The Non-Adminstrative top 50 (continued)

[dreamdead]

Welcome, one and all to Match Cut's Non-Administrative Top 50... With a Twist!

This is an attempt to finish off the list before the end of the year. Setting the bar high on an ability to post seven write-ups in sixty days' time. Can we do it? Are you a betting (wo)man? Anyone have an over/under?

The original thread is here (http://matchcut.org/viewtopic.php?t=10091&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0)

The order will be:

Ezee E
Watashi
dreamdead
Boner M

We'll begin once Watashi is ready to unveil #7.

Ezee E
50. The Killing (Stanley Kubrick, 1956)
49. Aguirre, the Wrath of God (Werner Herzog, 1972)
48. Three Kings (David O. Russell, 1999)
47. Five Deadly Venoms (Chang Cheh, 1978)
46. A Christmas Story (Bob Clark, 1983)
45. High and Low (Akira Kurosawa, 1963)
44. 25th Hour (Spike Lee, 2002)
43. Catch Me If You Can (Steven Spielberg, 2002)
42. Fitzcarraldo (Werner Herzog, 1982)
41. The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (Tobe Hooper, 1974)
40. The Sandlot (David M. Evans, 1993)
39. Super Fly (Gordon Parks, 1972)
38. Touch of Evil (Orson Welles, 1958)
37. Battle Royale (Kinji Fukasaku, 2000)
36. Amadeus (Milos Forman, 1984)
35. Who Framed Roger Rabbit (Robert Zemeckis, 1988)
34. Psycho (Alfred Hitchcock, 1960)
33. The Departed (Martin Scorsese, 2006)
32. The Big Lebowski (Joel and Ethan Coen, 1998)
31. City of God (Fernando Meirelles, 2003)
30. Barton Fink (Joel and Ethan Coen, 1991)
29. Magnolia (Paul Thomas Anderson, 1999)
28. One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest (Milos Forman, 1976)
27. American Psycho (Mary Harron, 2000)
26. The Deer Hunter (Michael Cimino, 1978)
25. The Fly (David Cronenberg, 1986)
24. Once Upon A Time In America (Sergio Leone, 1984)
23. Pulp Fiction (Quentin Tarantino, 1993)
22. A Clockwork Orange (Stanley Kubrick, 1971)
21. Casino (Martin Scorsese, 1995)
20. Eyes Wide Shut (Stanley Kubrick, 1999)
19. Requiem for a Dream (Darren Aronofsky, 2000)
18. Ghostbusters (Ivan Reitman, 1984)
17. Star Wars: The Original Trilogy
16. Amelie (Jean-Pierre Jeunet, 2001)
15. Raging Bull (Martin Scorsese, 1980)
14. Children of Men (Alfonso Cuaron, 2006)
13. Leon: The Professional (Luc Besson, 1994)
12. JFK (Oliver Stone, 1991)
11. Kill Bill (Quentin Tarantino, 2003/2004)
10. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Carl Dreyer, 1928)
9. Alien (Ridley Scott, 1979)
8. Taxi Driver (Martin Scorsese, 1976)
7. The Exorcist (William Friedkin, 1973)
6. The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly (Sergio Leone, 1966)
5. The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)
4. The Godfather Part I & II (Francis Ford Coppola, 1972, 1974)
3. Boogie Nights (Paul Thomas Anderson, 1997)
2. Aliens (James Cameron, 1986)
1. Goodfellas (Martin Scorsese, 1990)

Watashi
50. Ed Wood (Tim Burton, 1994)
49. His Girl Friday (Howard Hawks, 1940)
48. Barton Fink (Joel and Ethan Coen, 1991)
47. Dawn of the Dead (George A. Romero, 1978)
46. The Purple Rose of Cairo (Woody Allen, 1985)
45. High and Low (Akira Kurosawa, 1963)
44. Rear Window (Alfred Hitchcock, 1954)
43. Millennium Actress (Satoshi Kon, 2002)
42. Jaws (Steven Spielberg, 1975)
41. Robocop (Paul Verhoeven, 1987)
40. Chungking Express (Wong Kar-Wai, 1994)
39. Rififi (Jules Dassin, 1955)
38. Finding Nemo (Andrew Stanton, 2003)
37. Modern Times (Charlie Chaplin, 1936)
36. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (Mel Stuart, 1971)
35. Miller's Crossing (Joel and Ethan Coen, 1990)
34. Paris, Texas (Wim Wenders, 1984)
33. Blade Runner (Ridley Scott, 1982)
32. In America (Jim Sheridan, 2003)
31. The Nightmare Before Christmas (Henry Selick, 1993)
30. Gangs of New York (Martin Scorsese, 2002)
29. The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (Jacques Demy, 1964)
28. Days of Heaven (Terrence Malick, 1978)
27. Trois Couleurs: Rouge (Krzysztof Kieslowski, 1994)
26. Dancer in the Dark (Lars Von Trier, 2000)
25. Who Framed Roger Rabbit (Robert Zemeckis, 1988)
24. Annie Hall (Woody Allen, 1977)
23. Rashomon (Akira Kurosawa, 1950)
22. The Prince of Egypt (Brenda Chapman, Steve Hickner, Simon Wells, 1998)
21. Casablanca (Michael Curtiz, 1942)
20. Beauty and the Beast (Gary Trousdale, Kirk Wise, 1991)
19. Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, 1941)
18. The Elephant Man (David Lynch, 1980)
17. The Iron Giant (Brad Bird, 1999)
16. Vertigo (Alfred Hitchcock, 1958)
15. The Thin Red Line (Terrence Malick, 1998)
14. Ratatouille (Brad Bird, 2007)
13. Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (Stanley Kubrick, 1964)
12. The Last Temptation of Christ (Martin Scorsese, 1988)
11. Minority Report (Steven Spielberg, 2002)
10. Toy Story/Toy Story 2 (John Lasseter, 1995/1999)
9. Nashville (Robert Altman, 1975)
8. The Shawshank Redemption (Frank Darabont, 1994)
7. Pleasantville (Gary Ross, 1998)
6. Network (Sidney Lumet, 1976)
5. 12 Angry Men (Sidney Lumet, 1957)
4. The Incredibles (Brad Bird, 2004)
3. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Carl Theodor Dreyer, 1928)
2. The Empire Strikes Back (Irvin Kirshner, 1980)
1. Whisper of the Heart (Yoshifumi Kondo, 1995)

dreamdead
50. All the Real Girls (David Gordon Green, 2003)
49. The Grand Illusion (Jean Renoir, 1937)
48. Shock Corridor (Samuel Fuller, 1963)
47. Turkish Delight (Paul Verhoeven, 1973)
46. Shame (Ingmar Bergman, 1968)
45. Walkabout (Nicolas Roeg, 1971)
44. The Conversation (Francis Ford Coppola, 1974)
43. Last Life in the Universe (Pen-Ek Ratanaruang, 2003)
42. 3 Women (Robert Altman, 1977)
41. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Carl Theodor Dreyer, 1928)
40. Toy Story 2 (John Lasseter, 1999)
39. Late Spring (Yasujiro Ozu, 1949)
38. Paris, Texas (Wim Wenders, 1984)
37. Exotica (Atom Egoyan, 1994)
36. Dead Ringers (David Cronenberg, 1988)
35. Pulse (Kiyoshi Kurosawa, 2001)
34. The House of Mirth (Terence Davies, 2000)
33. Aguirre, the Wrath of God (Werner Herzog, 1972)
32. The Conformist (Bernardo Bertolucci, 1970)
31. Husbands and Wives (Woody Allen, 1992)
30. The Third Man (Carol Reed, 1949)
29. 2046 (Wong Kar Wai, 2004)
28. In the Mood for Love (Wong Kar Wai, 2000)
27. The New World (Terrence Malick, 2005)
26. Ikiru (Akira Kurosawa, 1952)
25. Whisper of the Heart (Yoshifumi Kondo, 1995)
24. Double Indemnity (Billy Wilder, 1944)
23. Werckmeister Harmonies (Bela Tarr, 2000)
22. In a Lonely Place (Nicholas Ray, 1950)
21. Ugetsu (Kenji Mizoguchi, 1953)
20. A Zed and Two Noughts (Peter Greenaway, 1985)
19. My Life to Live (Jean-Luc Godard, 1962)
18. Grave of the Fireflies (Isao Takahata, 1988)
17. Ratcatcher (Lynne Ramsay, 1999)
16. The Piano (Jane Campion, 1993)
15. The Thin Red Line (Terrence Malick, 1998)
14. Sherlock Jr. (Buster Keaton, 1924)
13. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)
12. Breaking the Waves (Lars von Trier, 1996)
11. The Red Shoes (Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger, 1948)
10. 8 1/2 (Federico Fellini, 1963)
9. Hana-Bi (Takeshi Kitano, 1997)
8. Sunset Boulevard (Billy Wilder, 1950)
7. Naked (Mike Leigh, 1993)
6. Mulholland Dr. (David Lynch, 2001)
5. I am Cuba (Mikhail Kalatozov, 1964)
4. Vertigo (Alfred Hitchcock, 1958)
3. Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (F.W. Murnau, 1927)
2. Manhattan (Woody Allen, 1979)
1. Before Sunset (Richard Linklater, 2004)

Boner M.
50. News From Home (Chantal Akerman, 1977)
49. Carnival of Souls (Herk Harvey, 1962)
48. Talk To Her (Pedro Almodovar, 2002)
47. Bad Boy Bubby (Rolf De Heer, 1993)
46. The Killing of a Chinese Bookie (John Cassavetes, 1976)
45. Our Hospitality (Buster Keaton, 1923)
44. Night of the Hunter (Charles Laughton, 1955)
43. Il Posto (Ermanno Olmi, 1961)
42. Stroszek (Werner Herzog, 1977)
41. The Thing (John Carpenter, 1982)
40. The Son (Jean-Pierre Dardenne & Luc Dardenne, 2002)
39. Ali: Fear Eats the Soul (Rainer Werner Fassbinder, 1974)
38. Lost Highway (David Lynch, 1997)
37. Blissfully Yours (Apichatpong Weerasethakul, 2002)
36. Heat (Michael Mann, 1995)
35. Throne of Blood (Akira Kurosawa, 1957)
34. Mouchette (Robert Bresson, 1967)
33. Stranger Than Paradise (Jim Jarmusch, 1984)
32. Artificial Intelligence: AI (Steven Spielberg, 2001)
31. Fallen Angels (Wong Kar-Wai, 1995)
30. Seven Samurai (Akira Kurosawa, 1954)
29. Playtime (Jacques Tati, 1967)
28. Being John Malkovich (Spike Jonze, 1999)
27. Les Diaboliques (Henri-Georges Clouzot, 1955)
26. Vengeance is Mine (Shohei Imamura, 1979)
25. Pump up the Volume (Allan Moyle, 1990)
24. The Thin Red Line (Terrence Malick, 1998)
23. The Lady Eve (Preston Sturges, 1941)
22. The Vanishing (George Sluizer, 1988)
21. Whisper of the Heart (Yoshifumi Kondo, 1995)
20. Naked (Mike Leigh, 1993)
19. The 400 Blows (Francois Truffaut, 1959)
18. Rosemary's Baby (Roman Polanski, 1968)
17. The Exterminating Angel (Luis Bunuel, 1962)
16. My Life to Live (Jean-Luc Godard, 1962)
15. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)
14. A Woman Under the Influence (John Cassavetes, 1974)
13. Paris, Texas (Wim Wenders, 1984)
12. Beau Travail (Claire Denis, 1999)
11. The Children of Paradise (Marcel Carne, 1945)
10. Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (F.W. Murnau, 1927)
9. The Conversation (Francis Ford Coppola, 1974)
8. Badlands (Terrence Malick, 1973)
7. Taxi Driver (Martin Scorsese, 1976)
6. Andrei Rublev (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1969)
5. Rear Window (Alfred Hitchcock, 1954)
4. Love Streams (John Cassavetes, 1984)
3. Mulholland Drive (David Lynch, 2001)
2. Sansho the Bailiff (Kenji Mizoguchi, 1954)
1. O Lucky Man! (Lindsay Anderson, 1973)

[Watashi]

7. Pleasantville

http://www.rfowkes.com/assets/images/db_images/db_Pleasantville1.jpg

Dir. Gary Ross

There is something about the cultural clashes between reality and media that endlessly fascinates me while studying cinema. Sherlock Jr., The Purple Rose of Cairo, Last Action Hero, and the upcoming Enchanted all center around an outsider trying to explore and survive the harsh realities of an unknown world: our world. This cinematic tool allows a director to bend the rules and have some fun. There is a fine line between cinema and reality, and often filmmakers will try to blend the two together making it impossible to tell the difference. A film character trying to obey the film rules of his genre fully expects a prescheduled outcome of how everything will end and begin. The unpredictability of life is the most unique aspect that film can never capture (no film can be completely unpredictable).

The film Pleasantville opens up with the words, “Once Upon a Time” leading you to believe this will be a fairy tale filled with dashing heroism and damsels in distress. However, this is not a fairy tale you would read to your child at night. As fantastical Pleasantville may seem, it remains a strong allegorical treatment of the power of change, deviance, and inequality brought upon an unsocial world. Like all those good old 50’s “Leave it to Beaver” programming, Pleasantville is a place where everyone is mistake-free, family-friendly, and never late with their scheduled tasks. When transported into Pleasantville via the "Oomph" remote, David (Tobey Maguire) and Jennifer (Reese Witherspoon) dissolve into the roles of the two bright, obedient children, Bud and Mary Sue. They are forced to act out a routine of “episodes” of Pleasantville from “Bud’s First Job” to “Mary Sue Goes on a Date”. David, being the fan of the show back home, plays along not trying to corrupt their prescheduled laws and mannerisms. They are trapped in a perfect society where everyone hits a basket, and you don’t ask questions about sex, books, art, music, or many other common individual interactions, because such behavior is nonexistent in Pleasantville.

Pleasantville is often seen as an extreme leftist film (which a lot of it is), but the main message Gary Ross comes from a quote David (Bud) tells his father about the power of change. People do change, for the bad and for the good. Even with a new skin of color, their morals, love, goals all remain the same. All societies that go through such rapid change that will immediately impact the person’s individual role. David explains to his mother once he exits out of Pleasantville that there is no such thing as a perfect car, house, or life. We as individuals crave perfectness from society to compete and feel proud of ourselves when we know that is impossible.

[monolith94]

A nice enough film. But not, in my opinion, a great one.

[D_Davis]

Interesting choice, Wats. Not a film that I really like, but it is still an interesting choice. The whole outsider/insider thing is something that I am equally fascinated by, and is one of the reasons why I like Tsui Hark's films so much. This is a common theme that he deals with, often with great skill.

[dreamdead]

I need to revisit Pleasantville. It's got a wonder of a closing image, but otherwise things remain hazy. Still, this film has one of the great ensembles of the past twenty years. Ross needs to do more, cos he's always interesting as a filmmaker (I say this having not yet seen Seabiscuit)...

[dreamdead]

7. Naked (Mike Leigh, 1993)

http://members.aol.com/laochfion/Naked1.jpg

In the 1990s, Mike Leigh had one of the best decades ever. Secrets and Lies is itself nearly worthy of appearing on this list, and none of his films are less than eminently watchable. And although each film differs in its portrayal of English life and the varying classes, Leigh’s films possess a sophistication of theme, structure, and dialogue that harkens back to the experimentation of the 1970s. Naked (1993) begins appropriately dirty enough, as a handheld camera scurries through the Manchester dark and settles upon a couple having sex in the shadows, until the sex turns violent and we realize that the man must flee for London. Giving one of the strongest performances I’ve ever seen, David Thewlis plays Johnny, a restless, intellectual bohemian interested in pursuing knowledge, no matter the cost; while he may be alternately seen as a psycho and a savant, he is inexorably human.

He settles upon a former girlfriend’s house, Louise (Leslie Sharp), for his refuge, and there he meets Louise’s roommate, Sophie (Katrin Cartlidge), a woman who is somehow more damaged and lost than he. Sophie and Johnny’s struggle for intimacy is fatalistic because each is pursuing a different end in their passion—Johnny is merely engaging in sexual release while Sophie desires their sex to foreground some mythic, immutable attraction. Because of this inability to see eye-to-eye, the nihilism inherent to the scene is powerfully visceral, and Johnny’s abrasive attitude in using sex (just as he uses words) as release becomes heart-breaking, especially since it’s simply flesh pounding against flesh, when Sophie in particular needs it to be so much more. Indeed, Sophie becomes the apotheosis of sorrow, confusion, and uncontrolled devotion to Johnny, even though he refuses to surrender himself in this way to any other person.

Though the film could settle into a tragi-comedy detailing Johnny’s misfortune in sleeping with Sophie while trying to woo back Louise, Leigh has a different story to tell. Johnny wanders the streets of London, conversing with a night watchman about the Holy Bible and the coming apocalypse, exposes and threatens to unravel a waitress’s insecurities after her kindness to him, and suffers numerous beatings since he cannot silence his tongue. Through it all, Leigh’s characters struggle to survive with society, but, save for Louise, all of them recoil and flee from the potentiality of change and hope. They see their lives as somehow essentialist, borne along by the machinations of an uncaring society, and thus unable to affect any change. They are Beckett’s Vladimir and Estragon all over again, waiting but unmoving. The closing tracking shot is inevitable, yet still excels in eliciting a pained silence as life continues as it must.

While Naked is full of degradation and callousness, it is nonetheless a masterpiece of contemporary cinema that is endlessly vital and alive. There is simply a richness of lyricism in Leigh’s dialogue, a masterfully low-key score, some incredibly apocalyptic cinematography, and fully-realized human characters.

[Boner M]

Hey guys, it might take a while for me to make a new entry (a few weeks at the most) because of end-of-semester papers and the like. I'm also having a hard time trying to find a copy of the next film on my list. If anyone starts getting ansty about waiting, then just proceed with the list and I'll do my #7 and #6 in one post.

Sorry for any inconveniences.

[Derek]

7. Pleasantville

Your streak of posting only films I like has ended. I actually used to like this film, but saw it recently and found it self-congratulatory crap pandering to liberals for their open-mindedness and ability to fight those stodgy, old conservatives. I'm not even sure I'd call it an allegory since it's so forthright about what it's trying to say, to the point that, as you say, the characters literally state its themes.

Three more points:

1) Naked is a masterpiece and a great pick.
2) I'm convinced D_Davis is actually Tsui Hark and has been posting here for years to promote DVD sales of his films. Nice try, but the jig is up. :)
3) Booooourns to Boner.

[Watashi]

Your streak of posting only films I like has ended. I actually used to like this film, but saw it recently and found it self-congratulatory crap pandering to liberals for their open-mindedness and ability to fight those stodgy, old conservatives. I'm not even sure I'd call it an allegory since it's so forthright about what it's trying to say, to the point that, as you say, the characters literally state its themes.


Eh, 1/50 ain't bad.

[D_Davis]

2) I'm convinced D_Davis is actually Tsui Hark and has been posting here for years to promote DVD sales of his films. Nice try, but the jig is up. :)


Damn - I wish. If this were true, I'd be out making an awesome movie right now instead of filing a provisional patent application for a client!

[Derek]

Eh, 1/50 ain't bad.

Oh, I agree. Other than Gangs of New York, which I'm fairly mixed on but haven't seen since theaters, there's not a one I dislike. Even the ones I haven't seen are all ones I expect to be good.

[Spinal]

The only real turkey for me on Wats' list is Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. There's others that I like far less than most people, but that's the only one I think is truly a bad film (although it admittedly has a superior lead performance).

[Raiders]

Pleasantville is good. I like Pleasantville.

[Watashi]

The only real turkey for me on Wats' list is Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. There's others that I like far less than most people, but that's the only one I think is truly a bad film (although it admittedly has a superior lead performance).

Why must you tempt me to give you negative rep?

[ledfloyd]

i saw naked a week or so ago and it would easily make a top ten if i had the dedication to make one. such a brilliant film. that's one of those ones that when the credits roll you sit back in post-coital bliss knowing
you've just witnessed a perfectly realized artistic vision.

[Izzy Black]

Not a single Antonioni. I'm appalled.

[dreamdead]

Not a single Antonioni. I'm appalled.

Sorry, I've only seen L'eclisse and his section of Eros. The former probably deserves a rewatch sometime, but I could never quite get attuned to the cinema he was creating. Even if I never return to that one, I should probably give L'avventura a watch sometime.

His part in Eros is, however, one of the most jawdroppingly inane pieces of cinema I've ever seen.

[Ezee E]

I have yet to see an Antonioni movie that I really liked. Hell, probably one that I haven't even liked.

[Izzy Black]

Sorry, I've only seen L'eclisse and his section of Eros. The former probably deserves a rewatch sometime, but I could never quite get attuned to the cinema he was creating. Even if I never return to that one, I should probably give L'avventura a watch sometime.

His part in Eros is, however, one of the most jawdroppingly inane pieces of cinema I've ever seen.

Well, Eros would be my recommendation for the last places to start with Antonioni's cinema, but that's not to say there's nothing there. L'Eclisse and L'Avventura are perhaps his two masterpieces, and I would recommend the latter first then the former. His cinema is very difficult, but highly rewarding. I can't imagine how anyone with an open-mind could not appreciate these singular cinematic accomplishments.

[Dillard]

Sorry, I've only seen L'eclisse and his section of Eros. The former probably deserves a rewatch sometime, but I could never quite get attuned to the cinema he was creating. Even if I never return to that one, I should probably give L'avventura a watch sometime.

His part in Eros is, however, one of the most jawdroppingly inane pieces of cinema I've ever seen.I found L'Avventura and La Notte much more enjoyable than L'Eclisse my first time through the "trilogy."

[jesse]

Sorry, I've only seen L'eclisse and his section of Eros. The former probably deserves a rewatch sometime, but I could never quite get attuned to the cinema he was creating. Even if I never return to that one, I should probably give L'avventura a watch sometime.

His part in Eros is, however, one of the most jawdroppingly inane pieces of cinema I've ever seen. I can't think of two worse places to start with Antonioni's filmography. :(

He seems like the type of filmmaker you'd dig, so don't give up on him yet.

[Ezee E]

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

http://www.gonemovies.com/WWW/WanadooFilms/Western/GoodGood.jpg

"There are two kinds of people in the world, my friend: Those with a rope around the neck, and the people who have the job of doing the cutting." - Tuco

It's tough to watch any Western these days without an homage to either John Wayne or Sergio Leone. Even by mistake. There's just so much in the Leone movies that people reference it by mistake because it's in our brains now of what a Western is.

The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly is much more then that though. Sure, there's an overall plot to the movie, but it almost seems episodic, with legendary scene after legendary scene. Whether it be getting to the other side of a river while a massive battle goes on, or the revelation of where the gold is at. It's clever, funny, and keeps the movie interesting for its three-hour length.

The iconic final scene has been imitated many a times, but with the use of music, I have only seen it succeed here. At least, succeed so well. And when it's over, it goes back to making us laugh, without coming across as "too smart."

Leone made three masterpieces, two of which ended up on my list. Each movie he made showcased how much talent he had more and more. I believe that Once Upon A Time In America shows his best directorial talent, but The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly remains so entertaining after each viewing, that I like it better. I just wish that he got to make more movies, especially his Stalingrad idea that he was getting together in the late 80's.

[dreamdead]

I can't think of two worse places to start with Antonioni's filmography. :(

He seems like the type of filmmaker you'd dig, so don't give up on him yet.

Huh, whaddaya know. I picked horrible starting choices. I think the only time I haven't done that was when you waved me off The Intruder as my introduction to Denis. It's probably going to wait until winter break, but I'm going to give Antonioni another shot for sure. He's too highly respected for me to write him off after seeing just one full-length.

And nice pick with Leone, E. His films were one of my better introductions this year, and though the ending is justly magnificent, I'm partial to the extended scene by the river. They held a nice undercurrent of political commentary beneath the veneer, and Leone's direction there and elsewhere was classic. Still only seen this one and Once Upon a Time in the West, and so I'll have to fix that next year as well.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I ADORE the GBU, I always saw it as an opera... and a comedy... and a tragedy. Mostly comedy, and mostly opera. It's glorious.

[Sycophant]

Man. I need to get around to The Good, the Bad, & the Ugly, but I've installed a mental roadblack that won't allow me to watch it until I've seen For a Few Dollars More. I own a copy of the former, but not a copy of the latter. :confused:

I'm an Antonioni n00b, but I have copies of Eros and The Passenger. Is The Passenger a decent place to start?

[DSNT]

I'm an Antonioni n00b, but I have copies of Eros and The Passenger. Is The Passenger a decent place to start?
I would say so. It's a good bit more accessible than a lot of the other Antonioni stuff, plus it has an awesome final tracking shot. I highly recommend it as an intro to his themes and style, but I wouldn't rate it as one of his masterpieces.

TGBAU is a good choice, although I've always favored OUATITW for both entertainment value and directorial achievement (and Claudia Cardinale doesn't hurt).

[Duncan]

The Passenger is my favorite Antonioni film. He's one of the best, for sure.

[D_Davis]

The iconic final scene has been imitated many a times, but with the use of music, I have only seen it succeed here. At least, succeed so well. And when it's over, it goes back to making us laugh, without coming across as "too smart."



This is a good scene, with great music, in a great flick, but I think Leone did it even better in Once Upon a Time in the West. It also shifts to a humorous moment after the violence. For me, TgtBatU was Leone's warm up for OUaTitW, as both films share a dream-like pacing coupled with strong mythological currents. I just think he executes everything better in ...West.

[Ezee E]

This is a good scene, with great music, in a great flick, but I think Leone did it even better in Once Upon a Time in the West. It also shifts to a humorous moment after the violence. For me, TgtBatU was Leone's warm up for OUaTitW, as both films share a dream-like pacing coupled with strong mythological currents. I just think he executes everything better in ...West.
The beginning train scene in West is better than anything in GBU, but, as a whole, there's so many great scenes, and more enjoyable characters in GBU that I like it much more. The characters alone make the movie breeze by as Eli Wallach tortures himself trying to get Clint to reveal the grave name.

[dreamdead]

:|:|:|

Watashi, really? You didn't want to post a new entry before starting a top 100 in OT? Really? You've posted five or six entries there each day? Do you know how far along this thread could be right now if that same dedication happened here? We could be done with this thing. Really? I mean, come on, Watashi, even Sycophant's gonna finish his thread before us. And he isn't past the honorable mentions yet. Really?

And Watashi, do you not have an entourage? Really? 'Cos you could put together an entourage and the first guy in that entourage could post your next entry. Really? He could he called Watashi's Official Top #50 Writer. Really? And also, you're probably gonna create another thread after you finish that one. Really? Do you not have writes-ups on these films anywhere? Really? If you like these films, you should have thoughts on them. Really? Really. So, Watashi, throw a new entry up. Really. Really. Wow.

[Spinal]

Well, at least we know now that he really, really likes Mountain Dew.

[Watashi]

Hmmm... Chasing Amy?

[Watashi]

6. Network

http://media.monstersandcritics.com/articles/1134453/article_images/thevoiceofgod.jpg

Dir. Sidney Lumet

You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won't have it!! Is that clear?! You think you've merely stopped a business deal. That is not the case. The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back! It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity! It is ecological balance! You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multi-national dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, Reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels.

It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU WILL ATONE! Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale? You get up on your little twenty-one inch screen and howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and ITT and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today. What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state -- Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions, and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do.

We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime. And our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that perfect world in which there's no war or famine, oppression or brutality -- one vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock, all necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused. And I have chosen you, Mr. Beale, to preach this evangel.

"But why me?"

Because you're on television, dummy. Sixty million people watch you every night of the week, Monday through Friday.

"I have seen the face of God."

You just might be right, Mr. Beale.

[Raiders]

Really? Watashi, really?

[Watashi]

Really? Watashi, really?

Yes, really.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Great/hilarious write-up but I'm hardly enthousiastic about Network. Maybe I should rewatch it, but I never really liked it.

[Watashi]

Great/hilarious write-up but I'm hardly enthousiastic about Network. Maybe I should rewatch it, but I never really liked it.

Er... all I did was just copy and paste his monologue.

But, thanks!

[Philosophe_rouge]

Er... all I did was just copy and paste his monologue.

But, thanks!
I thought you changed things... I obviously don't remember the movie at all :frustrated:

[dreamdead]

Hmmm... Chasing Amy?

SNL's Weekend Update segment "Really?" on Michael Vick (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/407816/snl_vick_really/).

[Ezee E]

I thought you changed things... I obviously don't remember the movie at all :frustrated:
awesome.

[Qrazy]

Network is indeed one of the best films ever made. Great pick. Everyone goes on about the angry as hell speech but imo after the speech is when the film really kicks off and catapults it to greatness.

[Biff Justice]

So many great speeches in Network. If I was forced to pick just one, it would be the "I'm your wife" monologue, but honestly there's not a bad bit of writing - monologue or dialogue - in this film. Definitely top 10 worthy in my opinion. But, then, I am a dialogue guy.

[dreamdead]

#6. Mulholland Dr. (David Lynch, 2001)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/universal_focus/mulholland_drive/michael_j__anderson/mulholland.jpg

NOTE: Some spoilers follow

No film, to my eyes, interrogates Hollywood and its institution as an ideal as successfully as David Lynch’s Mulholland Dr. (2001), a film that is simultaneously an experience of fantasy, of desire, and of narrative. Governed with a narrative logic that unfolds slowly and seductively, Lynch’s film begins fairly straightforwardly, yet with glimpses and echoes of surrealism that warn you away from believing in the constructed narrative. Even the opening, with its superimposed image of our fawning heroine Betty (Naomi Watts) together with a jitterbug contest, alerts you to the fundamental apparatus of film as projection. Since the film is so recursive and circular, Lynch is asking us to consider whether or not there is some other subterranean, radical agency to this idea of projection beyond its “public memory,” beyond its testimony as truth, and in so doing Lynch explicitly jars and dislocates our sense of film as projected truth.

Lynch structures a narrative that is slightly off, slightly askew, to underscore the idea of questioning this state of perfect projection. Betty, a newcomer to Hollywood, receives the kindest of welcomes to the city from an old people. She is summarily welcomed into her family’s new apartment. And then she discovers Rita (Laura Elena Harring), a beautiful amnesiac, in the apartment. What follows is a narrative examining Betty’s own success in Hollywood as well as her attempt to help Rita reclaim her identity, even as Betty falls in love with her. This takes us into the core of the film, wherein the structure of the film is completely and radically subverted: the film’s content is a narrative construct that “Betty” concocts to envision a more perfect world where she knows of fame and where “Rita” desires her over a man.

Of course, any discussion of Mulholland Dr. always comes back to one of two scenes, the nightmarish man in the alley, which itself perfectly ruptures the allure that has sustained Lynch’s film previously, or the Club Silencio sequence. For myself, few scenes have more intrigue and intellectualism rendered cinematically than this latter sequence in the club as Betty and Rita seek answers about identity. They come across Rebekah Del Rio's lip-syncing to her a cappella version of “Crying” in Spanish, and they are moved to tears. At first we’re unaware of the projected nature of this sequence, not realizing that it’s performance and not “truth,” that it’s a lip-sync and not really being sung, live. Once Del Rio collapses in a faint, however, the song continues on unabated, and Lynch secures the central status of illusion and projection as the defining elements: we can even be moved by fiction. It is a transcendental moment in the film, and in all of film.

Since the film interrogates Hollywood, it is also interrogating the nature of genre. Lynch combines elements of the comedy, suspense, romance, sex, and horror film into one, and yet leaves enough narrative markers along the way to enable you to piece together the central mystery. Mulholland Dr. is a mystery that self-destructs, that implodes in upon itself the horror of its final image/word, but in the end the film exposes the facile disconnect between narrator and actor, and Lynch arrives at one of the defining films in contemporary cinema.

[Spinal]

They come across Rebekah Del Rio's lip-syncing to her a cappella version of “Crying” in Spanish, and they are moved to tears. At first we’re unaware of the projected nature of this sequence, not realizing that it’s performance and not “truth,” that it’s a lip-sync and not really being sung, live. Once Del Rio collapses in a faint, however, the song continues on unabated, and Lynch secures the central status of illusion and projection as the defining elements: we can even be moved by fiction. It is a transcendental moment in the film, and in all of film.

Absolutely. I remember watching it in the theater for the first time and being aware that something special, something really extraordinary was happening.

[Melville]

Great review. I really love the interplay between this film, Lost Highway, and Inland Empire. My favorite thing about Inland Empire is how it has a second "reveal," showing that even the "real" world that shatters the dreams in the earlier two films is itself a fictional construct.

[Ezee E]

Good review. I'll be watching Lynch in oh, half an hour.

[Boner M]

7. Taxi Driver (Martin Scorsese, 1976)

http://www.ica.org.uk/thumbnail.php?max=408&id=2382

Yay, three American 70’s films about alienation in a row. So much for having a diverse top 10, and to be honest, I’m a little uncomfortable about this running theme, even as I’m less sure about the reasons why I should be uncomfortable. On Taxi Driver, Jonathan Rosenbaum writes “if [the film] continues to exert an enormous claim on our imagination, this is surely because we continue to live in its vengeful, puritanical fantasies-as well as with the dire consequences of those fantasies.” A worthy theory - and not wanting to sound reductive of it - but I think the film’s popularity speaks more to the fascination inherent in films that throw their viewpoint out in the open for take-it-or-leave it consideration; challenging us into accepting them, before ultimately leaving us a little uncertain over whether the aim of their auteurs is to perpetuate their worldview, or simply articulate it because it exists and needs in-depth pinpointing. The latter is something that Scorsese achieves here masterfully, much like Mike Leigh did in Naked, another film where the auteur extends to the people in front of the camera as much as those behind it.

Besides, few films are as formally exhilarating. Taxi Driver announces itself as something special during its opening credits, in which the titular vehicle appears in slow-motion out of a cloud of steam on a grimy New York street, looking more like a model filmed in close-up rather than the real thing. A close-up of our titular anti-hero’s eyes, brow-furrowed intensely, looking out at the pedestrians and various low-lives on the streets outside, the images transforming into bleached-out, psychedelic washes of color and shapes. The influence of Kenneth Anger is shown in this sequence, and Anger’s ability to re-introduce us to the familiar with new eyes is incorporated by Scorsese into the film, who posits Bickle’s disconnect as something that leads to a view of humanity and the everyday world reduced to it’s essences; conversations are frequently, frenetically undercut by odd stylistic choices, and our attention is diverted away from what’s being said, and toward how Bickle absorbs the world around him. Thus, it makes sense that the few instances where a conversation is filmed in the standard shot/reverse-shot mode are a coffee shop date between him and Betsy (Cybill Shepherd), and a later scene between him and Iris (Jodie Foster), both rare instances where he is able to make a connection.

“It was to cinema what punk rock was to music”, says a particularly dunderheaded voter in the 2002 Sight & Sound poll (Danny Cannon, auteur of I Still Know What You Did Last Summer!). Sure, if you take the film’s context and Bickle’s mohawk at face value, aligning it with the music scenes in New York and London, and read Bickle’s vengeful fantasies as a necessary voice of opposition rather than the sad reflection of the times that Scorsese has painted. Even if the ambiguous, multi-purposed final scene is read as a continuation of the narrative, or merely an out-of-reach fantasy, Scorsese’s strength is that he makes the implications equally despairing in both cases.

[dreamdead]

Huh, I wouldn't have called that pick from you. Surprising choice, but excellent write-up. Having seen a decent bit of Bresson now, I feel like Schrader's encapsulation of a pulpier Bresson here is what's striking. Granted, Scorsese is admittedly solid here, but I think Schrader's use of narrative/symbolic ideas from Pickpocket and Diary of a Country Priest underscore the philosophy of this film beautifully.

And any film with Albert Brooks' hair is A-Ok by me.

[Boner M]

Huh, I wouldn't have called that pick from you. Surprising choice, but excellent write-up. Having seen a decent bit of Bresson now, I feel like Schrader's encapsulation of a pulpier Bresson here is what's striking. Granted, Scorsese is admittedly solid here, but I think Schrader's use of narrative/symbolic ideas from Pickpocket and Diary of a Country Priest underscore the philosophy of this film beautifully.

And any film with Albert Brooks' hair is A-Ok by me.
I was actually reading through Rosenbaum's review of the film (which the least favourable one on metacritic, but the most compelling), and he presents an excellent analysis of how the film equally belongs to Hermann, Schrader and De Niro equally. Not exactly a new idea, but a very insightfully written take, anyway.

I think the film as a whole wins 'best use of hair'... every character's says something about them in some way.

[Boner M]

Also, my #6 entry will be coming up soon, and I wanna get the order back on track ASAP, so I'll get that one up next before Wats lists his #5. Aight?

[D_Davis]

#6. Mulholland Dr. (David Lynch, 2001)


Nice pick and review.

[Ezee E]

Also, my #6 entry will be coming up soon, and I wanna get the order back on track ASAP, so I'll get that one up next before Wats lists his #5. Aight?
Want me to list my #5 then?

Great av by the way.

[Boner M]

Want me to list my #5 then?

Great av by the way.
Oops, I actually meant "before E lists his #5".

But yeah, I'll post another entry in succession and then you post yours. I'll have mine up in a few days.

[Boner M]

6. Andrei Rublev (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1969)

http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/476/tarkovsky1zi5.jpg

The first time I saw Andrei Rublev was on the big screen, in April 2002, at a local Cinematheque double bill screening of the film followed by Stalker. Having not seen a Bergman, Fellini or Antonioni at that point, jumping straight into the deep end of classic art cinema for a butt-numbing 6 hours was a risky move, but I'm glad I did, because what followed was the kind of revelatory cinematic experience where I felt like I'd been exposed to the truth, whereby everything else I'd seen prior - as cheesy as it sounds - was now a big fat sugarcoated lie. But rather than use Tarkovsky as the yardstick by which all art should be measured, it was that ability to make me question the truthfulness of everything I'd seen previously that changed my opinion on what film art should constitute.

What's remarkable is that on a superficial level, any given scene of the film looks merely like a technically accomplished epic in the Hollywood sense, but the entire effect the film leaves is far more strange and complex. The best way to describe the structure would be 'drifting'; established in the first scene which follows the flight of a "buffoon" via hot air balloon toward a hut full of peasants, where Andrei arrives. Divided into a number of chapters that often don't even feature the titular subject prominently, the film offers a contemplation of the artist's position in the world, no doubt using Rublev's struggles as a springboard for exploring Tarkovsky's own.

What resonates most from the film is the issue of human faith in the face of oppressive authority, particularly in the film's much-lauded final segment. If the film occasionally lags from didactic (but still illuminating!) philosophical inquiries and a lack of narrative progression, it's all eventually given a new perspective by this final portion, involving a young boy who uses his own blind faith to guide the construction of a giant bell in order to save his own life. The act of faith is witnessed by Andrei, and inspires him to paint again after a period of inner conflict and resulting inactivity, finally displayed in an extended montage at the end.

Tarkovsky is perhaps best known for his distinct and painterly visual style, and his film is an extraordinarily beautiful one, with a sense of fluidity and overwhelming largesse to its images that remains enthralling throughout. He strikingly captures a period of tumult through his roaming, constantly moving camera that makes the viewer feel lifted off the ground and thrown in the direction of the many different crowds that are featured in the film; scenes like the hot-air balloon flight, the arrival of the pagans, or the tartar invasions are all dizzying in their unique sense of virtuosity – like Herzog or Malick’s films, the presence of a cinematographer is rarely felt. A soul-lifting, transcendent masterpiece, and – if I have to use dirty words - certainly the best biopic ever made.

[D_Davis]

Nice review man. I haven't seen the film, and I loath Stalker, but I enjoy what you have to say about this film.

[Boner M]

Nice review man. I haven't seen the film, and I loath Stalker, but I enjoy what you have to say about this film.
I love Stalker, but more than most films I love (including Tarkovsky), I do feel grateful when it's over. Very, very exhausting stuff.

And thanks.

[Duncan]

Nice. In my top ten as well.

[Raiders]

I much prefer Stalker and Nostalghia. Though really, I ought to re-watch all of his films as it has been a while. I just never can muster up the energy.

[Qrazy]

Nice review man. I haven't seen the film, and I loath Stalker, but I enjoy what you have to say about this film.

Well, that's depressing.

[Melville]

6. Andrei Rublev
Awesome. I'd put it in my top 5.

[Ezee E]

#5
The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)
http://www.24liesasecond.com/site2/images/TheShining.jpg

"Great party, isn't it? " - Injured Guest With Head Wound

Horror movies are probably my favorite genre. Three of my top ten movies are horror movies. What is it about a horror movie that other genres just can't compare to?

When presented uniquely and effectively, it sticks with me much longer then any other film. Unfortunately, horror movies tend to go for cheap scares, cheap characters, or imitation of already mentioned movies. It's tough. But it's worth weaving through all the crap to find the gold.

The Shining is my favorite horror movie. It's the only one that I can think of where everyone perceives the movie differently. Some say that the ghosts were there. Others say it was all in Jack's mind. Others say it was in the son's mind. Others say there were no ghosts at all, and everyone just went mad. Then there's a few that say there was not anybody at all.

My opinion changes each time I see the movie. The big performances definitely show that our characters are driven to madness while in the Overlook Hotel. There's no way the movie just happens in a week. I'd say that the Week Timeline is over a long span of time. Danny is the first to crack, then Jack, and then Wendy when it all comes to a boil.

The scene that makes me wonder the most is the scene in Room 237. There is some type of evil in there, but the way the scene gets to us, almost makes me wonder if anyone ever went in there. A tennis ball rolls up to Danny, and who was throwing the tennis ball earlier in the movie? Danny is beaten up by a "drunken" Jack, who starts having nightmares at his desk. Once accused, Jack gets "drunk" again, and we see his possible nightmare take effect. Is the timeline out of synch, or is this Jack's alibi? I just don't know how to approach it. Everytime I see it, I think of it differently.

There really aren't any movies that do this to me. Mulholland Drive makes me curious, and I have my own idea of the film, but it hasn't changed over multiple viewings. The same goes for the other Lynch movies. Only The Shining makes me ponder over and over again.

And I didn't even go into the ridiculously nerve-wrecking soundtrack, the two girls, and Wendy's encounters with the ghosts. Or the observation of the Native Americans putting a curse on the American invaders. (GREAT READ)

Write your thoughts por favor.

[Raiders]

Hm, an unexpected Kubrick choice. I like it.

[Scar]

I watched The Shining probably 10 years ago, and didn't care for it one bit. Fast forward to a few weeks ago. I gave it a second chance, and boy howdy, I love the shit out of it now.

[Ezee E]

I watched The Shining probably 10 years ago, and didn't care for it one bit. Fast forward to a few weeks ago. I gave it a second chance, and boy howdy, I love the shit out of it now.
Same thing happened to me pretty much. Only I've watched it a ton more times.

I first watched it when the miniseries came out. I didn't understand it much, until I saw it two years later when my team was snowed in on a Regional Match. Then it became awesome.

[Scar]

Same thing happened to me pretty much. Only I've watched it a ton more times.

I first watched it when the miniseries came out. I didn't understand it much, until I saw it two years later when my team was snowed in on a Regional Match. Then it became awesome.

I picked it up on Blu-Ray for $16 I think through DeepDiscount. Same for 2001. We'll see if I have a reversal with that movie, too.

[Ezee E]

Don't get me wrong. 2001 is great, and would probably be great to see on Blu-Ray, but it's hard getting motivated to watch it multiple times.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I still haven't seen the Shining, the only Kubrick feature length aloong with Eyes wide Shut I've never gotten around to finishing. I haven't seen Rublev either.

[Ezee E]

I still haven't seen the Shining, the only Kubrick feature length aloong with Eyes wide Shut I've never gotten around to finishing. I haven't seen Rublev either.
You must change this immediately.

Put Rublev to last though.

[Boner M]

You must change this immediately.

Put Rublev to last though.
Fuck you.

But un-fuck you for The Shining, which is a nice choice. I wrestled with whether to include it or not, since it's somewhat single-handedly responsible for turning me into a cinephile in my pre-pubescent years. It didn't hold up on a repeat about several years ago, but maybe I just wasn't in the mood.

[Ezee E]

#4 is an "easy, conventional" choice.
#3 is rather unique, and you all should know it.
#2 may surprise a few, unless you know me well.
#1 is obvious. Everyone knew this before the list even started. I guess I could make up for it with a good essay. We shall see.

[Qrazy]

You must change this immediately.

Put Rublev to last though.

Rublev pwns your face.

[Boner M]

Teasers, eh?

#5 is a canonical classic that everyone has seen and will likely skip over my review because they don't want to read about it anymore.
#4 is a film I believe no one here has seen.
#3 is a big fave around here, but will elicit the same collective yawn as #5.
#2 hasn't been seen by many, but those who have love it to death.
#1 will be expected by everyone who knows me well.

[Melville]

#4 is a film I believe no one here has seen.
The anticipation is killing me. I can't wait to find out your favorite movie that I've never heard of!

[dreamdead]

Ooh, I like teasers too.

#5 is a canonical film that slipped in just at the last minute
#4 will guarantee that my list doesn't suck from Raiders
#3 will be saluted by many
#2 is a bit surprising from the director
#1 only iosos knows

[Qrazy]

Just post them you cunts.

[Spinal]

Just post them you cunts.

Seconded. :lol:

[Melville]

Just post them you cunts.


Seconded. :lol:
Thirded... except for the "cunts" part.

[Spinal]

Thirded... except for the "cunts" part.

But that was the best part. :sad:

[Qrazy]

But that was the best part. :sad:

He's one of those new-agey types... I believe they call 'em 'feminists'. Gross.

[Melville]

But that was the best part. :sad:
I just can't associate cunts with male message board posters. (Make of that whatever joke you like.)

[Raiders]

#2 hasn't been seen by many, but those who have love it to death.
#1 will be expected by everyone who knows me well.

Hm, I thought I knew your #1, but it fits better with #2. Shall be interesting.

[Justin]

I am fairly sure that it was The Shining that started my interest in films at a young age, so I have no problem with the pick.

[Ezee E]

Just post them you cunts.
That would be ideal. Too bad we get slowed down each time.

[Watashi]

5. 12 Angry Men

http://static.flickr.com/52/137187279_2e1c838620.jpg

Dir. Sidney Lumet

Two Lumets in a row? Fo sho. After all these years, it's hard to believe that 12 Angry Men was Sidney Lumet's film debut. With this engrossing dialogue and workhorse cast, you'd think the director has been shoveling out these kind of films for years. For a courtroom drama, there is very little "courtroom" present except a brief prologue as the jury exits the stage with the final verdict placed in their hands. The rest of the film takes place in a single, sweltering jury room that plays a pivotal character in itself as the 13th angry man.

Given numbers, not names, the angry men shuffle into the room one by one taking each sit trying not to get comfortable because most of them know this will be a quick and painless verdict. Except of course for one man.... DUN DUN DUN!!!! Henry Fonda (who really is the bomb) play Juror #8, the lone holdout who has a shed of reasonable decency to further explore the trail in detail. Fonda eventual brings the verbal smackdown and turns each juror one by one from their first swift vote of guilty in the case of a teenager alleged for the murder of his father.

Lumet's film is one of the very first feature film where I fell in love with the direction. Minimized to just one setting and a handful of character actors, Lumet had to work strong in telling a dynamic drama with the limited resources he had. As the film progresses and each juror has their doubt, the sweat-inducing claustrophobic atmospheres grows as Lumet and his DP Boris Kaufman film as if the walls are enclosing on our jurors like a trap room. By the end, the ceiling is only a foot away from the juror's head as the boiling point is reaching critical temperature. Since it's adapted from a teleplay, some of the staginess and theatricality carries over, but each actor plays their part remarkably in a merry-go-round showcase of superb characterizations and ensemble. Class and ethnic prejudices, private assumptions, and death threats comes loose in this fast-paced 96 minute word-slugfest in a royal rumble of unclouded judgement.

[dreamdead]

I'm embarassed to admit that I've never seen this choice. I'll work on it over winter break and will hopefully be back with comments...

And I've hit my finals week in the semester, so between grading and frantic writing of the last essay, I'll be behind. If the Bone-man wants to go ahead, I'll do two on the next go-around. We can still finish before the 31. I have faith. I believe.

[chrisnu]

Good choice. I really liked the final lines of dialogue.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I really need to rewatch this film, but unlike your previous Lumet film I really loved this the first time I saw it. Very evocative, and the actors are brilliant.

[Ezee E]

12 Angry Men was what got me interested in Sidney Lumet. What a great filmmaker he was before the 80's. I hate that people accuse him of being a boring filmmaker when he pulls off the subtle directional choices that you pointed out in that movie, and his others in the 70's.

Have you seen Dog Day Afternoon or Serpico yet Wats?

[Sycophant]

I've.... never seen any Lumet. :crazy:

In other news, I'm sorely missing the embarrassed smiley.

[Ezee E]

I've.... never seen any Lumet. :crazy:

In other news, I'm sorely missing the embarrassed smiley.
the avatar makes total sense to me. You are crazy for not seeing any of his movies.

[Qrazy]

I've.... never seen any Lumet. :crazy:

In other news, I'm sorely missing the embarrassed smiley.

Angels with Dirty Faces should have made the AFI list instead of Yankee Doodle Dandy.

[Boner M]

Hey guys, dreamdead said he'd be a little late with his entry, and that he wanted me to go first. As such...

5. Rear Window (Alfred Hitchcock, 1954)

http://16sparrows.typepad.com/16sparrows/images/2007/05/05/a_hitchcock_rear_window_dvd_re veiw_.jpg

Critic Kent Jones once said something about the most cinematic experience of our life often being simply driving with the radio on; the window in front of us being the frame and the music coming out of the speakers being the score. Thus, by playing some country music for a drive through the dusty plains, or some hip-hop for a cruise through the city, we’re essentially directing a film and creating a mood for ourselves akin to how a filmmaker would use sound & image marriages to create a similar mood. Of course, we need more than just a mood for a truly satisfying cinematic experience, but Jones’ idea hints at the primal appeal of cinema and its combination of sound, image and movement; I don’t think it’d be a stretch to suggest that this is one of the primary methods many artists use to get their creative juices flowing.

The idea of movies being 'all around us' is one explored in Rear Window, the Hitchcock film that’s arguably most concerned with how cinema and voyeurism are intertwined, and drives home it’s themes with a fail-safe premise (the same one that admittedly made Disturbia so compulsively watchable) and sheer, intense pleasurability. There’s something about the overt artificiality of the film – from the obviously fake weather, to the sets, to the performances of the people Jeff (James Stewart) spies on – that makes the film more truthful than a more realistic approach could achieve. The exaggerated performances of the actors playing the watched, and the iris-in frame through which Jeff (and in effect, us) watches them recalls silent cinema, while his constant moving back and forth from one apartment block to another them recalls channel-surfing; through this, Hitchcock makes a sly comment on the effects of such media on our desire to parse out narrative logic from the essential unpredictability of everyday life, as well as catering to this desire.

It’s a film that’s ripe for all kinds of psychoanalytic readings, but the most fascinating reading for me is that Thorwald (Raymond Burr), the man who Jeff suspects of murdering his wife, is Jeff’s alter-ego. Consider the mild bickering of Jeff and his girlfriend Lisa (Grace Kelly) in the early stages of the film, and constrast it with the domestic squabbling from Thorwald's house that eventually culminate with the disappearance of his wife, and it’s easy to view Thorwald as Jeff sans the ‘crippling’, so to speak. It’s possible that Jeff’s investigation and ensuing stationary pursuit of Thorwald – that eventually leads to a devastating moment that acknowledges our complicity with Jeff’s actions – is the result of an unconscious bond shared between both men.

All this leads us to a conclusion that – in accordance with the film’s relentless self-referentiality – involves the blaring light of a camera used as a weapon. A singularly entertaining film, Rear Window at once explains why we spend so much time watching movies, while also justifying that time spent.

[dreamdead]

:eek: Oh dear, I actually didn't think your tastes would reconcile with Hitchcock's films. 'Tis a bit of a surprise. Could I be the only person keeping Hitchcock from hitting all 4 lists, then? Am I prepared to live with such injustice. :twisted:

Nice reading, too. I like the idea of Thorwald-as-Jeff's-doppelganger. I remember the first time I read Robin Wood's essay and saw all of the interconnectivity in terms of theme across all of the characters. It was a relevation, and alighted newfound respect for the thematic depth (yet depth in shorthand) that Hitchcock routinely employs.

If Eezy E wants to continue, I'll catch up on my two after Watashi...

[Philosophe_rouge]

One of my favourite Hitch' films, I loved your write-up especially the opening paragraph that really established a great intro for the film. While the film is no doubt very well respected, often ranking among Hitch's best or people's personal favourites of his work, I'm still surprised when people say they don't like it... I usually don't have that reaction in regards to film as I'm usually able to see the other side of the coin, but with Rear Window I always find it rather shocking when people call it boring or unengaging, let alone thematically weak (which I have encountered). Perhaps it's because I first watched it when I was so young, it was my first Hitchcock film and I must have seen it when I was nine or ten years old. Whatever, great selection!

[jesse]

5. Rear Window (Alfred Hitchcock, 1954)

http://16sparrows.typepad.com/16sparrows/images/2007/05/05/a_hitchcock_rear_window_dvd_re veiw_.jpg

Critic Kent Jones once said something about the most cinematic experience of our life often being simply driving with the radio on; the window in front of us being the frame and the music coming out of the speakers being the score. Thus, by playing some country music for a drive through the dusty plains, or some hip-hop for a cruise through the city, we’re essentially directing a film and creating a mood for ourselves akin to how a filmmaker would use sound & image marriages to create a similar mood. Really interesting, do you know/remember where he discusses this? Great write-up on your part too.

I really, really need to do some revisiting of the Hitchcock's greatest hits list. Films like Rear Window, Vertigo, Notorious, Psycho, The Lady Vanishes, 39 Steps, etc--a lot of these were the films that "got" me into cinema in the first place, but as my tastes and interests have changed over the years most of these films have completely fallen in my estimation. I'm curious as to whether or not a rewatch of Vertigo would galvanize my past affection for it or be the thing that finally, decisively kicks it off my favorites list.

I really need to read some Robin Wood too, now that I think of it.

[Qrazy]

Really interesting, do you know/remember where he discusses this? Great write-up on your part too.


I used to do this all the time when I smoked weed. I'd even imagine the cuts and fades to black... almost caused a few accidents.

[Boner M]

Thx dreamdead and philosophe. :pritch:


I really, really need to do some revisiting of the Hitchcock's greatest hits list. Films like Rear Window, Vertigo, Notorious, Psycho, The Lady Vanishes, 39 Steps, etc--a lot of these were the films that "got" me into cinema in the first place, but as my tastes and interests have changed over the years most of these films have completely fallen in my estimation. I'm curious as to whether or not a rewatch of Vertigo would galvanize my past affection for it or be the thing that finally, decisively kicks it off my favorites list.
Psycho and Vertigo were on my top ten at different stages, but I don't really give either much thought anymore. I suspect the issue of overexposure might have influenced why I don't hold Hitchcock in the same regard as I used to, if I have to be honest.

I have the strongest urge to revisit The Birds.

[Boner M]

And RE: the Kent Jones quote/idea, I don't know where it's from but Adrian Martin brought it up on the commentary for the R4 version of Alice in the Cities. I suspect Jones' new compilation book, Physical Evidence, would include his writing on that matter.

[jesse]

And RE: the Kent Jones quote/idea, I don't know where it's from but Adrian Martin brought it up on the commentary for the R4 version of Alice in the Cities. I suspect Jones' new compilation book, Physical Evidence, would include his writing on that matter. Does Martin do a lot of R4 commentaries?

[jesse]

Thx dreamdead and philosophe. :pritch:


Psycho and Vertigo were on my top ten at different stages, but I don't really give either much thought anymore. I suspect the issue of overexposure might have influenced why I don't hold Hitchcock in the same regard as I used to, if I have to be honest.

I have the strongest urge to revisit The Birds. I still hold The Birds in high regard, and not only because of nostalgia (because it is the film that made me say "yeah, I think I want to check out some more older films). Caught a little bit of it about a month ago and I think it holds up very well.

Overexposure certainly has something to do with it, but I really think it has more to do with the topics/styles/issues I'm interested in has changed over the years.

[Boner M]

Does Martin do a lot of R4 commentaries?
Indeed he does. We have a label called Madman that has a 'director's suite' series, that mostly releases films by well-known auteurs. From memory, he's done commentary for...

La Chinoise
Vivre sa Vie
2 or 3 Things I Know About Her
Alice in the Cities
La Promesse
Voyage to Italy
The Exterminating Angel

...and quite a few more, I'm sure. I can't find a list anywhere.

[Rowland]

I always seem to forget that this thread exists.

Good choice, Boner. Rear Window is probably my favorite Hitchcock.

[jesse]

Indeed he does. We have a label called Madman that has a 'director's suite' series, that mostly releases films by well-known auteurs. From memory, he's done commentary for...

La Chinoise
Vivre sa Vie
2 or 3 Things I Know About Her
Alice in the Cities
La Promesse
Voyage to Italy
The Exterminating Angel

...and quite a few more, I'm sure. I can't find a list anywhere. I really need to get an all-region DVD player. Because I love La Chinoise and am trying to get my hands on Voyage to Italy, and neither are available here. And a Martin contribution would only enhance the experience, I'm sure.

[Bosco B Thug]

I still hold The Birds in high regard, and not only because of nostalgia (because it is the film that made me say "yeah, I think I want to check out some more older films). Caught a little bit of it about a month ago and I think it holds up very well. The Birds was my gateway film, too! But I don't like to admit that because I really think it's the best thing ever created. :)

Rear Window's pretty much perfect, too, though, great choice! I probably do it a disfavor by not being too compelled to read into any analytic subtext about it, but I could sense it - I don't know how much I buy into the "alter ego" thing, I'd have to hear more about it, but I could sense an inkling of it, though, I think! Being able to do that is what shows it (or any film) is such a good film!

[Boner M]

I really need to get an all-region DVD player. Because I love La Chinoise and am trying to get my hands on Voyage to Italy, and neither are available here. And a Martin contribution would only enhance the experience, I'm sure.
We've got a lot of good stuff out on that label. The only thing that sucks about Australian DVDs is where they put the censorship classification.

http://www.madman.com.au/images/slicks/bigones/mma2409wp.jpg

Blech-fast in bed.

[Raiders]

I don't care much for the alter-ego reading of Rear Window. Doesn't make much sense to me. Then again, I haven't read Robin Wood's essay.

[dreamdead]

My semester as a student is finished (though the teacher grading-part beckons), so I have a bit of free time and thought I'd get us all to #5. Thus,

#5 I am Cuba (Mikhail Kalatozov, 1964)

http://www.stoneyroadfilms.com/SC6.jpg

Even though Mikhail Kalatozov’s I Am Cuba (1964) is designed as propaganda to inspire rebellion and propel Castro and his regime into power, the film possesses a subversive power that's not only political but also fully cinematic. Rather than just issue party-line statements about the ills of capitalism and America, which the film admittedly does do, Kalatozov also extends his aim and subtly orchestrates something more transcendent in a way that only the cinema can do. He opens the camera, and thus the world, to a dialectic engagement with the Cuban people and their ideas. This shift from polemic to poetic through film language engenders a more considerate and humanist morality, which solidifies the value of the film beyond half truth, party-line politics.

This is a film where you watch in awe as the camera twists and roams, courtesy of cinematographer Sergei Urusevsky, as it engages in the natural land, in furious nightclub frenzies, in the ardor of political insurrection, and, most gloriously, in the ebullient cry for Cuban freedom as Kalatozov’s camera traverses skies and factories. While these sequences deserve their superlatives, it is to Kalatozov’s credit that this film language is used in the interest of a pure synchronicity between cinema and philosophy, and so their power resonates beyond politics.

This is a film where the humanism of the stories penetrates deeper than the espoused propaganda. Watch it and drink in how classically tragic Kalatozov constructs the film. Beyond the melancholy rapture of the first story (chronicling the dancer Betty/Maria and her fall from grace), one cannot be unmoved by the magnificent third story that examines the rise to political consciousness. These are people first, not caricatures. Even the Americans possess a strange grace, a strange intimacy, despite their apparent aloofness; the film subversively seems to suggest that it is the politics which are to blame, not the people. The other two stories suffer only because they have to be compared to these small masterworks, yet the last story too cannot be neglected. Its ending is tragic, much like the recently viewed Fuller classic The Steel Helmet, insinuating that “This story never ends”…

Ultimately, is there anything that this film possesses that Gillo Pontecorvo’s similar-minded The Battle of Algiers lacks? No, not really, though I feel that Kalatozov’s film is more humanistic than Pontecorvo’s film. Still, both display how film shapes the way we view political revolution. And because of their poeticism both films are masterpieces, recursively offering more than mere propaganda, for they are both interested in a dialectic of politics even if they favor one side. Watch either and you will be amazed. Watch I am Cuba, though, and you will be heartbroken.

[Ezee E]

Tomorrow I'll get mine up.

[origami_mustache]

I Am Cuba and The Cranes Are Flying are both fantastic works of art. Some of the greatest cinematography I've ever seen, while still maintaining emotional impact rather than letting the style overshadow the substance.

[Boner M]

CONFESSION! I've only barely heard of Mikhail Kalatozov and I Am Cuba.

Good review nonetheless, and it's high on my priority list now.

[D_Davis]

Nice review dd. I want to see this film at some point.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I really need to see this film.

[Duncan]

I had an opportunity to see I am Cuba on the big screen a couple years ago, but missed out. Still regret it.

[Raiders]

It's a very good film, mainly for the awesome cinematography, but I am a bigger fan of The Cranes Are Flying.

[Ezee E]

#4
The Godfather Part I & II (Francis Ford Coppola, 1972, 1974)
http://upload.moldova.org/movie/movies/g/godfather_part_II/thumbnails/tn2_godfather_the_II_1.jpg

What else can be said about this that hasn't been said already?

If Sight & Sound can combine these two movies, then I certainly can. Why not Part III? Sure, it's not the masterpiece that the first two are, but there's something that seems to combine the two. Perhaps it's the Rise of a new Corleone Boss. Or it's just because they were released in such close proximity that it works.

If I were to pick one over the other, I'd go with Part II just because I love Young Vito's scenes so much. Take those, put them on your own, and those are the best scenes in movie history. Untouchable even. The compositions of shots, subtle buildup of suspense, and every murder being unique on its own makes it a masterpiece.

It might happen even ten years from now, but way in the future, I'm predicting that The Godfather Part I and II will be considered the best movie(s) ever made. They already seem to be on a pedestal that other movies don't have a chance of being on. It's looked at like a piece of art instead of another movie. That's saying something.

Blah blah blah. I went on further then I should have because it's a no-brainer choice.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Cheater.

[Raiders]

Part I is superior to Part II and deserves this spot all on its own.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I've never seen the Godfather Pt. 2... I sorta want to though, and I barely remember Pt.1 but whenever I try to rewatch it I have a hard time getting past the wedding scene. I'm hopeless.

[Spinal]

One spot for two parts of a trilogy makes even less sense than one spot for three parts of a trilogy.

[dreamdead]

Between this and the Kill Bills, E, you're really starting to encourage me to switch my list to a top #52. I agree with Spinal...

Regardless, I lean toward the second film as I love the dynamics between Pacino and Keaton in that one. Otherwise, your hyperbole is appreciated.

[Qrazy]

I had an opportunity to see I am Cuba on the big screen a couple years ago, but missed out. Still regret it.

It's at my local theater this month!!! I'm psyched to be able to see it on the big screen.

I like The Cranes are Flying, and it's certainly less of a propaganda piece, but Soy Cuba's brilliant visuals push it to the forefront for me.

I also prefer Godfather II... for the Keaton/Pacino but also for the sense of historical sweep. It shows the arc better than the first for me, of the family's descent into crime and the final, life shattering realities that descent engenders.

[Ezee E]

My Inarritu "trilogy" is #3, a Bergman combo at @2, and the reel of D.W. Griffith at #1.

[dreamdead]

Gah, shoot the whole load, why don't you? Mods, spoiler tags?

[Sven]

I like the third one. Maybe most. Maybe not. Hard to say. I say all three are worthy.

[monolith94]

I don't know, Cranes Are Flying is only marginally less of a propaganda piece.

[Qrazy]

I don't know, Cranes Are Flying is only marginally less of a propaganda piece.

All I said was less, and I was careful not to say anything more. :)

[Watashi]

4. The Incredibles

http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa125/Wats_and_Alex/TheIncredibles-MissleLock.jpg

Dir. Brad Bird

I can't even put into human words how awesome The Incredibles is. I'm most notorious for being a huge Brad Bird fan (after all I did see the film 7 times opening weekend) and my fanboyism just can't be beat. It wasn't just Elastigirl admiring her rich derrière in the mirror ala Tinkerbell that made me fall in love with Bird's masterpiece (though it most certainly did help). It was the entire sploogasm of all the superhero mythos jampacked into one helluva story that even would make grumpy ole' Alan Moore crack out a warm smile of approval. Even though the film is targeted as a "Fantastic Four meets Watchmen" crossover, Bird drew up many of his innovative designs from his own personal experience (Syndrome is designed after Bird himself). I don't need to second guess myself when I say Brad Bird is the single most vocal and creative genius working in film right now. Just his active attitude towards keeping traditional animation alive and thrusting it as a style of filmmaking rather than a children's genre boosts his status up monster points as a filmmaker and as a fan of the medium. To single out a standout moment from The Incredibles might be the most challenging question given to mankind.

So what scene can I choose? I've seen this movie more times than boner puns used on Match Cut, so I know every line of dialogue backwards, sideways, and frontwards. The 100-Mile Dash is a good un' and my vote for the most thrilling action scene of any animated movie with its killer parallels to Return of the Jedi and its sure-fire sense of speed. There is a lack of real suspense in modern animation films (including anime) these days. After all, the initial target audience for these films are always children, so you know the hero will save the day, get the girl, and everything will be bright and sunshiny until the next installment comes along. While The Incredibles follows these guidelines loosely according to its first and uttermost important audience, Bird slyly injects an intense, bordering on terrifying, sequence of pandemonium where he puts the lives of a woman and two children on the line and far back in your mind, you think there is a chance Bird is going to cross over the line. The missile launch directed towards Helen's jet is a frantic, crazy experience that calls attention to the immediate danger of stepping on the enemy's home court. We've already seen an attempted suicide and a large number of "supers" already being terminated by Syndrome's twisted project. There is no fair game involved in Bird's film where everything goes according to plan. I remember my heart pounding in the theater during the midnight show wondering how much farther Bird is going to crank the intensity up a notch. Helen is screaming at her daughter to apply a shield around the jet, but it's too late and the sudden free-fall towards the ocean is halted by a sigh of relief as Helen uses her stretching ability to carry down her children to safety. The most crazy part of this scene is the cutbacks to Syndrome and Mr. Incredible back in their lair as the horrifying screams of help on the radio are being transmitted. All Syndrome can do is just sit back and grin. Now that's just evil.

[Rowland]

I can't even put into human words how awesome The Incredibles is. How about thetan words?

[Bosco B Thug]

The Incredibles is a Top Ten film. Not my Top Ten, but a Top Ten. Like yours! Good choice.

[Boner M]

The Incredibles is great, although I'm mostly glad with this entry because it's out of the way now. :lol:

And cheers for only using the word sploogasm once.

[Watashi]

The Incredibles is great, although I'm mostly glad with this entry because it's out of the way now. :lol:

And cheers for only using the word sploogasm once.

Negative repped.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I love it!!!!

My sisters and I were bored today so we looked at the entire list so far, I think they liked yours the most Wats. Then again, they've seen the most films from yours. Still, I all of you have done such a great job, so many recommendations!!! I can't wait to see how this things wraps up.

[Watashi]

You and your sisters rule.

[Philosophe_rouge]

You and your sisters rule.
Thank you :)

[Ezee E]

It's aight. I like the review though.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I love it!!!!

My sisters and I were bored today so we looked at the entire list so far, I think they liked yours the most Wats. Then again, they've seen the most films from yours. Still, I all of you have done such a great job, so many recommendations!!! I can't wait to see how this things wraps up.

I just imagined a group of nuns sitting around a computer critiquing Match Cut lists. Please tell me you're a nun so I can feel I still have a bit of sanity left.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I just imagined a group of nuns sitting around a computer critiquing Match Cut lists. Please tell me you're a nun so I can feel I still have a bit of sanity left.

Sorry, but I can't say that. I mean my tiny little siblings.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Sorry, but I can't say that. I mean my tiny little siblings.

*sigh*

There's something wrong with me, isn't there?

[dreamdead]

Heh, it's good to see this pick, as I was looking forward to your write-up for it. Me, I prefer the montage about the capes, which is just awesome. Oh, and probably Dash and Violet's fighting off of the villains, as those scenes have a ferocious energy to them.

I should have my next entry up tonight or tomorrow... :)

[dreamdead]

#4 Vertigo (Alfred Hitchcock, 1958)

http://faculty.cua.edu/johnsong/hitchcock/pages/portraits-paintings/vertigo-portrait-2.jpg

It took a re-viewing of the film over summer to awaken me to the incredible power of Alfred Hitchcock’s Vertigo (1958), but the viewing was revelatory. The multiplicity of themes and devastating situations showed me newfound appreciation for Hitchcock as an artist, for the economy of Hitchcock’s film language has plenty of room in it for ambiguity, and few characters embody ambiguity more than Midge (Barbara Bel Geddes). Here is a woman who is so devoted to Scottie Ferguson (James Stewart) that she lingers in the margins, hoping to sway him back into a relationship even long after they’ve ended their college engagement, even after he’s denied her for the mysterious and alluring Madeleine Elster (Kim Novak).

One possible reading is to question how knowledgeable Scottie is to Midge’s affection. Such a reading inevitably forces one to consider why he would maintain contact with her, since the pain this continuous presence will cause her is immense, especially since he otherwise ignores her pleas to go see a movie or otherwise engage in a sociable relationship again. Obviously, there’s some sort of narcissistic angle to Scottie’s character, just as there’s some sort of pained masochistic hope in Midge. She is punishing herself every time she’s with Scottie, and she has nothing to show for her ordeals. It’s these sort of transgressive qualities in character that make this film so fascinating.

In a film that is basically constituted around ideas of sexual role play, what is so simultaneously haunting yet humiliating is that if anyone were willing to role play for Scottie, it would be, inevitably, Midge. Even the scene where she shares her painting with Scottie, carries within it a furtive suggestion of her willingness to adopt the Madeleine/Carlotta Valdes persona. Robin Wood has observed that Midge “is trying to make him see her, to substitute herself for the woman who obsesses him, at the same time making the obsession ridiculous by satirizing it, and the attempt reveals both her down-to-earth normality and her inadequacy.” Unfortunately, Midge realizes the potential backhanded insult too late, which is all the more damaging. Could she have won Scottie over if the painting didn’t contain any hint of critique? Ultimately, probably not, but these sort of unanswered questions lead to the film’s power. Indeed, it is this inadequacy which is ultimately so damning, because Midge is so right for Scottie -- even forgiving the motherly attitude she occasionally adopts -- even if she’s alone in this realization.

I’ve mentioned this a few times at the old site, but it’s why Midge’s absence in the last third of the film is so devastating. Without her to exist as Scottie’s foil, Judy must instead endure the berating and projection of the Ideal Woman after Madeleine’s death. Whereas Midge always internalized that berating and blamed herself, Judy lacks the same masochism. As a result, since she externalizes her fears, physical harm will come to her while Scottie’s around. The only soothing emotion that I gain from this film is that Scottie might be shocked out of his vertigo and in turn might realize all that has been left behind with Midge. It’s this reason why I’m not completely opposed to the initial international ending, which can be seen here (http://youtube.com/watch?v=thuJFJ2Lyyw).

All in all, this small review has centered on Midge because, save for the next three films’ characters, she is one of the most enduring and alive of all the characters in cinema, still adrift and waiting for her affection to be returned.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Wow, I had never seen that alternative ending... I wasn't even aware one existed. I actually quite like it, and your accompanied analysis really strengthens it. I need to revisit this film though, it's been a while.. although not too long, I admit. It's a film I never tire of, and while not one of my very favourite Hitchcock, I can't deny it's a brilliant piece of filmmaking.

[Qrazy]

Looking through cinematographer Robert Burke's credits I'm not surprised that he did the cinematography on most of my favorite Hitchcock's... Strangers on a Train, Rear Window, Vertigo, North by Northwest, The Birds, etc. While Hitchcock already had a great eye before teaming with him (39 Steps), the two of them played off each other wonderfully to really craft some truly remarkable imagery. I often feel that what separates a good film from a great one is that extra visual punch, an attention to the detail of the imagery that leaves no stone unturned.

[Melville]

A great write-up of one of my all-time favorites. I especially like this notion:

In a film that is basically constituted around ideas of sexual role play, what is so simultaneously haunting yet humiliating is that if anyone were willing to role play for Scottie, it would be, inevitably, Midge.
What's interesting is that Midge is willing to play a role for Scottie, but she's too tied to the objective world to present herself purely as an object (rather, the object) in Scottie's world. She would always be merely playing (at) a role for him—he would always be able to see that she was detached from that role. In some sense, it's only because Midge is in a position (i.e. her groundedness in "reality") to sacrifice herself for Scottie that she is unable to do so.

[jesse]

Midge could very well be my favorite character in the Hitchcock canon--a truly devestating portrait of being in the heartbreaking, impossible role as the inadequate consoler, walking on eggshells trying to say the right things, make the right gestures.

And what's interesting, her position as the "outsider" in this surreal world actually makes her somehow as beguiling as Madeline...

[Bosco B Thug]

In a film that is basically constituted around ideas of sexual role play, what is so simultaneously haunting yet humiliating is that if anyone were willing to role play for Scottie, it would be, inevitably, Midge. Even the scene where she shares her painting with Scottie, carries within it a furtive suggestion of her willingness to adopt the Madeleine/Carlotta Valdes persona.

All in all, this small review has centered on Midge because, save for the next three films’ characters, she is one of the most enduring and alive of all the characters in cinema, still adrift and waiting for her affection to be returned. Very nice, dreamdead! Vertigo is high drama and between Midge and Judy (then Marion and Melanie and Marnie), Hitchcock really knew how to give women a hard time. I'll add, though, that at least (I believe) Midge realizes it's not only her shortcomings but Scottie's dark side that keep them apart - she was the one who broke off their engagement after all.


Looking through cinematographer Robert Burke's credits I'm not surprised that he did the cinematography on most of my favorite Hitchcock's... Strangers on a Train, Rear Window, Vertigo, North by Northwest, The Birds, etc. While Hitchcock already had a great eye before teaming with him (39 Steps), the two of them played off each other wonderfully to really craft some truly remarkable imagery. I often feel that what separates a good film from a great one is that extra visual punch, an attention to the detail of the imagery that leaves no stone unturned. It both bugs me and fascinates me how easy it is to recognize the "look" or "texture" of a Hitchcock film, e.g. like Vertigo, even from other lush technicolor offerings akin to it.


What's interesting is that Midge is willing to play a role for Scottie, but she's too tied to the objective world to present herself purely as an object (rather, the object) in Scottie's world. She would always be merely playing (at) a role for him—he would always be able to see that she was detached from that role. In some sense, it's only because Midge is in a position (i.e. her groundedness in "reality") to sacrifice herself for Scottie that she is unable to do so. Nice. I like to think of Scottie's options as being between a woman who lets you undress her from wet clothings every now and again, and then one who knows the comfort engineering of the brassiere she probably wears.


And what's interesting, her position as the "outsider" in this surreal world actually makes her somehow as beguiling as Madeline... Nice. When she finally spots Madeleine (which elicited a nice "Oooh" from me) in that one scene, I was kinda hoping she was gonna jump out of the car and slap Madeleine out of that "possession" schtick once and for all.

And WHOA! I never knew about that alternate ending!!! Eh, Midge dropped him once for some reason, don't know why she wouldn't do it again (I guess years are passing...). Scottie's probably stuck in "full-blown jerk" mode, too, and it wouldn't last.

[Boner M]

Damn dd, that's the most a review has made me want to rewatch a film in a while. My Hitchcock entry could easily have been replaced with a number of his films... in fact, my entire top 50 feels more arbitrary the further I get into it; it's almost like I have 200 films josting for the position of #1.

Also, Wats, E and I are gonna ruin your plan to finish this list before the end of the year. :evil:

[Ezee E]

I've seen Vertigo three times and still can't get into it. I keep trying because there are interesting essays (this review works as well) that make me want to check it out again. But then, nope.

Me: :crazy:

[Qrazy]

I've seen Vertigo three times and still can't get into it. I keep trying because there are interesting essays (this review works as well) that make me want to check it out again. But then, nope.

Me: :crazy:

Which Hitch's are your favorite?

[Ezee E]

Which Hitch's are your favorite?
Psycho. It's in my Top 50 in fact.

I'm also a big fan of Rope, Lifeboat, and North by Northwest.

[Ezee E]

::slaps Boner::

"Wake up."

[Boner M]

Oh god, two weeks... sorry guys.

4. Love Streams (John Cassavetes, 1984)

http://daily.greencine.com/archives/rowlands-ls.jpg

With two other Cassavetes films already on my list, it might at first seem hard to find new things to say in this latest review of the man's swansong - so unified and singular was his body of work, they might as well be the same film (and I mean that in the best way). But then you have to consider that his films embodied the very unpredictability of life itself, each possessing textures and moods of their own even if they share the same broad, wide-reaching themes (the nature of performance, our need/capacity for love, human connection, etc), and thinking that 'enough's already been said' then seems hopelessly reductive. Where A Woman Under the Influence is an exhausting powerhouse of volatile emotions, The Killing of a Chinese Bookie a haunting tone poem built from fragments of Hollywood genre, Love Streams feels as close to a culmination of his obsessions and visions as one could imagine. If perhaps lacking the intensity and viscerality of his previous films, it nonetheless has a weary, 'end-of-the-line' poignancy (just look at the bags under his eyes!) and a surrealism that's more pronounced than ever before.

Love Streams is essentially a film about just that - love. Cassavetes' work has always been concerned with showing love as the ruling force of all human behaviour, and here he presents a panoramic view of all it's manifestations and contradictions; the ugliness, beauty, joy, suffering, fun, etc. Robert Harmon (Cassavetes) and Sarah Lawson (Gena Rowlands) are brother and sister - something that's only vaguely established, but strangely enough their relationship is more moving for that reason - united by divorces that are the result of, in Sarah's case, embarrassing demonstrative acts of loving, and in Robert's case, unloving coldness. When the former moves in with the latter, their worlds converge in strange ways that make their respective needs and desire more tangible. It's complex emotional territory as usual, and Cassavetes' introduction of various dream/fantasy sequences into his work only heightens the strangeness that's integral to his depiction of the unique ways that people display their love to each other. In Sarah and Robert's case, it extends beyond mere words and gestures; at one point Sarah brings home what seems to be an entire farm of animals out of indecisiveness of what animal to buy Robert. In any other film the scene would be played for uncomfortable laughs, but due to the compassion that Cassavetes shows towards his lost souls, it's not only that but also devastating.

In many ways, the surrealism in the film's striking dream sequences doesn't make the film seem so much like a departure for Cassavetes but rather a clarification of what he was going for all along; that his inimitable improvisatory style wasn't supposed to achieve 'naturalism' but rather a near-cosmic style of emotional truth that extends beyond any established form of cinematic language ('verite realism'? Nah...), much like the 'language of love' that Love Streams deals with. It's these aspects that make the film so indelible in it's textures and resonances; I might not know anyone like Sarah and Robert, but I can see elements of them within me, moreso than most other movie characters I've encountered. Unlike most films, Love Streams isn't a film whose lessons come in the form of speeches, plot contrivances, or trite metaphors.... it doesn't exactly have lessons or messages, per se; it's a film to be lived as much as seen, and for those open to what it has to offer, it might retain some mystery and wonder to the way you look at life.

[chrisnu]

:eek:

Where did you get that...

[Boner M]

:eek:

Where did you get that...
On VHS in Australia. Weirdly enough, before the DVD release of the box set last month, it was the only JC film available in any form here.

[Philosophe_rouge]

*sigh* I REALLY, REALLY need to see some Cassavetes.

[Boner M]

*sigh* I REALLY, REALLY need to see some Cassavetes.
A Woman Under the Influence... NOW.

[Philosophe_rouge]

A Woman Under the Influence... NOW.
I'll see what I can do on such short notice, I'll aim to see it in the next two weeks though

[Boner M]

I'll see what I can do on such short notice, I'll aim to see it in the next two weeks though
NOW.

But honestly, I would love to read your reaction whenever you do see it. I'm guessing it'll either be one of revelation or annoyance; there seems to be no middleground.

[Ezee E]

#3
Boogie Nights (Paul Thomas Anderson, 1997)
http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/bnc.jpg
"You know, I'm gonna be a great big bright, shining star. " - Dirk Diggler

At this point, it's tough to explain why you like a movie so much when in the end it's basically, "Everything." Boogie Nights has been seen countless times by me, and it never gets old. It could be the best movie about filmmaking as well, with its wide range of characters, ranging from serious (Little Bill), to one-note (the producers), to pathetic (Scotty), to cartooney (Rollergirl/Buck Swope), and of course an ego (Dirk).

Yet PTA manages to keep a nice balance to the characters, never insulting or overlooking them. He judges Rollergirl as much as you would judge Jack Horner, and eventually, everyone has their moment. Most of them all at once. There are a series of scenes that are so perfect that any movie would be happy to have just one of them.

It's easy to get swayed away when things start to go bad in the film world. As soon as the 80's come in, and Adult Films change their method of distribution, Todd Parker comes in and the way to get money changes for Dirk and Reed. Their era is dying, and they have to keep it up somehow. You can see all of this on a true movie set as well. They try more movies, but it's not enough. They go to music, fail. They go to drugs and start to succeed, only for it to become costly in what is one of the best scenes that I've ever seen period.

Yeah. Pretty good I guess.

Paul Thomas Anderson has never really matched the rush that this movie gets. In Magnolia he focuses more on the dark side of characters then anything else, in Punchdrunk Love he gets sidetracked a little by showing off his directorial skills, and in There Will Be Blood he goes into a world that Little Bill probably enters when it becomes 1980. However, There Will Be Blood still has its comedic elements for the audience, he just reverses it on you a few scenes later.

[Melville]

So, who's doing the next Non-Administrative Top Whatever thread? This should definitely be a match-cut semi-annual tradition. I'd love to see lists from iosos and Derek/TBickle.

[Melville]

#4 is a film I believe no one here has seen.
The anticipation is killing me. I can't wait to find out your favorite movie that I've never heard of!
I just realized that Love Streams is the movie I was expecting to have never heard of. Now I'm kind of disappointed that I had already heard of it.

[Sven]

I need an impetus to get some content up for my website-soon-to-be, so I'm willing to take the initiative to start another group of four lists of top 50s. It will be myself and three people I think will be willing to pro-actively take the plunge and maintain at a constant rate the descent into peer-pressure induced deadline headaches and guilt trips.

If anyone else has started a posse wanting to do this, speak up now. If not, now's the time to speak up.

[Sven]

Perhaps Rowland... DonnCath... Derek...?

[Sven]

So far, for certain, it is:

iosos
Duncan

Derek said he would want to do it if we wait until March 1st, so if there's anyone else who just can't wait and wouldn't feel guilty bumping him off the queue, speak up. We need two more!

[jesse]

So far, for certain, it is:

iosos
Duncan

Derek said he would want to do it if we wait until March 1st, so if there's anyone else who just can't wait and wouldn't feel guilty bumping him off the queue, speak up. We need two more! Hmmm... I've been working on a top 100 countdown for my blog (and figured I'd probably post them here as well), but I have most of the 100 already written...

But if you're holding off until March I could post my 100-51 and then join you for fifty on down. If you need an extra person and decide to wait, of course.

[Sven]

Hmmm... I've been working on a top 100 countdown for my blog (and figured I'd probably post them here as well), but I have most of the 100 already written...

But if you're holding off until March I could post my 100-51 and then join you for fifty on down. If you need an extra person and decide to wait, of course.

Well, I don't want to be exclusive, but it would probably be better if your top 100 was its own thing, just to level the playing field amongst the four participants. Does that make sense? There are already a few singular top 100 lists floating around. I'd love to see your list (I predict many a French film I have not seen) and I think it would make the most sense if it was its own thing, rather than an appendix to another 50.

[jesse]

Well, I don't want to be exclusive, but it would probably be better if your top 100 was its own thing, just to level the playing field amongst the four participants. Does that make sense? There are already a few singular top 100 lists floating around. I'd love to see your list (I predict many a French film I have not seen) and I think it would make the most sense if it was its own thing, rather than an appendix to another 50. Works for me.

And I do hope you get this off the ground... yours and Ducan's (and Derek's) are lists I'd most like to see.

[Buffaluffasaurus]

::slaps Boner::

"Wake up."
Quoted for double entendre posterity.

[Sven]

Okay, so far, I've got:

iosos
Duncan
Melville
...

That spot will be filled by Derek, provided we don't start until March 1st, however, if someone else wants to claim the spot, we will start sooner and Derek will cry himself to sleep every night for a month for being bumped off the team for not being big enough.

[Rowland]

Thanks for the invite, but I'll have to decline. I'd rather see Derek's list anyway. :)

[Ezee E]

Iosos, what happens if this isn't finished by March 1st?

:)

[Sven]

Iosos, what happens if this isn't finished by March 1st?

:)

You know... that is a good possibility. We'll start one anyway and steal your guys' waning thunder. Pick up the pace, men!

[Winston*]

Hmmm. On one hand the thought of doing a top 50 doesn't really appeal to me, but on the other hand the thought of stealing Derek's place really does. Tell you what, I'll get back to you just after I've finished re-watching every film I've ever seen.

[Ivan Drago]

Eh...I remember saying that I'd be up for the next Top 50...but I don't think I'd be ready because my commentary writing isn't up to snuff. Plus my favorites list is a clusterfuck right now.

[Ivan Drago]

Oh who were Duncan, Melville, and Derek over at the old site? I'm drawing a blank...

[Ezee E]

Eh...I remember saying that I'd be up for the next Top 50...but I don't think I'd be ready because my commentary writing isn't up to snuff. Plus my favorites list is a clusterfuck right now.
It's okay to have Superbad as your #3 of all time dude.

[Ivan Drago]

It's okay to have Superbad as your #3 of all time dude.

It's not my #3.





It's either my #8, #9, or #10. ;)

[Melville]

Oh who were Duncan, Melville, and Derek over at the old site? I'm drawing a blank...
DonnCath, Melville, and TBickle. I only started posting sometime last summer.

[Ivan Drago]

DonnCath, Melville, and TBickle. I only started posting sometime last summer.

Cool, thanks.

[Boner M]

Added a review for the Love Streams entry.

[dreamdead]

Obviously can't add any comments to Love Streams, given it's lack of appearance on dvd stateside. Given that I still have Faces, Opening Night, and Chinese Bookie to get to on the boxset, would you prioritize KoaCB over them, or build up to Chinese Bookie?

And it's interesting to see Boogie Nights rank so highly on E's list. I've said it before and I'll say it again. PDL, fools. Still, nice artistry in BN all-around, and that last hour is magnificent. Can't really get worked up to rewatch it, though.

[Boner M]

Obviously can't add any comments to Love Streams, given it's lack of appearance on dvd stateside. Given that I still have Faces, Opening Night, and Chinese Bookie to get to on the boxset, would you prioritize KoaCB over them, or build up to Chinese Bookie?
I'd go with Opening Night, it's probably the most thematically dense and intellectually challenging out of those three, which are qualities I associate with your taste. I'll be rewatching it pretty soon (haven't seen it in five years, and was pretty baffled by it at the time), which would be good for discussion purposes. TKoaCB works best the more familiar you are with his style. I'd make that your last stop.

[Spinal]

FINISH ALREADY!

[dreamdead]

http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Rage-Against-The-Machine-Poster-C10284951.jpeg

Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me!

[Spinal]

Please. :sad:

[dreamdead]

http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1996/oct/10-30-96/photos/fileartsrepublica.gif

It's a crack, I'm back yeah standing
On the rooftops shouting out,
Baby I'm ready to go
I'm back and ready to go

...

But apparently Wats isn't ready to go. :cry:

[Ezee E]

http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Rage-Against-The-Machine-Poster-C10284951.jpeg

Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me!
haha.

We know that Wats has Shawshank and the animated movie to go. What's the third one?

[dreamdead]

We know that Wats has Shawshank and the animated movie to go. What's the third one?

Actually, Shawshank was his #8. Isn't Wats a Miyazaki boy? One of those?

[dreamdead]

I accidentally clicked post. Yep. Accidentally.

#3 Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (F.W. Murnau, 1927)

http://daily.greencine.com/archives/murnau-sunrise.jpg

F.W. Murnau’s Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927) is simplicity anchored by virtuosic artistry. Taking a standard of silent cinema, the country Man who must choose between a moral country Wife and a Woman from the city who cares more for modern licentiousness than for any moral imperative, Murnau transforms this traditional narrative through a reliance on precise, expressionistic images and immaculate mise en scene. Moments of comedy, such as the pig that escapes (as Raiders pointed out at the old site), are ingrained with philosophical parallelism and moments of horror that embody the themes of loss and regret that are so paramount to this work.

Much of Murnau’s opening focuses on the Man, and it is positioned with a firm eye on modernity and industrialization, as recurrent superimpositions of images remind us of how America is becoming an urban metropolis, and so the man becomes increasingly dependent on the philosophy of the woman from the city, which is founded on ideas of duplicity and sedition. In turn, the Man awakens to thoughts of violence and cares little for repercussions from his wife, never even engaging in any real inter-subjective reciprocity with her. Estrangement is normal, and so is using murder to escape one’s lot in life, an idea that the Woman from the city puts forward (and one which gains in expressionism through Murnau’s evocative manipulation of intertitles).

Yet, even if rural life is depicted as a squalid environment, the Man is a part of this life and so he is conditioned to remember certain moral sets that the urbanites have abandoned. As such, he comes to a spiritual awakening and rediscovers his love for his wife. Naturally, though, after much rejoicing, circumstances are then reversed wherein the husband must mourn the loss of his Wife so that true, genuine love is assured. And it’s here where the film’s philosophic parallelisms find their place. Early scenes of the Man strangling the Woman from the City are repeated later in the narrative and open up new internal processes of understanding, and celebrations of rural life are restored, suggesting a regressive attitude toward city life even as Murnau implicitly challenges these easy assumptions through a reliance on modern technology to frame and otherwise traverse these sets. In these ways, a certain dialogic exchange occurs between the rural and the modern, and it’s this exchange that offers the film its prevailing power.

At its core, Murnau’s Sunrise establishes the love triangle that has come to dominate all of cinema since, wherein a spouse is tempted by the Other before he/she returns to an acceptance and comfort in an inter-subjective relationship with the True (which, of course, ideologically furthers the Othering of the Other). Yet it is never less than gorgeous, never less than cinematically rich and vibrant, and never less than one of the fullest portraits of communal living in all of cinema. For all of film’s advancements, this film remains as pure and as fundamental as when it first appeared. And even though it’s purdy as all get out, it’s the thematic richness and parallelism that makes me return to it each year.

[Qrazy]

Obviously can't add any comments to Love Streams, given it's lack of appearance on dvd stateside. Given that I still have Faces, Opening Night, and Chinese Bookie to get to on the boxset, would you prioritize KoaCB over them, or build up to Chinese Bookie?

And it's interesting to see Boogie Nights rank so highly on E's list. I've said it before and I'll say it again. PDL, fools. Still, nice artistry in BN all-around, and that last hour is magnificent. Can't really get worked up to rewatch it, though.

Faces is by far the best film he ever made.

[ledfloyd]

it's scary how similar dreamdead's top 10 is to what mine would be. i think like 5 of them are the same.

[Sycophant]

I've known I've needed to see something by Murnau for a long time now. That screenshot (and your write-up, but really, I was sold on the screenshot) has turned that into an immediate thing. Awesome.

And Wats hasn't logged on in nearly 3 days...

EDIT: FUCK IT'S NOT ON NETFLIX

[dreamdead]

EDIT: IT'S NOT ON NETFLIX

Yeah, it's only available through a four-pack from 20th Century Fox. Or you could go here (http://youtube.com/watch?v=m6t0DCtIOBA) and make do.

[jesse]

Yeah, I really should make Sunrise a priority too...

[Watashi]

I've been without internet for a week.

Jeez.

[Watashi]

3. The Passion of Joan of Arc

http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2003/06/23/images/the_passion_of_joan_of_arc_1la rge.jpg

Dir. Carl Dreyer

As amazing as this film is, the back story behind its restoration is so bizarre and extraordinary that it enriches the viewing process to a higher level. To think, if it wasn't for some random janitor at a Norwegian mental hospital, this film would have been lost forever. That is some Twilight Zone shit right there. Yet that isn't even the most surreal part of it. The print found in the hospital was never the genuine film, but footage that Carl Dreyer reedited from rejected material after the original film was perished in a warehouse fire. So no one other than Dreyer has seen the original and true version. Is this giving you chills or what? This gives me an opportunity to thank the people that put hours of hard work in restoring films from an unavailable print to a finished product that looked brand-new. Just watch the restoration documentary on the Snow White DVD. It showcases a grueling process of reanimating over everything to give the animation a crisp and vibrant color.

The Passion of Joan of Arc is all about two people: Maria Falconetti and Richard Einhorn. Yeah, Carl Theodor Dreyer is the main maestro behind the film. His brutal recreation of Joan's trials from the official transcripts recorded features a claustrophobic use of space and sparse detail that is comes across as a documentation of Joan's passion rather than a filmed narrative.

The trials are seen reflected off Maria Falconetti's pale makeup-less face as she stares endlessly into the camera with (real) tears running down her face. Calling it the greatest performance ever is an understatement. It's a testimony to pure acting torture as Maria strips down to a raw, naked portrayal of Joan witnessing the end of her days counting slowly down. She controls every frame with just her face. Her gentle smirks and fearless eyes transcends the performance into a intense stare-down between the audience and Joan.

Even though Dreyer's intentions were to experience the film without a proper score, it's hard to make the switch back to silence after hearing Richard Einhorn's harmonic opus "Voices of Light" attached. It's hard to believe that the score is less than 15 years old because I can't imagine the film without it. The libretto is an experience within itself that took inspiration from excerpts of ancient writings, most of it from Medieval female mystics. The crescendo in the track "Torture" is one of the most emotionally devastating pieces in the film that works wonders with the editing of Falconetti and the torture device.

[Sycophant]

Hey, I hear that movie's pretty good. I should watch it.

...

*surrenders film buff card*

*surrenders gay card for good measure*

[soitgoes...]

Hey, I hear that movie's pretty good. I should watch it.

...

*surrenders film buff card*

*surrenders gay card for good measure*
*realizes am asking too much of myself*
*keeps gay card after all*
:P

[Ezee E]

Boner doesn't have Passion on his list. Time's running out.

Wats' first paragraph is eerily similar to something i've read before. I don't know what it is though.

[Watashi]

Boner doesn't have Passion on his list. Time's running out.

Wats' first paragraph is eerily similar to something i've read before. I don't know what it is though.
Are you accusing me of plagiarizing?

[jesse]

Unexpected choice, Wats--and one I completely agree with.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2003/06/23/images/the_passion_of_joan_of_arc_1la rge.jpg

I do have to say that considering the whole film seems to be a close up of Falconetti's face I got a chuckle that the still you include doesn't even have her in it... :)

[dreamdead]

Very nice pick, Wats. I feel my placement of it is probably underrating Dreyer's phenomenal achievement, but I've still only seen the film once properly. Another viewing would likely boost my attachment to it.

So unless Boner comes through for us, the unanimous directors will merely be Kurosawa and Hitchcock. How anticlimactic that would be...

[Spinal]

I do have to say that considering the whole film seems to be a close up of Falconetti's face I got a chuckle that the still you include doesn't even have her in it... :)

Artaud!

[Boner M]

Seen Passion of Joan of Arc in 2002 (on the big screen!), found it pretty intense at the time, but can't seem to remember much about it now other than the emotions it stirred.

Needs another viewing, but I think I prefer Ordet and Gertrud (the former just missed the cut).

[Raiders]

Einhorn, blah, blah. Yeah, it's a great score and tribute to the film, but I have seen it with no music and different orchestration as well, and the film is always just as powerful. It's all in the images, man.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I love La Passion de Jeanne D'Arc, few films have provoked such a visceral emotional reaction in me. It felt so incredibly personal and real... I need to see it with Voices of Light, I've only ever seen it completely silent.

[Ivan Drago]

The Passion of Joan of Arc is a masterpiece. Excellent choice, Wats.

[Boner M]

Boner doesn't have Passion on his list.
Didn't notice this sentence before. Awesome.

[Ezee E]

Are you accusing me of plagiarizing?

I wouldn't worry about it. I'm just saying that I swore I've read something about the story behind it being more fascinating.

[Duncan]

Watched that one again yesterday, Wats. A really magnificent film. One of the greats for sure. But I agree with Raiders that you`re underestimating Dreyer`s importance.

[dreamdead]

Come back, Boner. Don't fail me now. :cry:

[D_Davis]

Come back, Boner. Don't fail me now. :cry:

They make pills for this.

[Boner M]

Next few days.

[Ezee E]

Boy, we're lame. It's going to take longer then a year to do this.

::hangs head in shame::

[dreamdead]

Yep. The Mods did 100 in 11 months. We'll do 50 in 13. We is inferior beings...:sad:

[Boner M]

Yep. The Mods did 100 in 11 months. We'll do 50 in 13. We is inferior beings...:sad:
The mods' reviews were a lot shorter in word count, though. Quantity > Quality + Speed. (duh)

[Raiders]

The mods' reviews were a lot shorter in word count, though. Quantity > Quality + Speed. (duh)

I don't know, by the second half of the list, I think both Spinal and I were churning out some lengthy reviews.

[Boner M]

3. Mulholland Drive (David Lynch, 2001)

http://upload.moldova.org/movie/movies/m/mulholland_drive/thumbnails/tn2_mulholland_drive_1.jpg

When Mulholland Drive was released in 2001, the most common form of praise for it was something to the effect of that it didn’t really make sense, but that it was so haunting, original, and emotionally engaging that it didn’t have to. 7 years later, and you can head to the IMDb boards or read that Salon article, and you’d be pretty hard-pressed to disagree that the film does make sense, at least according to it’s own logic. And yet, even after some of the narrative mysteries are solved, the film’s pleasures seem to just grow increasingly. In my own skewed perspective, it’s the most narratively compelling film I’ve seen; driven by a constant sense of floaty, dreamlike forward motion, playing upon the viewer’s knowledge of cinema history and semiotics, but always inviting the most intuitive intellectual response, as well as the most indelible emotional one.

Mulholland Drive most primarily acts as the kind of scathing Hollywood indictment that we’ve seen in everything from Sunset Blvd. to The Player. The visions of filmmakers are compromised, the dreams of straight-off-the-bus starlets are shattered, and there’s a sinister world of corruption and decay belied by the sunny weather, slickly designed houses and evenly planted palm trees. Oh noes! However, Lynch’s relationship to the town is more love-hate than only the latter, and there’s elements of Diane’s (Naomi Watts) self-destructive actress in the sense she can’t help destroying the things she loves, just as Lynch bites the hand that feeds him. Lynch is clearly obsessed by the transcendental power of cinema, and that he also believes anyone with the available resources has the ability to demonstrate this power, makes his critique more disappointed than a sheerly venomous.

Lynch’s 1997 film, Lost Highway, portrayed how Hollywood genres and linear narratives shape our dreams, illusions and projections, only to undermine these illusions by depicting them as flimsy foundations that leave the subject more disillusioned than ever. MD builds upon that idea of the illusion of linearity, achieving deeper resonance in scenes like Watts’ audition scene, where acting becomes both intensely and comically real, when placed in such an obviously artificial context. The centerpiece of the film is the legendary Club Silencio sequence, in which both the two protagonists experience emotions so strong that they manifest physically, even as the sounds and images they respond to are a blatant charade; a testament to beauty as the ultimate truth, and that dreams are never ‘just dreams’… that the film quickly snaps back to reality after this scene makes it’s ideas more poignant.

It’s hard to talk about Mulholland Drive without making mention of its origins as an aborted TV pilot. The film’s detractors may use it as evidence as to why the film feels incohesive and/or half-baked, but for me it not only dovetails with the film’s theme of broken dreams (explicitly referenced in the Adam Kesher subplot of the ‘dream’ segment), but also leaves the film’s reshot scenes tinged with a palpable air of despair and melancholy that perhaps an ‘easier’ shoot could never have produced. That sense of something having been fought against (and ultimately overcome) is something that’s present throughout Lynch’s film, and lends a vigor that turns the greatest television pilot I’ve seen, into one of the greatest works of cinematic art that I’ve seen.

[MacGuffin]

That's a real surprise Boner.

[Boner M]

That's a real surprise Boner.
Sarcasm?

[Raiders]

That's a real surprise Boner.

Laura Harring can have that effect.

[Watashi]

It's good... but #3 all time?

[MacGuffin]

Sarcasm?

No way. In all fairness (*waits for Winston*) it's part pun, part seriousness. I expected it to be a little lower on the list maybe, and I really like yours the best so far (not to suck up or anything) if only because you have this so high. It's great that you don't feel the need to reserve the top 5 for "classics", because in my mind, and in its own right, Mulholland Drive already is a classic.

[MacGuffin]

It's good... but #3 all time?

... the irony. :rolleyes:

[dreamdead]

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w156/cpricecpa/free-MrBurnsExcellent.gif

Very nice. You were able to better articulate than I the many-faceted intrigues that this film offers. It's a marvel of psychology, and a marvel of puzzle-making, one that proves how facile dreams can be, and how emotionally indebted we can be to those dreams. And what sound design...

[Watashi]

... the irony. :rolleyes:
I don't get it?

[MacGuffin]

I don't get it?

It's just... I don't see the point in making that comment when so many people probably thought the same thing about your inclusion of The Incredibles or Ratatouille.

[dreamdead]

... the irony. :rolleyes:

See, the problem here is that Wats listed Dreyer's film, which one cannot err or otherwise piss on. Knock his next two choices, but not this one. ;)

In other news, what's your av from? I'm intrigued.

[Rowland]

This is the first work of Lynch's that I was exposed to, and it remains my favorite to this day. The balance he strikes here between acting, writing, direction, scoring, sound design, thematic content, humor, freaky surrealism, affecting drama, and purely watchable storytelling is the strongest I've seen him accomplish. It just works like fucking gangbusters.

[MacGuffin]

In other news, what's your av from? I'm intrigued.

Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter?

[Boner M]

It's just... I don't see the point in making that comment when so many people probably thought the same thing about your inclusion of The Incredibles or Ratatouille.
Wats will have his vengeance.

[Ezee E]

The Match Cut community thought that Mulholland Drive was one of the top movies of all time.

So, in this case, Wats is the crazy one...

My #2 up sometime tomorrow.

[Gizmo]

Love Mulholland Drive.

[Velocipedist]

Lynch's best. Yay or nay?

[Kurosawa Fan]

Yay.

[dreamdead]

A huge http://www.untitledphoto.com/street2/images/yay.jpg

MD takes all of Lynch's pet themes and weaves a tale that is intelligent, sophisticated, and uncanny in ways that little directors ever could. It's every bit the masterpiece to my eyes.

[D_Davis]

Great review Boner, and a great film. It is very high up on my list as well.

[Gizmo]

Yay.


A huge http://www.untitledphoto.com/street2/images/yay.jpg

MD takes all of Lynch's pet themes and weaves a tale that is intelligent, sophisticated, and uncanny in ways that little directors ever could. It's every bit the masterpiece to my eyes.

what's been said.

[Yxklyx]

The Voices of Light score for Passion of Joan of Arc is very good but it fails for me at the end when the action becomes frantic. Instead of focusing on Joan which it has done for the entire movie it joins in with all the action, which is really just supposed to be in the background even when Joan is dead. When you watch it silently, the action is just background noise.

I think strong credit should go out to Mary Sweeney for the editing of Mulholland Dr. (as well as Lost Highway). She was sorely missed in Inland Empire.

[Velocipedist]

The Voices of Light score for Passion of Joan of Arc is very good but it fails for me at the end when the action becomes frantic. Instead of focusing on Joan which it has done for the entire movie it joins in with all the action, which is really just supposed to be in the background even when Joan is dead. When you watch it silently, the action is just background noise.

I think strong credit should go out to Mary Sweeney for the editing of Mulholland Dr. (as well as Lost Highway). She was sorely missed in Inland Empire.

I strongly agree with everything said here although I can't say I mind the editing in Inland Empire.

[Ezee E]

#2
Aliens (James Cameron, 1986)
http://www.feoamante.com/Movies/Alien/images/Aliens/aliens02.jpg

This may have been the first R-rated movie I saw. I loved it then, and I love it now. Its simply the best action movie that there is. I think the reason I like it so much compared to the other movies is that there's also the horror element that's involved. Instead of a bad guy holding someone captive, it's these monsters that reside in the dark. They're faster then you. They're stronger then you, and they have no feelings. When the Marines become the prey, simply waiting for them to come through the door, you lose your breath.

Getting there is just as great. It takes its time, and doesn't do it in a boring way. It shows us the technology of the time, and that technology eventually leads to some of the key elements of building the suspense and horror in the movie. The cameras on the Marines' armor seems typical at first, but when they get lost in the tunnels, and people are disappearing, it wreaks your nerves. The motion sensor, same deal.

All leads to the strength of Ellen Ripley, the only survivor of the last visit with the aliens. She's pushed back into a meaningless position at first, with the Marines assuming that they can take care of it all, but as the Marines begin disappearing, and everything that Ripley says starts making sense, she becomes the one in control. By the end, she's one of the biggest badasses there is. And she's in a freakin' robot!

Hellz yeah!

[Raiders]

If Bill Paxton wasn't in that, it would be better. He's so freakin' annoying.

[Sycophant]

I need to see this film. You and many other people make it sound all well and good, E. But frankly, my primary motivation is Reiser.

[Ezee E]

I need to see this film. You and many other people make it sound all well and good, E. But frankly, my primary motivation is Reiser.
Paul Reiser's character is the perfect anti-personality that goes with the Marines. I'm surprised he's not in more movies actually.

Bill Paxton though, I can understand people getting annoyed by him, but he makes me laugh in it. I dig it just like I dig him in the other James Cameron movies. Except Titanic, he's completely forgettable there.

[Boner M]

Aliens rocks. No two ways about it.

[dreamdead]

Wats, don't make me wave my desexing stick around mighty unsexily. Let's finish this thread off in February. PLEASE. :sad:

[Watashi]

You can skip me. I'm having computer troubles and have been busy of late.

[dreamdead]

You can skip me. I'm having computer troubles and have been busy of late.

K. I'll have mine up tonight...

[dreamdead]

#2 Manhattan (Woody Allen, 1979)

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_189/ny.gif

Woody Allen’s Manhattan (1979) draws on all of the classical cinematic qualities to lend old-school character to a culture that is adrift in social mores and psychological neuroses. As such, the jubilee of Gershwin tunes, the haunting black and white cinematography, and the retreats into past cultural traditions and artifacts (such as Isaac and Mary’s visit to the old foreign films or Isaac and Tracy’s horse carriage through Central Park) all chronicle an attempt to bridge classical romanticism with a cultural age that is in excess. The characters (with Allen existing here as a possible metonym as well) pine for the stability of past eras; they pine for the constancy of belief in each other, in ideals, and in Love. The age they live in is one that consumes innocence, yet Allen maintains just enough skepticism of this (then) contemporary age to suggest that the same innocence can prolong itself with just a little faith. Thus, this film remains one of his singular achievements, orchestrating a humanism that survives the characteristic nihilism of his other work.

Allen loves exposing the fallibilities of relationships and in his best work no character comes away clean. Instead, weaknesses of character exist alongside all of the leads. Sometimes it can develop into droll humor, as in Isaac’s constant denial over his attempt to run over his second wife’s lesbian lover. At other times, however, Isaac’s weakness manufactures in a fear of innocence, an idea that is best articulated when Isaac rebuffs Tracy’s notion of Love as juvenile and inchoate, urging her to conceive of them as a temporary union. Of course, such notions are only proffered once Isaac himself desires another, so his narcissistic desire guides his words. Yet Isaac himself trusts in an epistemic Truth of what makes life worth living, as the ending makes clear, so we must constantly grapple with whether or not Isaac is governed by a return to the ideal or by petty narcissism.

All the while, these studies of relationships have the room to breathe organically, so that characters engage in ideas that remain consistent. A harmonica can seem like a foolish gift one moment, and like the most rational gift months later. Similarly, the word love can be anxiously avoided for months, yet drawing on that word can make Tracy’s face dance with elation. These are precocious, albeit self-involved, people, and they are apt to disregard ethics for personal gain. Morality is frequently elided for the sake of instant gratification, just as the capacity to injure emotionally is elided.

To celebrate the Manhattan’s ending is often to disregard its thematic complexity. It is not glibly positing a happy ending. Isaac’s smile in response to Tracy’s declaration that he needs to have faith can be read as either rueful or hopeful. If the former, it’s a tacit acknowledge of the cultural contamination that, systematically, will rid Tracy’s cheerful optimism. Indeed, her optimism has already given way to a reality that is far more brutal than it once was for her. Yet the film can also hold to hope (it is, much like Isaac’s book, trying to sell copies, no?), and suggest that the essence of a person remains the same. If that is the reading, then Tracy will return older but still essentially the same person. And maybe that hope can be transferable. As she tells Isaac, “I wanted to open up that side of you.”

To me, Manhattan is endlessly watchable and always an enriching, valuable study of culture and desire. Marvelous on all accounts.

[MacGuffin]

Ah man, I was indecisive about Manhattan. I didn't think it had what Annie Hall had going for it; which is to say the perfect blend of humor and humanity.

[Duncan]

Manhattan is a great one. One of your best write-ups methinks, dreamdead. Very good. I like that you suggest there is some ambiguity to the ending. I'm not sure I agree considering the reverie afterwards, but it's not an interpretation I balk at.