Ignore This Thread! A Craptastic Top 10

[MadMan]

Never was one for thread titles, I guess. Anyways, I felt like finally posting my current Top 10. Its a nice, round number, and I'm too lazy/busy/unable to sort through what my Top 100 would actually be. So I figured, I'd just cover the best ten movies I've ever seen, even though this list is woefully inadequate. That's never stopped me before, though.

Entries so far:

10. Goodfellas (1990)
9. The Gold Rush (1925)
8. The Seventh Seal (1957)
7. Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the Bomb (1964)
6. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (1966)
5. The Third Man (1949)
4. Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
3. Citizen Kane (1941)
2. The Godfather (1972)

Up next: An adaption of a famous novel that is actually superior to its source material.

[megladon8]

Cool.

Let's see the first entry.

[The Mike]

Did someone say something? Is there a thread around here?

[MadMan]

No idea. Could be. Could not be. Who knows? And now, for something completely different!



Okay, not really. I can't back that up. But here's a review.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v487/MadMan_731/Goodfellas.png

10. Goodfellas (1990, Scorsese)

When it comes to Scorsese, I've seen way too little. But I immediately understand that he is an American master, and one of the most creative and brilliant directors working today. In fact, one could say that he's also among the best of all time, or at least of the last 50 years. In any case, to me this is one of his two masterpieces that I have seen, the other being Raging Bull(1980). Which is probably Top 20 material as well. Now this movie operates is not only practically flawless, but it also wisely operates with the assumption that at this point, we know and understand the gangster genre, its cliches, its standard characters, and how it truly operates.

Going off of that underlying simple basic background, Marty then proceeds to dig deeper into a relatively dark world much mentioned and covered in books and movies, but never really with the same touch and style that he brings to the table. Visually, this is probably one of his most strikingly beautiful and well shot movies, and this only enriches the movie and allows us to easily enter the world of the gangster and the others populating that small, brutish universe. Wisely focusing on only a handful of main characters, from the movie's brilliant and unflinching opening scene we quickly get a true sense of who these men are and how they cary on their own business.

Because in the end, Marty's film truly articulates the real truth about all this, often set to a classic rock soundtrack that showcases how he and Tarentino truly are able to properly use music in movies. That its all business, nothing personal, and as Henry Hill states "It was all about protection," in addition to being able to get what one wanted, whenever one wanted, as also illustrated by Hill's great final monologue. I also have to say that I actually prefer Robert Di Niro's performance here the most out of the Scorsese movies I've seen, even though he's front and center in "Raging Bull" and "Taxi Driver." Sure Joe Pesci is his usual over the top, scene chewing self, and Ray Liotta truly shines here, but to me the meat and potatoes of the movie is Di Niro's wary, at times violent, gentlemen criminal.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Awesome. It's my favorite Scorsese flick as well. I recently went back and tried to recognize if the film had any sort of underlying theme. And the only thing I could come up with is "crime doesn't pay."

It seems like the most childish theme a movie like this could have, but what's so fantastic about Scorsese is how that concept isn't treated childishly. He really lets us appreciate the lifestyle, and there's something liberating about the way Liotta completely resists that moral lesson. He'd do everything he did again, in a heartbeat.

[The Mike]

I can't find fault in Goodfellas, and it was one of the first movies that really got me into movies.

But I still generally don't list it as a favorite. :crazy:

[Adam]

Haven't seen The King of Comedy, MadMan?

That's a Scorsese-directed DeNiro performance I can really get behind. I know he isn't, but on some level I always feel like DeNiro's kind of coasting in Goodfellas and Casino. Maybe he just naturally fits into those sorta movies, I dunno, but I do wish the DeNiro of the 80's was still around, willing to step outside his comfort zone and whatnot

[balmakboor]

Haven't seen Last King of Comedy, MadMan?

That's a Scorsese-directed DeNiro performance I can really get behind. I know he isn't, but on some level I always feel like DeNiro's kind of coasting in Goodfellas and Casino. Maybe he just naturally fits into those sorta movies, I dunno, but I do wish the DeNiro of the 80's was still around, willing to step outside his comfort zone and whatnot

I doubt if anybody has seen Last King of Comedy around here.

[balmakboor]

But I still generally don't list it as a favorite. :crazy:

Why not?

[Dead & Messed Up]

Why not?

If we're going off the emoticon, it's because Mike has brain problems.

[balmakboor]

If we're going off the emoticon, it's because Mike has brain problems.

I just wasn't sure who he was calling crazy, himself or Madman.

[The Mike]

I just wasn't sure who he was calling crazy, himself or Madman.

Myself. It's one of those movies where I use the cliche 'I admire the movie, but would rather watch things like Wayne's World 2'.

Maybe that's not an actual cliche.

Either way, I meant that it's a great movie, regardless of my brain problems.

[The Mike]

Haven't seen The King of Comedy, MadMan?

That's a Scorsese-directed DeNiro performance I can really get behind. I know he isn't, but on some level I always feel like DeNiro's kind of coasting in Goodfellas and Casino. Maybe he just naturally fits into those sorta movies, I dunno, but I do wish the DeNiro of the 80's was still around, willing to step outside his comfort zone and whatnotI agree about the feel of DeNiro in Goodfellas, but I think it's a credit to the casting Scorsese and friends did on the film. Every actor seems to be cast exactly in the right spot, from De Niro's cool to Liotta's unease and Pesci's volatility. I have trouble thinking of another Scorsese film where the cast was so smoothly assembled.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I doubt if anybody has seen Last King of Comedy around here.

I'm pretty sure several have seen it.

[balmakboor]

I'm pretty sure several have seen it.

After I posted that, I remembered that I have too. I just didn't remember that Scorsese directed Forest Whitaker in a prequel to his role as Idi Amin.

[Adam]

And the hits keep coming!

[balmakboor]

And the hits keep coming!

Hey, don't worry about it. I'm not usually such a prick. Just a rare mood.

Btw, I think GoodFellas is the shit. It's one of the two best times I've had in a theater in about 25 years. The other was Short Cuts.

[MadMan]

Haven't seen The King of Comedy, MadMan?

That's a Scorsese-directed DeNiro performance I can really get behind. I know he isn't, but on some level I always feel like DeNiro's kind of coasting in Goodfellas and Casino. Maybe he just naturally fits into those sorta movies, I dunno, but I do wish the DeNiro of the 80's was still around, willing to step outside his comfort zone and whatnotI really, really need to see that one. I bet I'll love it. Also, I can't agre with you about DeNiro coasting, but I do agree that it really is cool when an actor dares to go outside their comfort zone. It doesn't always work, but I admire when they do it.


Awesome. It's my favorite Scorsese flick as well. I recently went back and tried to recognize if the film had any sort of underlying theme. And the only thing I could come up with is "crime doesn't pay."Exactly. Sometimes themes are a tad overrated, or not always important. I love Blues Brothers to death, but I can't say it really has any kind of theme. In fact, the next entry on my list has a rather simplistic theme as well.


It seems like the most childish theme a movie like this could have, but what's so fantastic about Scorsese is how that concept isn't treated childishly. He really lets us appreciate the lifestyle, and there's something liberating about the way Liotta completely resists that moral lesson. He'd do everything he did again, in a heartbeat.Oh yes. The ending, which is amazing, sends that point home. Also it contains a great homage to The Great Train Robbery, set to a cover of "My Way" by (was it the Ramones or the Sex Pistols? I can't remember). But it was cool.

[MadMan]

My next entry is brought to you by tap dancing penguins. Aren't they cute?


Am I paying them, though? Hey Santa gets away without paying the elves, damnit :P

PS: Heh peole overlooked the title! Sure fooled them. Um, at least I think so :confused:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v487/MadMan_731/TheGoldRush.jpg

9. The Gold Rush (1925, Charlie Chaplin)

Comedy is really hard to accomplish, and to properly execute. What's remarkable about Chaplin's classic is that despite having no sound at all (aside from the accompanying orchestra), he makes the audience laugh.

More than 80 years later, this movie is still a riot, which is quite astounding and perhaps not only speaking to Chaplin's genius, but the fact that some movies are truly timeless. Sure the gags may seem dated, but you can argue that all old movies are dated. Its how they enable to make us look past their age that makes the great ones truly special.

One could go over and discuss all of the countless jokes and set pieces, but that's too easy. Besides, talking about why they work and the fact that they are all executed flawlessly is far more interesting. Chaplin never overplays his hand, and rarely if ever goes overboard, choosing instead to often slowly build up his jokes and comedic elements to a fever pitch until they boil over. This is one of the most original films ever made, period, and it constantly seems that Chaplin was trying to top himself with each little or big moment.

In the hands of a lesser director, or (God forbid) remade today, this movie would not work half as well. This may seem obvious, but I say its not because the countless funny scenes would have to be reworked, or it would be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age.

Nope, the real reason would be that the movie's wonderful and delightful spirit would be ripped from its spine, and tossed away for the sake of fart cracks or too mean spirited, Dan Cook style humor. Of course that's not to say those things are bad, but aside from satire and Monty Python this is the kind of comedy I truly enjoy.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I've only seen one Chaplin film.

::hangs head in shame::

Come to think of it, I've seen one Chaplin, one Keaton, and no Lloyd. I fail at life.

[MadMan]

I've only seen the following Chaplin:

*The Kid
*Shoulder Arms
*The Gold Rush
*Modern Times
*Parts of The Great Dictator

That's it. And I've only viewed The General from Keaton, and nothing at all from Lloyd. There's plenty of failure to go around, heh.

My next entry might take some time. Its far more serious and weighty than the others, and also depressing yet very fascinating. I didn't think I would like it, but I was surprised in a good way. I also want to see more from its director.

[The Mike]

I can get behind The Gold Rush. Iconic is the word I'm thinking of.

[MadMan]

Maybe I'll actually finish this list on time. Don't bank on it, though :P Also be gentle with this next review. I've been writing all of these on the fly, and the latest one was quite hard to cover.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v487/MadMan_731/TheSeventhSeal.jpg

8. Det sjunde inseglet (1957, Ingmar Bergman)

Many a movie has tried to cover death and dying in its own way, but for my money this film truly tackles the issue of mortality and our own search for meaning in an empty world in the best way possible.

More inherently complex than actually noted at first, Bergman brashly and expertly conveys and covers these topics in a very stark, unforgiving manner. God is viewed as distant, and instead the film's characters are visited by Death, who is everyone and anywhere, lurking in the shadows, even stopping by to visit or, of course, play a game of chess.

That little game being merely a rather un-subtitle but clever metaphor, because everyone knows you can't cheat Death or even buy more time from him in the long run. How you choose to accept him (you'd think it would be a she, once in a while) showing up on your doorstep is really up to you.

If anything, I feel that this film sets aside religion, even though the setting is in the superstitious Middle Ages, where Christianity reigned supreme and modern belief and science were considered heresy. Not to say that the film doesn't entirely not address the issue of God, but honestly there is more of an emphasis on death, life, and how harsh both can truly be.

The Knight, as played by Max Von Sydow, constantly persists in asking questions and probing the supposed meaning of life, but even though people claim this film is not depressing he is endlessly rebuked, and arguably never finds the actual answer. Of course, this could simply imply that there is no answer, or that the answer is hidden and thus not meant to be revealed.

Much has been made of the movie's iconic ending, which is famous and well re-knowned. Considering that despite their previous attempts to best and fight death, one could interrupt the final scene as being part of the multiple stages of denial when dealing with dying and death.

This could very well be wrong, but one way of shifting through the film's tea leaves containing its different ideas and themes is that the movie goes from each stage, ending with acceptance. At the same time, that's a rather liberal and somewhat radical (read: loose) reading of the movie itself.

Regardless, this not only has the distinction of being the only film from the 50s on my list (sadly, and only for now), but also existing as a true existential work of art.

[Morris Schæffer]

I've only seen one Chaplin film.


None although I certainly would like to see a few. I recently bought Keaton's The General so I'll watch that eventually.

I love Goodfellas!

[megladon8]

Even though I love Chaplin I've yet to see The Gold Rush :sad:

[Sycophant]

What. Watch City Lights and The Great Dictator before you. Do. Anything. Else.

[megladon8]

What. Watch City Lights and The Great Dictator before you. Do. Anything. Else.


Those are my two favorites, actually.

[Sycophant]

Those are my two favorites, actually.

Yeah, mine too, I think. Need to see Limelight again before I say definitively.

In case it wasn't obvious, the prescription was for MadMan.

[megladon8]

Yeah, mine too, I think. Need to see Limelight again before I say definitively.

In case it wasn't obvious, the prescription was for MadMan.


I just thought I'd throw my two cents in there.

I'm totally against those who say The Great Dictator is overly sentimental and hoaky. I thought his final speech was incredible.

[MadMan]

Yeah, mine too, I think. Need to see Limelight again before I say definitively.

In case it wasn't obvious, the prescription was for MadMan.Yeah, I know I'm still behind on Chaplin watching. I imagine that based on what I saw years ago on TCM I'll love The Great Dictator, and City Lights is very appealing as well. Limelight strikes me as an intrieguing movie, especially since both Chaplin and Keaton are in it.

[Eleven]

The "concert" by Keaton and Chaplin in Limelight is maybe the most perfect scene in Chaplin's entire filmography. Robert Warshow, in a 1954 essay, has probably best summed up its humor:


The difficulties that confront Calvero [Chaplin's character] and Keaton in their gentle attempt to give a concert are beyond satire. The universe stands in their way, and not because the universe is imperfect, either, but just because it exists; God himself could not conceive a universe in which these two could accomplish the simplest thing without mishap.

[Qrazy]

Well I'm sold. Time to finally cue up The Circus and Limelight.

[amberlita]

I've only seen the following Chaplin:

*The Kid
*Shoulder Arms
*The Gold Rush
*Modern Times
*Parts of The Great Dictator



Ah hah. Well then this explains why City Lights is not your favorite Chaplin film because if you'd seen it then it would be. :D

Fantastic list so far. These are undeniably fantastic films. Curious to see what else makes it since I can only predict one that I know will be high on the list.

[balmakboor]

I should do a top ten thread and give prizes to those who can guess the films.

[Qrazy]

I should do a top ten thread and give prizes to those who can guess the films.

Do it. I'll copy/paste your top 10 first.

[balmakboor]

Do it. I'll copy/paste your top 10 first.

Naw, I thought I'd just leave it there to throw people off the scent.

[Qrazy]

Naw, I thought I'd just leave it there to throw people off the scent.

But I want to win the prizes. :(

[Ivan Drago]

I still want to do a Top 50. Just need to write the commentaries first.

[MadMan]

I should do a top ten thread and give prizes to those who can guess the films.That would be amazing.


Ah hah. Well then this explains why City Lights is not your favorite Chaplin film because if you'd seen it then it would be. :DHeh, we'll see. I have a knack for surprising people sometimes.


Fantastic list so far. These are undeniably fantastic films. Curious to see what else makes it since I can only predict one that I know will be high on the list.Why thank you. And what one do you think will be on the list?


I still want to do a Top 50. Just need to write the
commentaries first.Go for it, man.

[Morris Schæffer]

I'd like to do a top 50/100 also, but fear that I'm not high-profile enough for you folks to sit up and take notice.:)

Do continue Madman.

[MadMan]

Morris if you post a Top 50 or 100, I'd follow it. As best as possible, though, as I seem to be online less these days. And my apologies for the delay, as I had to gather my thoughts, hash out another review, and deal with real life stuff.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v487/MadMan_731/DrStrangelove.jpg

7. Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the Bomb (1964, Kubrick)

Unlike the other entry on this list, Dr. Strangelove is not a mere comedy. No, it goes further beyond that into the realm of pure satire, brandishing its sharp wit and black humor with pint point accuracy.

Satire is the hardest subgenre of comedy to pull off-if you are successful, the movie is not only funny but also topical and mercilessly pointed, taking aim at sacred cows and challenging the viewer to think outside of their common everyday perceptions.

Or at the very least confirming what the intended audience suspected all along about certain people, systems, and institutions. However bad satire is worse than terrible comedy, failing hard and echoing a stale hollow feeling that those behind such a production had no idea what they were even doing.

What really marks one of Kubricks many masterpieces (there are several others I have seen, but they don't make my Top 10) is how brazenly wicked and bluntly honest, leaving no one involved unscathed, and mocking not only political systems and their leaders but also turning their decisions into outlandish and maddening mistakes of epic proportions.

After all, what we have here is nuclear war happening because of one war mongering general and another general obsessed with his own bodily fluids (leading to one of the funniest monologues in cinema history). Compounding this nightmarish satirical scenario is that neither the governing heads of the US or the Soviet Union are capable of preventing the disaster from happening, try as they may.

Anyone who's even seen previews or images from the movie know of its iconic, blackly comedic scene of Major Kong (slyly and aptly named) cowboy styling his way down into nuclear oblivion, and into movie history. That Kubrick is able to turn tragedy into farce and get away with poking fun at the Cold War and the fears of an mushroom cloud apocalypse is not only astounding, it speaks to the skill and talent of one of the all time great directors.

Left alone with Peter Sellers' amazing multi-character tasking, George C. Scott and Sterlying Hayden going wonderfully over the top, and an ending that is would be at home in the documentary "The Atomic Cafe," and you have the makings of something that is truly special.

[MadMan]

Well I shall celebrate my 6,000th post on this site by posting a review of one of my all time favorite movies.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v487/MadMan_731/TheGoodtheBadandtheUgly.jpg

6. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (1966, Leone)

Anyone who knows me well enough can attest to my love of westerns. The genre to me is one of constant quality and is populated with movies that have left an undescribe mark on the cinema landscape, influencing many directors who have worked in other genres.

While this list does not feature a film from John Ford, who can be considered one of the godfathers of modern American cinema, it has an entry from a master who was deeply inspired by him.

In fact, Leone's brilliant series of spaghetti westerns wouldn't have been possible without the template laid down by Ford, as they equally create their own mythology while deconstructing the western's traditional style and cliches.

Despite being expertly made and sporting many fantastic scenes and moments, this film manages to work despite being weak in terms of plot structure. Three desperate and violent men searching for gold is the rather loose storyline that the movie rests upon, especially since it is fairly basic, although granted that is all the movie really needs.

Leone doesn't feel the need to engage in character building or trying to really establish any kind of backgrounds, and instead feeds the viewer information and simply lets them sort out what is really going on. Since he also operates in shades of gray, there are no clear cut good guys or bad guys here, but rather has each one be either more or less rotten than the other, with the "Good" (or Blondie) acting as sort of a happy medium.

Besides, since Lee Van Cleef does not appear in the movie enough (he does enough dastardly deeds to be a sizable enough presence in the film), and Clint Eastwood is there simply to play the standard badass, Eli Wallach is the only character of interest.

Bouncing from betraying his own comrade Blondie to partnering up with him when the opportunity suits him, Tuco manages to represent humanity in its most basest and grossest form, operating as an extreme ethical egoist. Without him, this movie perhaps would have been less entertaining, and it goes to show that a foreign director (along with his American counterpart, Sam Peckinpath), helped to re-invent and re-define something already established.

Oh and a final note: I'm not really satisfied with this review. However, I post it simply because for the time being it will have to suffice.

[B-side]

Y'know, with how insecure you were about your list, I almost expected there to be nothing in the way of foreign cinema and simply a string of films from the last 25 years, but luckily, your insecurity is unwarranted.

[MadMan]

Y'know, with how insecure you were about your list, I almost expected there to be nothing in the way of foreign cinema and simply a string of films from the last 25 years, but luckily, your insecurity is unwarranted.Honestly compared to the folks here and on RT, I still have much to see in terms of foreign cinema and movies in general. So yeah the insecurity exists for a reason. I also tend to doubt my writing abilities as well, hence the tightly structured reviews and the fact that I don't make too many of these lists too often.

Oh and I can't believe I forgot to mention Morricone's god-like score for TGTBTU. For shame.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v487/MadMan_731/TheThirdMan.jpg

5. The Third Man (1949, Reed)

Some say there is no such thing as a "Perfect Movie." I submit this one as evidence that they are wrong, although since it is only #5 here I must feel that there are other such movies out there. That aside, I cannot find anything wrong with this film, and I have viewed it three times, once on Criterion and twice on TCM.

Carol Reed is responsible for giving us something that not only is timeless, but also something of a look into film noir made around and after World War II, set in the remaining ruins of post-war torn Europe. Which incidentally is a great setting for a film noir, a genre that despite its more modern day revival (neo-noir being the popular term), is still rather dated, a product of an older and yet still unsettled time in American history.

Overshadowed (unsurprisingly so) by the brilliant Orson Welles, Joseph Cotton shines here and is allowed to be the main character instead of the foil or sidekick. Even though later on its apparent that the Welles character of Harry Lime has always seen Cotton's Holly Martins as something of a pal and merely his partner, the movie hardly focuses on Lime at all, but rather sets about getting Lime into as much trouble as the hapless fellow can handle.

In classic noir terms even though he does not have his female fatale, and he manages to avoid dying in standard anti-hero fashion, Lime still fits the film noir protagonist part simply due to him seemingly always being in the dark about things, and never one step ahead of anyone-be it the police, Lime's lovely but naive girlfriend, and of course Lime himself.

Although this film seems to have the touch of Welles written upon it, without any further knowledge or research I imagine this is (for the most part) Reed's movie (and yes I know it was adapted from a novel, so there is another autuer at work, of course).

The set pieces laid down here are all brilliant, from the sly humorous reveal of Lime to Martins' mad escape and of course the famous chase through the sewers, accompanied by the classic zeither score which really makes this film truly special.

Yet in the movie's ending do we only get a true sense of what has been accomplished, and how despite this movie not being as multi-layered or as seemingly complex as other great films it achieves its standing as a masterpiece through more simple, carefully plotted means.

[MadMan]

Live thread! LIIIIVVEEEEE!!!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v487/MadMan_731/LawrenceofArabia.jpg

4. Lawrence of Arabia (1962, Lean)

Despite the notable exception of movies such as this one and "Raging Bull," the bio-pic sub-genre is mostly weighed down by cliches and rather pointless attempts to try and capture the supposed essence of a person, and then showcase their entire life. Funny enough "Bull" actually succeeds in covering the life of a real person because Scorsese sidesteps cliches, where as Lean's classic wisely focuses only on a major event in the life of one T.E. Lawrence, famously known by the title the movie bears.

We do not get stuck with learning about Lawrence's childhood, and his death is barely even touched upon, used instead to jump start the tale that doesn't bother with other details except for Lawrence's experience in the desert and how it truly shaped him.

Honestly I have no idea if this movie is altogether accurate, nor do I really care because it is one of the most entertaining adventure movies ever made in addition to having top notch performances. Peter O' Toole captures so many different, fluctuating human emotions and reactions, never once wavering in his ability to produce something that could be considered among the best acting jobs of the 60s, if not of the second half of the 20th century. Perhaps the movie's long running time actually not feeling at all lengthy with a lack of dull or boring parts can be mostly attributed to him, but also of course to the script, the other actors, and Lean's tightly paced direction.

What is also notable is that the movie does not bother to pain Lawrence in glowing terms, dressing him up to be the white hat wearing hero (white turban would be more accurate) but instead displaying his chilling willingness to kill in the heat of battle (his stance on the matter appears to fit the proper English attitude on having to participate in a ruthless slaughter), and the fact that he really is something of a cold, distant loner.

The movie also does not shrink from the fact that in the end the colonial powers carefully stabbed the Arabs in the back in the name of imperialism and bringing culture to the supposed "Savages,' thus while leaving the viewer with a rather bitter taste is also truth in reporting. As a lover of history, I greatly appreciate such a gesture.

[lovejuice]

What is also notable is that the movie does not bother to pain Lawrence in glowing terms, dressing him up to be the white hat wearing hero (white turban would be more accurate) but instead displaying his chilling willingness to kill in the heat of battle (his stance on the matter appears to fit the proper English attitude on having to participate in a ruthless slaughter), and the fact that he really is something of a cold, distant loner.
and i want to add that it doesn't go overboard in the opposite direction either -- as seem to be the fashion of modern bio-pics. lawrence is neither a glowing warlord or a troubled anti-hero. lean humanizes him through clever use of humor, and yet at the same time mystifies the man such that he can be the force of nature.

[MadMan]

and i want to add that it doesn't go overboard in the opposite direction either -- as seem to be the fashion of modern bio-pics. lawrence is neither a glowing warlord or a troubled anti-hero. lean humanizes him through clever use of humor, and yet at the same time mystifies the man such that he can be the force of nature.Exactly. Also expanding upon what you said about him being mystified, I don't believe that the movie ever says exactly what Lawrence was about, nor does it really try to seek the deep meaning of his soul or whatever like so many bio-pics also try to do. Which brings me to a movie that successfully realizes how foolish it is to try and capture what or who a person is in roughly 2 hours.

[MadMan]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v487/MadMan_731/CitizenKane.jpg

3. Citizen Kane (1941, Welles)

What can I really say about this movie that hasn't been stated already? Many claim it’s the greatest movie of all time, but as you can see this procrastinating, casual reviewer does not agree. Certainly the film is a masterpiece, which is obvious and not really saying anything.

Others such as myself have already abused the term to death. The problem with this movie though is that Welles, despite multiple attempts, never topped it although he made other noteworthy movies equal to his startling work of fiction that angered one William Randolph Hearst, giving us all the opportunity to debate over how far art can really go.

Plus there's all that business about a sled named Rosebud (if you don't know that by now, stop reading this thread and go watch the damn movie. Now), which in the grand scheme of things isn't too important. The theme the object represents is, in that we can truly never know a man even you interview every person who thought they knew him, but in the end only that man knows what he's about. Whew, tongue twisting, except I think that the joke is that even Kane never really knew who he actually was, or what he even truly stood for. Now that's a depressing thought.

Lost amongst all of the talk about the fantastic cinematography and the groundbreaking camera work is that this movie's script and characters are also incredibly strong. Welles was unafraid to make a movie that, for its time, featured a movie that ran out of order, using flashbacks while zinging instead of zaging and vice versa; although this resulted in the movie not being successful, such a move was not only unique but truly ahead of its time.

The true shame is that this movie was made at a time when the studio system did not give directors great freedom, and therefore one should be amazed that this movie was even made at all, much less that a major Hollywood studio released such a film. That it was is perhaps a testament to Welles star power at this period, but maybe even more so as a physical representation of the legendary man's charisma.

Much like the other entry on my list, The Third Man, this movie wonderfully uses black and white cinema to its fullest effect. Sure color is certainly nice and all, but there is something beautiful-perhaps even mystical-about the way black and white can be used to enhance a certain scene or underline themes and characters.

Everything else the movie is praised for easily applies here, but I would showcase this movie in a film class not just because it’s an essential, nor simply to show off the movie's camera work and cinematography.

Nay, rather instead for the main purpose of giving those students the best example of possible of how one man's genius, hard work and dedication to his ideas resulted in one of cinema's true treasures.

[B-side]

Good stuff here.

[MadMan]

Good stuff here.Not sure about the review, but yeah Citizen Kane is great. In fact I just remembered that I have only seen it once. A revisiting is in order, although its only been three years since I watched it in Film History class.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v487/MadMan_731/TheGodfather-SonnyGettingShot-1.jpg

2. The Godfather (1972, Coppola)

After my first viewing of Coppola's classic crime epic, I thought to myself "Sure this is great. But is it Top 10 worthy?" Yes surprisingly I actually wondered that, because the viewing had not yet sunk in and the movie's amazing scope had not become quite apparent. Recently a second viewing thanks to receiving the trilogy as a gift drastically changed all that, putting everything into clear focus.

Repeat viewings often become perilous, as they result in the viewer actively challenging their original conceptions of the movie in the first place, and therefore justifying what their true opinion of the movie is. Well in this case The Godfather isn't merely a collection of incredibly detailed and moving set pieces pasted together; it is also a magnum opus of sorts, giving meaning to its large batch of characters while also diving into subtitle thoughts, ideas, and established notions.

Now I do not pretend to know much about the Mafia's history, although I do know of how the organization itself has worked in the past (I also have not read the book, either) and that the film instead homes in on the fact that this band of murders and thieves strangely have stringent codes of honor that they themselves do not break for fear of the penalties that would result.

What is this movie's main strength is also its weakness: there is some depth to the main players and they are indeed established, but in the end we do not get true insights into them as people. Instead, the big picture is given more prudence, perhaps for time's sake but also because in the end that is what is viewed as truly important.

Besides, there are other crime and gangster pictures that aptly dive into the criminal mind (aside of course from Goodfellas) such as White Heat, Gun Crazy, Bonnie and Clyde, etc. None of them however match this movie not only because they are aiming for completely different things, but also due to the fact that even though crime as a genre already existed The Godfather single handedly gave us new and different moments as well as clichés.

Therefore helping to break even more new ground and being part of the wave of 70s cinema that forever changed and influenced a new generation of filmmakers. I wonder if as they were making the movie, Coppola, the cast and crew, and the writers, truly knew what they were accomplishing.

[MadMan]

Bump for any final thoughts/guesses before I post #1. Which I'm still writing commentary for-this entry is a bitch to cover, really.

[Adam]

Is it Monkeybone?

It's Monkeybone, right?

[The Mike]

Is it Monkeybone?

It's Monkeybone, right?
Nah, my money's on Corky Romano.

[MadMan]

Is it Monkeybone?

It's Monkeybone, right?


Nah, my money's on Corky Romano.You are both wrong. My #1 movie of all time is....












http://casualimages.files.wordpress.c om/2009/04/piranha2_thespawning.jpg

[MadMan]

Seriously though, I finished writing commentary for my actual #1, and have just been putting it off for weeks now. Hey you all know I procrastinate :P

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v487/MadMan_731/ApocalypseNow.jpg

1. Apocalypse Now (1979, Coppola)

Fine, so I am double dipping with directors on this list, but anyone who would have had a chance to see my previous Top 20 would note I have done it before, only in that case with Sergio Leone. Such qualms aside, I'm also amazed that even after seeing more films after making that last Top 20 that this has remained perched at the top. I have seen some of the others on this list and the other list many more times, but I could not say that they were almost akin to an entirely different, almost spiritual, experience.

Calling the best of the Coppola 70s masterpieces a "War movie," would not only be utterly wrong, but also a generic generalization of a film that goes above the usual gene standards, while also managing to one up its overrated source material, the Joseph Conrad novel Heart of Darkness (Herzog also managed to do this with his great journey into madness, Aguirre: The Wraith of God, filmed seven years before )-its not really too often you can make such a bold statement.

Say what the critics will about this movie's perceived large amount of flaws (they do exist, yes), but I do not feel that they hinder the movie itself from being truly spectacular in every single way. This is one instance where messy film making resulted in greatness, and while its happened before I'm not so sure it will ever happen again, although I suppose "Gangs of New York" could qualify even though it is not worthy of a perfect score.

Even more astounding is that I favor the movie's famous voice over, not actually done by Martin Sheen but his own brother, as I have often found the device to be rather annoying and often unnecessary. For a movie that is one large and strange trip down the rabbit hole, having the main character of Lt. Willard speak his thoughts onscreen (with them mostly substituting soundtrack music and scores), having narration is a high necessity. His brooding, damningly cynical dialogue appears to be crude poetry in motion almost, and Sheen has many of the movie's best lines.

Even though the juiciest monologue belongs to Robert Duvell's surf crazed helicopter traveling gung-ho captain, a character that best embodies the true insanity and futility of war. "Some day this war's gonna end" can be further interrupted as being a statement on all wars, a reminder of the famous quote "Only the dead know the end of war." With such musings being stated after a harrowing, disturbing and brutally effective helicopter bombing of an entire village set to Wager (a touch I find a tad ironic), the senseless and barbaric cruelty of war is laid bare. But beyond that, the viewer gets a sense that the US was crazy to think it could win the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people when it was constantly napalming their own homes.

Only in the second half does the movie's sizable ties to Conrad's novel even come into play, especially since Marlon Brando, Coppola's own version of Kurtz remains hidden and obscured from view for most of the movie, a move that actually works quite well. The build up and tension that emerges from Willard's journey into an unspeakable hell hole is an example of how to properly sustain interest, and this groundwork lays the foundation for one of the most memorable, creepy scenes to emerge from a non-horror movie. Which leads to the other point that even though the movie ends on a seemingly optimistic note, the final scene is rather cautious in that it serves as a warning of how easily man's bleakest, most violent impulses can be so easily switched on.

As I stated, this is not just a war movie, but something truly more-beyond Vietnam, breaking the barrier of standard war movie cliches and morphing into something entirely new and original. Coppola to my knowledge has never topped this, and I doubt he ever will.

[Adam]

Good stuff, even if Apocalypse Now is blah

[B-side]

Good stuff, even if Apocalypse Now is blah

That's a remark worthy of neg-rep if I ever saw one.

[MadMan]

Good stuff, even if Apocalypse Now is blahThank you for the "Good stuff," comment. I know that many on this site don't particularly care for AN, and actually a good friend of mine who's a film fanatic thinks I'm crazy for finding it better than say, Citzen Kane or The Godfather.


That's a remark worthy of neg-rep if I ever saw one.Whoa there pilgrim. No need to threats of neg-rep, even if we don't have that feature anymore :P

Now that I've actually finished another list, on to my planned Top 20 of the Decade, and of course my Top 20 Westerns of All Time. Yes I'm absolutely serious.

[Ivan Drago]

10. Goodfellas 9
9. The Gold Rush 7.5
8. The Seventh Seal 5
7. Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the Bomb 6
6. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly 8
5. The Third Man 8
4. Lawrence of Arabia 9.5
3. Citizen Kane 8
2. The Godfather 9.5

I've seen everything except Apocalypse Now. Awesome list, man!

[MadMan]

10. Goodfellas 9
9. The Gold Rush 7.5
8. The Seventh Seal 5
7. Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the Bomb 6
6. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly 8
5. The Third Man 8
4. Lawrence of Arabia 9.5
3. Citizen Kane 8
2. The Godfather 9.5

I've seen everything except Apocalypse Now. Awesome list, man!Some of your ratings are, um, alarming to me :lol:
But thanks anyways-and I hope you enjoy Apocalypse Now as much as I did. Everything on the list receives a 100/100 btw folks-but I think that was generally assumed already.

PS: A late shoutout to Father Barry, aka Padre, who famously gave my #1 movie of all time a 1/10. God bless yah man, where ever yah are.

[B-side]

10. Goodfellas 8
9. The Gold Rush 7.5
8. The Seventh Seal 8
7. Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the Bomb 8
6. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly 9
5. The Third Man 8
4. Lawrence of Arabia 9.5
3. Citizen Kane 9
2. The Godfather 9
1. Apocalypse Now 9

Damn fine list, sir.