)
39. The Return of the Pink Panther (1975)
40. Rio Bravo (1959)
41. Scream (1996)
42. Fast Times at Ridegmont High (1992)
43. Pulp Fiction (1994)
44. Enter the Dragon (1973)
45. The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975)
46. Adventures in Babysitting (1987)
47. North By Northwest (1959)
48. Father of the Bride (1991)
49. Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988)
50. The Sandlot (1993)
51. Groundhog Day (1993)
52. The Wild Bunch (1969)
53. Patriot Games (1992)
54. The Great Escape (1963)
55. Billy Madison (1995)
56. Out of Sight (1998)
57. The Muppet Movie (1979)
58. Dr. No (1962)
59. A Christmas Story (1983)
60. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990)
61. Diner (1982)
62. Saving Private Ryan (1998)
63. Grease (1978)
64. Raging Bull (1980)
65. Tommy Boy (1995)
66. Se7en (1995)
67. Bedknobs and Broomsticks (1971)
68. Fletch (1985)
69. Trading Places (1983)
70. Speed (1994)
71. There's Something About Mary (1998)
72. E.T. (1982)
73. His Girl Friday (1940)
74. Tremors (1990)
75. Dumbo (1941)
76. 3 Ninjas (1992)
77. Cheech and Chong's Up in Smoke (1978)
78. L.A. Confidential (1997)
79. Harold and Maude (1971)
80. Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986)
81. Big (1988)
82. South Park: Bigger Longer & Uncut (1999)
83. Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989)
84. Office Space (1999)
85. Bringing Up Baby (1938)
86. L.A. Story (1991)
87. Alice in Wonderland (1951)
88. Hook (1991)
89. Quick Change (1990)
90. So I Married An Axe Murderer (1993)
91. Home Alone 2: Lost in New York (1992)
92. Young Frankenstein (1974)
93. Stalag 17 (1953)
94. Coffy (1973)
95. 101 Dalmatians (1961)
96. Goldfinger (1964)
97. Beavis and Butt-head Do America (1996)
98. Belly (1998)
99. Escape to Witch Mountain (1975)
100. Honey, I Shrunk the Kids (1989)

And yes, some of the movies and their order could change depending on my mood at that moment.



P.S. I think this list is suffering from schizophrenia.

Why is there so little cross-over between your lists? Are entertaining films not great? Are great films not entertaining?

--------

hell-below.com

e.g. on a corny, personal level the movie Big means something special to me, and thus has become a favorite.

that kind of thing. like i said, most of this 100 i saw before ever hitting puberty.

To a lot of those "great" films in your earlier post?

And this isn't directed exclusively at you, I pose this as a question to PTP in general. Because I wonder how much a lot of our Top 100 and our *Personal* Top 100 lists overlap, and I wonder why.

no...

only thing i do wonder about is, comedy films, that aren't particularly well remembered, like say Austin Powers 2. You can be in the cinema watching them, laughing all the way through... and how many films can provide that sort of constant entertainment, and why don't we rate this movie very highly?

to which i say
1. it's hard not to laugh when other people about you are laughing
2. the story and dialogue isn't really that important, and those things are the essence of, you know, art and stuff
3. quite often we just laugh at dumb shit anyway

so Rushmore and Dr. Strangelove get a pass, but Austin Powers 2 doesn't... even though i probably laughed more the latter

(although that was the only one i saw in the cinema)

--------------------
Why do you choose to mimic these wack MCs?
Why do you choose to listen to R&B?

"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to." Leela

*puts emceeing in a box*

>To a lot of those "great" films in your earlier post?
>
>And this isn't directed exclusively at you, I pose this as a
>question to PTP in general. Because I wonder how much a lot of
>our Top 100 and our *Personal* Top 100 lists overlap, and I
>wonder why.


I wouldn't say "unattached" because that seems too harsh. None of those movie are off-putting to that extent, but it's like I don't really have the same kind of relationship to them, mostly because of when I first saw them. I share a bit sentimental nostalgia with titles like Grease, Home Alone, Sixteen Candles, Big, Escape To Witch Mountain, etc. It's as if they're trails of bread crumbs back to when I was a kid. Because I'm corny and a hapless romantic like that, I guess, the films of that sort are elevated in my mind. It's like, yesterday, randomly I bumped into my 1st Grade teacher who actually remembered and spotted me. Now this is not a woman who I've thought of much in the past decade and a half, but driving home from our chance meeting, I started thinking about nap time, and the white passes to get the carton of milk and the yellow passes for the O.J., this kid Darren, finger-painting, my French teacher, P.E., after-school, etc. The 1st grade teacher suddenly became this way-back machine to these memories that I hadn't recognized regularly. If I pull out a copy of Home Alone, for instance, that same kinda phenomenon occurs. Not only am I entertained, but there's something deeper, more personal going on. Another story: Last weekend the radio out here was playing Elton John's "Can You Feel the Love Tonight", which is from The Lion King, of course. Just hearing that one song reminded me of the movie which reminded me of the first semi-real date I went on, and how we sat in the very first row and so on and so on.

Citizen Kane, which I love, just doesn't do that for me. I can't tell you when I first saw it. I can't tell you when I first saw The Naked Spur. I can't tell you when I first saw Casablanca. They're all great movies, but they don't have that personal connection, that emotional ability with me. I saw them with the sole purpose of seeking out a great movie, whereas I saw Hook, because it was my reward from my mom for not biting my fingernails for two weeks straight. It's different. So I don't feel detached from Vertigo, but I don't feel like it's a part of my life story in any way.





damn, I'm rambling today.

I love the 'trail of bread crumbs' comment. (Note to self: Steal Ricky Butler's "trail of breadcrumbs" comment)

I hear you. I can relate to this, and I'd wager a lot of us can as well. But at the same time it sounds like we've all grown too cold and callous to truly 'connect' with a film on any level besides the intellectual. It's almost we each have some cut off point in our life where we stopped allowing movies to just be fun and entertaining in order for them to win a place in our hearts.

Now like I said, I can relate. To an extent. But my "life story" didn't end when I was 12, so there's still plenty of great movies from the past few years that have affected me deeply and made me the person who I am today. I might not be the soft lump of clay I was at 8 or 9, but there's still plenty of molding to be done. I hope.

>I love the 'trail of bread crumbs' comment. (Note to self:
>Steal Ricky Butler's "trail of breadcrumbs" comment)
>
>I hear you. I can relate to this, and I'd wager a lot of us
>can as well. But at the same time it sounds like we've all
>grown too cold and callous to truly 'connect' with a film on
>any level besides the intellectual. It's almost we each have
>some cut off point in our life where we stopped allowing
>movies to just be fun and entertaining in order for them to
>win a place in our hearts.
>
>Now like I said, I can relate. To an extent. But my "life
>story" didn't end when I was 12, so there's still plenty of
>great movies from the past few years that have affected me
>deeply and made me the person who I am today. I might not be
>the soft lump of clay I was at 8 or 9, but there's still
>plenty of molding to be done. I hope.


Okay, sure, and I put something like The Apartment there, because it's certainly a movie that affected me in more recent years. And there are others, Stalag 17 and so forth that are the same. I'd say Week-End would be similar, even though I didn't list it.

Now, I don't wanna make this a sad episode of Oprah or anything and say that my "life story" did end when I was 12, but it certainly did change. In part that's me becoming a cynical teenager at the time, and in part dealing with some heavy personal shit, but I do see a BC/AD kinda divide. If I were to psychoanalyze myself (God forbid), I'd say that I didn't really change to the point where I was too "callous to truly 'connect' with a film on any level besides the intellectual" but I maybe became less open to the _possibility_ of connecting to movies, music, people, in general. So there's a couple years where I'm just giving a big "fuck you" to the world and damning anything new that's trying to snuggle up next to me: movies, music, people, in general. I'm not longer, I think, as bitten now as I was for a while, but there's certainly a reason why a good portion of my personal favorites were seen before I ever hit puberty. Repo Man, Dazed and Confused, Annie Hall, and others all got to me in the AD time, but I do recognize they're in the minority.


still rambling . . .

But that's just a matter of personal taste. I'm quite impressed with your comprehensiveness.

>But that's just a matter of personal taste. I'm quite
>impressed with your comprehensiveness.

comprehensiveness of the the films on both lists? or something else?

I know you love Home Alone and saw it when you were a kid and everything, but to have it as your favorite movie of all time makes me think we're coming from very different places.

Comprehensiveness in writing a paragraph on everything you saw this summer, and making a 100 favorite movies of all time list. I admire your dedication and focus in doing that, even if I disagree with the rankings/commentary on the movies.

>I know you love Home Alone and saw it when you were a kid and
>everything, but to have it as your favorite movie of all time
>makes me think we're coming from very different places.

How do I say this?

Home Alone was one of the first movies I ever saw in the theater (Little Mermaid was the actual first one, which, in part, explains its appearance on my favorites list). Home Alone came out in 1990 which means I was 5, while Kevin himself was supposed to be 8. I instantly related, gravitated towards his character, for pretty obvious reasons. When Catherine O'Hara tells him to "say 'goodnight', Kevin" and he says "goodnight Kevin", that's the kind of smartass kid I wanted to be. And I remember when it came out on video getting a couple of my friends together to spend the night at my house; we literally recreated a dozen or so scenes, from booby-trapping the floors with micro-machines to throwing our sleeping bags down the stairs, like dude does in the opening. And I'm sure this all comes off quite herbish, but, hey, that's me I guess. In 7th grade, another friend and I gave each other little written "Home Alone tests", asking obscure questions like "how many steps are there between the second floor and the attic?" Not the coolest thing for a bunch of middle schoolers to do, but I'm somehow not ashamed. And I can literally ramble on about how I've watched it at least twice a year for the past so many, and always once on December 23rd since at least '98. It's been my favorite movie since 1990 because, back then, Kevin was who I kinda wanted to be. Now I watch it, and I still laugh, and I can still recite dialogue or point out random things on the screen (like the titles of the video boxes on top of the TV as McCauley is watching The Grinch Who Stole Christmas), and I still think it's a great movie; in addition, however, there's that corny, sentimental side in me, and instead of wanting to be Kevin now, I want to be, just for 90 minutes, the kid who wanted to be Kevin. Y'know, it's strange, I don't think I suffer from Peter Pan syndrome or anything, but being 20, and at a point where my childhood still doesn't really seem too distant, it's nice to have a movie that I enjoy on a surface level and that as well serves as a bit of nostalgia from those more innocent days. So Home Alone is my favorite movie of all-time because it entertains me as much as any other, and it explains me as much as any other.

"When I grow up and get married, I'm living alone."


*sheds a single tear*


>Comprehensiveness in writing a paragraph on everything you saw
>this summer, and making a 100 favorite movies of all time
>list. I admire your dedication and focus in doing that, even
>if I disagree with the rankings/commentary on the movies.

that lodging a baseball bat on top of the door, leaning on the door frame so that it falls when the door is opened, was not so much ingenious as dangerous

(this from my Home Alone inspired crime spree)

--------------------
Why do you choose to mimic these wack MCs?
Why do you choose to listen to R&B?

"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to." Leela

*puts emceeing in a box*

>that lodging a baseball bat on top of the door, leaning on
>the door frame so that it falls when the door is opened, was
>not so much ingenious as dangerous
>
>(this from my Home Alone inspired crime spree)


yeah, what i used to do with that was go into my sister's room, take her Polly Pockets, set 'em up on the door, watch them fall, and just wait until i was grounded that night.

or, like Kevin did with the Larry Bird action figure by the laundry chute, since i happened to live in a two story house at that time with a similar set-up, i used to line up my Big Boss Man and Andre the Giant action figures and just fling nickels at 'em, and run down stairs to retrieve them and start it over again.


^^^^^wasn't a criminal mastermind^^^^^

DROP.
YOUR.
SWORD.

BITCH.

what's up man.

i'm trying to start using netflix to learn films.
so far, i'm only watching Oz.

DROP.
YOUR.
SWORD.

BITCH.

>Palookaville (1995)--Not the greatest ending ever but proved
>generally on par before that point. The admirable story of
>ill-fated, bumbling petty thieves is note of the route Woody
>Allen would have been wise to take with his Small Time Crooks.
> Regardless, this picture is authentically acted and at a
>length to know that the same note it hits throughout shouldn't
>be stretched too far. While the three leads are of the
>pathetic type, the film doesn't so much mock them but rather
>embraces their condition in a light-hearted and charming way.
>Funny and charismatic enough that an almost-syrupy conclusion
>doesn't subtract too much. 2.5/4

I like this movie a lot. I think Vincent Gallo is really good in it.

>To Have and Have Not (1944)--Less known for its cinematic
>quality and more so steeped in the romantic notion of being
>the project where Bogart and Bacall first fell in love,
>luckily there is more here than mere Hollywood nostalgia.
>Yes, Howard Hawks' straight-forward but clear direction does
>delight in watching the natural chemistry between the leads
>unfold: Bacall's entendre-laden sexuality and the timeless
>note she strikes with Bogart, the ironic hero, laced with coy
>dialogue, is the stuff of lore. But even more than just
>simple flirtation, the larger smoky atmosphere of attraction
>and charm is the star. A lightweight setup that feels too
>reminiscent of Casablanca manages to put just the slightest of
>crimps in this classic affair. 3.5/4

This has become my favorite movie of all time. I mean it. I love everything about it. Especially the scenes between Bogart and Walter Brennan (in some ways a more interesting "love story" than the one going on between Bogart and Bacall).

I highly recommend reading "Howard Hawks" by Robin Wood which discusses this film and all of Hawks's major works in great detail.

>>To Have and Have Not (1944)--Less known for its cinematic
>>quality and more so steeped in the romantic notion of being
>>the project where Bogart and Bacall first fell in love,
>>luckily there is more here than mere Hollywood nostalgia.
>>Yes, Howard Hawks' straight-forward but clear direction does
>>delight in watching the natural chemistry between the leads
>>unfold: Bacall's entendre-laden sexuality and the timeless
>>note she strikes with Bogart, the ironic hero, laced with
>coy
>>dialogue, is the stuff of lore. But even more than just
>>simple flirtation, the larger smoky atmosphere of attraction
>>and charm is the star. A lightweight setup that feels too
>>reminiscent of Casablanca manages to put just the slightest
>of
>>crimps in this classic affair. 3.5/4
>
>This has become my favorite movie of all time. I mean it. I
>love everything about it. Especially the scenes between
>Bogart and Walter Brennan (in some ways a more interesting
>"love story" than the one going on between Bogart and Bacall).

It's hard for me to think of Brennan as anything but Stumpy from Rio Bravo, but I see what you mean.

>I highly recommend reading "Howard Hawks" by Robin Wood which
>discusses this film and all of Hawks's major works in great
>detail.

I'll utilize the school library when I get back there soon. I hate reading books on a director and all his films when I've not seen more than half of what the book's talking about, but I'm getting fairly familiar with Hawks. It's amazing how many great movies he has to his name, when, at least to me, he's not a guy who would gain the instant recognition as "obvious genius director" from just seeing one movie or two. His style is more subtle than a Welles or Godard in that sense. Say what you will but the Frenchies, but thank God for the auteur theory at least for giving the man his due.

Nicely done, but Schumacher didn't direct Batman Returns, Burton did. And I agree 100% with your review of Spanglish.

(sigless)

>Nicely done, but Schumacher didn't direct Batman Returns,
>Burton did. And I agree 100% with your review of Spanglish.

Good for noticing that. I, of course, meant to say Batman & Robin.

thanks

I hope if you're picturing that, I got the Max Fischer bloody nose and green velvet suit.

You know you're a film snob when you read posts like this and want more to criticize the poster than add your own list of movies.

But...restraint, restraint...uh...ah...

Hell naw I done seen way to many movies this summer, man.

But giving Star Wars Ep III a better rating than They Live, Bottle Rocket or Last Life in the Universe? Star Wars III?????

Oh man.