My top 20 of all time - an interactive list!

[megladon8]

I've been working on my (ever-changing) top 20 of all time for quite some time now, but I have been struggling with an interesting way to deliver it.

I didn't want it to be just another standard list thread.

Some of the most fun and interesting threads to read have been the interactive lists made by various MC posters...but how can I make my own top 20 an interactive list?

Then it hit me - I have the list of 20 titles. I will hand this list to you, and you, the Peoples' Republic of Match Cut, will write the entries.


Here's how it will work:

PM me if you are interested in writing an entry. Once I have 20 names, I will do a "pull them out of a hat" system to match each person with a title from the list.

There is no order to the films on the list, so it won't be in any particular sequence.

So...if you're interested in writing a blurb for one of my top 20 favorite films, fire me a PM!


The Contenders (will be updated as links, as people post their reviews...)

???? - baby doll
???? - Dead and Messed Up
Blade Runner - dreamdead (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5498-My-top-20-of-all-time-an-interactive-list!&p=517812&viewfull=1#post517812)
Superman ('78) - Dukefrukem (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5498-My-top-20-of-all-time-an-interactive-list!&p=520429&viewfull=1#post520429)
Dawn of the Dead ('78) - Ezee E (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5498-My-top-20-of-all-time-an-interactive-list!&p=519086&viewfull=1#post519086)
Donnie Darko - Gizmo (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5498-My-top-20-of-all-time-an-interactive-list!&p=517888&viewfull=1#post517888)
Le Samouraï - Irish (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5498-My-top-20-of-all-time-an-interactive-list!&p=519030&viewfull=1#post519030)
???? - Ivan Drago
For a Few Dollars More - Kurosawa Fan (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5498-My-top-20-of-all-time-an-interactive-list!&p=522781&viewfull=1#post522781)
Alien - ledfloyd (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5498-My-top-20-of-all-time-an-interactive-list!&p=518271&viewfull=1#post518271)
Night of the Living Dead ('68) - MadMan (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5498-My-top-20-of-all-time-an-interactive-list!&p=517918&viewfull=1#post517918)
???? - Mitty
???? - Neclord
???? - Pop Trash
???? - Skitch
Halloween ('78) - Spinal (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5498-My-top-20-of-all-time-an-interactive-list!&p=518310&viewfull=1#post518310)
American Psycho - Spun Lepton (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5498-My-top-20-of-all-time-an-interactive-list!&p=524472&viewfull=1#post524472)
Princess Mononoke - Thirdmango (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5498-My-top-20-of-all-time-an-interactive-list!&p=518946&viewfull=1#post518946)
The Phantom of the Opera ('25) - transmogrifier (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5498-My-top-20-of-all-time-an-interactive-list!&p=519711&viewfull=1#post519711)
???? - Winston*


Runners Up? Runner Ups?

Ed Wood - megladon8 (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5498-My-top-20-of-all-time-an-interactive-list!&p=517481&viewfull=1#post517481)
Beauty and the Beast ('46) - Morris Schæffer (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5498-My-top-20-of-all-time-an-interactive-list!&p=519526&viewfull=1#post519526)
???? - Peng
???? - Sycophant
???? - TGM

[Gizmo]

What if I've never seen the film assigned? I assume that would lead to some amusing entries. I withdraw the question and add my name to the hat (assuming we get to me prior to August when I'll be without internet for some unknown amount of time).

[megladon8]

What if I've never seen the film assigned? I assume that would lead to some amusing entries. I withdraw the question and add my name to the hat (assuming we get to me prior to August when I'll be without internet for some unknown amount of time).


Yes I've considered this, and I've also considered that someone could be paired with a movie they hate.

I think it will make the list even more entertaining.

Like I said, I don't want this to be a "regular" list thread :)

[ledfloyd]

Wouldn't you watch the film if you hadn't seen it? I'll play.

[Spun Lepton]

If it's an interactive list, does that mean I get to adjust your ratings?

[megladon8]

Wouldn't you watch the film if you hadn't seen it? I'll play.


I suppose you could, if you want to get all technical about stuff. I mean, hasn't film reviewing/reporting more than proven that you don't have to have seen a movie to form a strong opinion about it? :D

[megladon8]

If it's an interactive list, does that mean I get to adjust your ratings?


Sure!

*makes sure that Spun gets Cabin Fever*

*feels mildly ill at the mere thought of having Cabin Fever on a "favorites" list*

[Spun Lepton]

I'll participate. I'd best like a film that I can watch (again?) before reviewing. Or a film you're sure I've seen enough to have memorized.

[megladon8]

I'll participate. I'd best like a film that I can watch (again?) before reviewing. Or a film you're sure I've seen enough to have memorized.

I can't promise this since, as I said in the first post, it's going to be random. Two baseball caps, one with poster names, one with movie titles.

[Spun Lepton]

BRING IT.

[Irish]

That sounds like fun! I'm definitely up for it.

[megladon8]

OK so I've got 6 people so far.

Should I just go ahead and give these 6 their movies?

That way we also don't run into 20 people posting their writings at the same time.

[Irish]

Any way you like, Megladon. Your thread, your list!

[Dukefrukem]

In.

[dreamdead]

I'm game to (re)watch one.

[megladon8]

OK we have 8 participants, which is nearly halfway there.

I am sending out the first batch of PM's with their randomized choices.

To those of you who receive a PM with a title - please remember, the whole point of this thread is to be as honest about the film as possible. If you hate it, please say so!

I think this will be a lot of fun.

[Irish]

One thing I will add to my post, should I get picked: Why I think meg likes the film, and why I think it's on his list. I want to see how close I get to guessing correctly. :D

[megladon8]

OK - 8 e-mails have been sent out with titles.

Still need 12 people.

Really looking forward to what people have to say :D

[Irish]

Meg, what's the timeline for when these should be done? I got an awesome title -- but I haven't actually seen the movie!

[megladon8]

Meg, what's the timeline for when these should be done? I got an awesome title -- but I haven't actually seen the movie!


Honestly, there really isn't any. Putting a time limit makes this all seem way too important.

Just do it whenever you like.

[MadMan]

I have Top 20 of All Time list. Just have to pull it off my laptop when I get home.

[transmogrifier]

SEND AWAY

[Gizmo]

I guess there's no specific ranking for these? Like I don't have #20 or #4, just one of the 20.

[Dukefrukem]

I guess there's no specific ranking for these? Like I don't have #20 or #4, just one of the 20.

Exactly. This is a cool idea because some people won't like the movies they are assigned, but they are Meg's top 20. So we get to see how MC sees his favorite movies. I kinda want to copy this idea.

Meg gave me an easy one.

[Gizmo]

Exactly. This is a cool idea because some people won't like the movies they are assigned, but they are Meg's top 20. So we get to see how MC sees his favorite movies. I kinda want to copy this idea.

Meg gave me an easy one.

I got an interesting one. I'll probably try and give it another watch before I write it up, it's been a while.

[Irish]

I guess there's no specific ranking for these? Like I don't have #20 or #4, just one of the 20.

Think it'd be fun to guess megladon's rank of the movie you're reviewing (although, obviously, that will get easier & sillier as more people post).

[Ezee E]

Sign me up.

[megladon8]

Yeah, there's no actual ranking - and that's intentional on my part, as I just CANNOT rank them without tearing my hair out.

Hell, I could probably change the whole list every day.

[megladon8]

Both trans and Ezee E have received their titles, bringing us to 10 players!

[megladon8]

Exactly. This is a cool idea because some people won't like the movies they are assigned, but they are Meg's top 20. So we get to see how MC sees his favorite movies. I kinda want to copy this idea.

Meg gave me an easy one.


You should do it for video games, Duke. I'd love to participate in that one!

[Thirdmango]

alrighty, I'll play.

[megladon8]

alrighty, I'll play.


Sent!

[Thirdmango]

I've been needing to rewatch mine forever so good choice.

[megladon8]

I've been needing to rewatch mine forever so good choice.


Very cool. It's a lovely movie.

Really taken aback by how much this idea is being enjoyed so far. I was kind of expecting it to flop.

[Pop Trash]

I'll play. PM me one of your movies.

[megladon8]

I'll play. PM me one of your movies.


Done!

[Neclord]

Can I play too?

[Ivan Drago]

I'm in. I need to get back into the grind of writing movie reviews.

[megladon8]

Awesome, 2 more players! Ivan and Neclord, your PM's are on their way...

[Kurosawa Fan]

I'm in, though I won't be able to review my film until the end of the month, as I'm on vacation. Cool idea, meg.

[megladon8]

Cool, no worries KF! I am sending you your title in a PM now...

[Dead & Messed Up]

I'm down.

[megladon8]

I'm down.

Sent!

[transmogrifier]

I've never seen the one I've been assigned. Maybe I'll live blog it.

[megladon8]

I've never seen the one I've been assigned. Maybe I'll live blog it.

Hey, very cool!

I hope it's one you're at least mildly interested in seeing...

[megladon8]

Anyone else interested? Only 4 spots left!

[baby doll]

Anyone else interested? Only 4 spots left!I'm in.

[megladon8]

I'm in.


Cool! Sending your title now...

[megladon8]

I have updated the first post with the list of films (all hidden right now), which I will reveal and create links for as people post their reviews.

Anyone else want in? Just need 3 more spots filled!

I've saved 2 or 3 "runners up" to do myself :)

[ledfloyd]

I've watched mine. Should be able to get something together over the weekend.

[megladon8]

Kick ass! Can't wait!

[Irish]

Gonna watch mine this weekend, maybe have something by Sunday?

Should we just post whenever or .. ?

[Dukefrukem]

I have two fucking weddings this weekend so I hope to get to it on Monday. I dont need a rewatch but it can only help.

[megladon8]

Just post whenever.

[megladon8]

Only need 3 more people, and there are 3 more great movies left.

Anyone else?

[MadMan]

I'm still down.

[megladon8]

I'm still down.

Didn't I send you a title?

[MadMan]

I didn't get a pm.

[megladon8]

I didn't get a pm.

Damn man I am so sorry I even have your name on my list with a title.

Sending it now...

[MadMan]

Heh its all good.

[megladon8]

I cannot find the words to describe how hard it was to narrow my list down to 20 titles. Even now, I look at the titles I have handed out and think "eek...I should have taken that out and replaced it with this one!" All in all I have about 35 titles that constitute my ever-changing "top 20 of all time".

While this thread continues I am going to post 5 of my "runners up" - the 5 titles that it absolutely pained me the most to remove from my list.

If anything, I would consider this whole thread my "top 25", but that's kind of cheating. I have to settle for "runners up"...but know that, since nothing is numbered (in my top 20 or in my runners up), all of the titles could play musical chairs ad infinitum and I would never be happy with the list.

So, without further ado...


RUNNER-UP...

http://s30.postimg.org/8eukhrzwh/Ed_Wood_Poster.jpg


I first saw Ed Wood about 15 years ago - an old, beaten up VHS copy rented from the store I would, 2 years later, find to be my first employer.

I was immediately captured by it. Funny, tragic, romantic, but most of all I found it inspiring. I loved Ed Wood's unabashed love of movies. I have frequently referenced this feeling of inspiration on here and other forums, and to mixed results. Some people "got it", others insisted it was silly to be inspired by someone who is, for all intents and purposes, terrible at what they do. It's really not Ed Wood's work itself that I am fascinated by but the man himself and his aforementioned love of film as presented here in Burton's story.

At this point in my life I was certain I would have some kind of career in the film industry. Specifically I wanted to direct movies. And similar to Wood, I was fascinated primarily by horror and sci-fi. I was more or less a loner, confused about life and sex, unsure of myself in every way (so in 15 years, nothing has changed! Huzzah!). Ed Wood loved what he was doing and his love was infectious.

I really have no idea how accurate Burton's story is to the reality of Wood's life and career. I've actually only seen 2 of Wood's films to this day, and I've done no more than some trivial research into his life. But the Ed Wood presented here felt like a kindred spirit - someone who "got" how wonderful movies are, and whose naive view of the world and the Hollywood machine spoke (and still speaks) to me.

It also helps that the film is beautifully shot and populated by an impeccable ensemble cast (with Martin Landau breaking my heart as the tragic Bela Lugosi).

[MadMan]

Ed Wood is a fantastic film. I miss that Johnny Depp.

[Dukefrukem]

I still have never seen that movie.

[megladon8]

I still have never seen that movie.

Get on it, dude! It's wonderful. Totally charming, lots of personality. If anything see it as a Bill Murray fan.

[ledfloyd]

Got distracted this weekend. I have a final tomorrow and then I should have plenty of time.

[MadMan]

I'll do my write up either tonight or tomorrow.

[Dukefrukem]

So how do we start this?

[MadMan]

I sent my review in today. I thought it was eh okay.

[dreamdead]

http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/1336756413-blade-runner2-528x343.jpg

So here is Ridley Scott’s 1982 Blade Runner, the film with perhaps the most imitated world building. Scott populates his cityscape with a hellishly invasive but uncannily beautiful skyscrapers, where their projected ads of capitalism overwhelm any sense of individual autonomy. And with Scott’s direction, that sense of individual remove is both hypnotic and legitimately alienating at times. With this, my third viewing of the film, I found myself consistently drawn to the architectural design, but yearning to understand just a bit more of Roy Batty’s intentions beyond survival. And perhaps I need to acknowledge that is a film only invested in survival.

Deckard’s (Harrison Ford) almost flâneur quality leads to an understated lead protagonist, which belies its homages to film noir, one who explores the city and looks into each subculture (Asian districts, strip clubs)—Scott augments this tendency by shifting focus to Roy or Pris at times and letting us experience other oddities, most especially Sebastian’s house and attendant creations. Because almost all of these characters are robots, though, Scott’s film affects a muted emotional range that affords defenders the chance to suggest that Scott’s imagining his whole world through Deckard’s perspective. However, that same boon can also be seen as a limit of imagination, one that occasionally prevents the film from penetrating at a more emotional level.

Things that seemed odd—Roy’s saving of Deckard isn’t legitimately clarified or even really hinted at. The film smartly moves outside of a typical final fight sequence, which is one of the reasons the film is able to achieve its philosophical gravitas (that, and Hauer’s delivery of wonderfully iconic final lines). But the rescue seems to limp in, lacking any interior explanation.

As I watched this, I wanted to rewatch Brazil alongside it, to see how it fares in my thoughts. I remain strongly attached to the visual design here, which is unparalleled, and where Scott excels. The characters seemed a bit flatter than I remembered, and there’s a little creepy rapey quality to Deckard’s initial romance with Rachael. That said, the focus on eyes is clever in the opening, and I like the openness with which the film’s Final Cut closes.

I was saddened to feel more aloof toward this film with this viewing, as it’s one of the formative film experiences of mine (with The Seven Samurai, The Thin Red Line, and Requiem for a Dream). Nonetheless, it’s a film I continue to appreciate for how far-reaching the film’s influence has spread. I totally see why meg loves it, and I look forward to seeing some of his thoughts…

[Spinal]

This is a neat idea. I'll do one.

[Irish]

Not sure if this is legit, but --


yearning to understand just a bit more of Roy Batty’s intentions beyond survival.

This is an interesting question and my first blush response is to say -- Roy's intentions can be summed up in lines like, "We're not computers, Sebastian, we're physical" and "I want more life, fucker." The replicants are hedonists, and represent a certain freedom that the pure humans -- Deckard, Sebastian, Tyrell -- don't seem to enjoy. Tyrell is immensely wealthy, lives in a post-apoc Xanadu, but spends his evenings alone in a dim bedroom. Sebastian invents company for himself. Deckard subsists in cramped spaces surrounded by antique furniture (a piano?) and the pale, gauzy ephemera of old photographs and video printouts. All of them are isolated and lack human contact. That's a stark contrast to the androids, who not only have banded together for mutual survival, but seemed to have formed lasting, real relationships.

The androids want life, all of it, everything it offers, as long as it's immediate and physical.


Things that seemed odd—Roy’s saving of Deckard isn’t legitimately clarified or even really hinted at. The film smartly moves outside of a typical final fight sequence, which is one of the reasons the film is able to achieve its philosophical gravitas (that, and Hauer’s delivery of wonderfully iconic final lines). But the rescue seems to limp in, lacking any interior explanation.

The theatrical release did slightly better here, because at least there's a voiceover from Deckard speculating about Roy's actions. But that final scene is really just a culmination of the movie's focus and central theme -- that the androids are more human than the actual humans. (This despite Scott's inane interpretations of his own film in subsequent years).

[Skitch]

I'll throw my name in, but dont expect too hard biting of social commentary and philosphical disertation. :D

[megladon8]

Skitch - I sent you your title:)

MadMan - I love your entry. Please post it! :)


dreamdead - WOW! Wonderful write up. Thank you so much.


Things that seemed odd—Roy’s saving of Deckard isn’t legitimately clarified or even really hinted at. The film smartly moves outside of a typical final fight sequence, which is one of the reasons the film is able to achieve its philosophical gravitas (that, and Hauer’s delivery of wonderfully iconic final lines). But the rescue seems to limp in, lacking any interior explanation.

Did you feel that this point could have had to do with the theory that Deckard is, himself, a replicant? Perhaps he was (even unknowingly or at least unconsciously) trying to preserve "his people"?

The actions of Batty and the other replicants certainly showed fierce loyalty towards one another, so maybe that kicked in when he was faced with Batty's death?



I totally see why meg loves it, and I look forward to seeing some of his thoughts…

With it being such a beloved film there's really not much I could say that hasn't been said before. But a few points that stick out for me:

-Sean Young plays one of the sexiest characters in film history, IMO. The scene with her and Ford at the piano, when her hair is let down and Vangelis' moving and sensual saxophone melody plays (titled simply "Love Theme From Blade Runner"), it is one of my favorite romantic scenes in all of film. So funny that it oozes such sensuality, yet apparently Ford and Young didn't like each other at all.

-What you mentioned about it playing very much like a film noir in a futuristic environment. I love classic detective flicks and literature, so the exploration of the city and its people was a great backdrop for the philosophical storytelling.

-It's a film that I notice something new in every time I see it. Whether it's an image I didn't notice in previous viewings, something taking place in the background, or even a line of dialogue which I didn't realize tied to another moment. Every time I watch it, it's like seeing it again for the first time.

-That Vangelis score!

[Morris Schæffer]

Would love to try it. If there's a slot left. So if I get assigned a film I haven't yet seen, I'd have to somehow acquire it?

[Fezzik]

It looks like you have twenty already...Im sorry I saw this late. If someone cant do it, let me know.

[megladon8]

Would you two (Morris and Fezzik) be interested in doing two of my five runner up titles?

[Gizmo]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-F6cPWY7K9yY/TxQAYAn8_hI/AAAAAAAAAes/NwuJxotryos/s1600/Donnie-Darko.jpg

Donnie Darko is the film I've been given to represent one of the top 20. Interestingly enough, this is a film I've yet to be able to figure out how I feel about it. I finished viewing it for my 4th time in preparation for this blurb, and I'm still mixed on it. It's not a bad film, but there's nothing that compels me to say it's a great film either. It's masterfully acted, and the music choices are excellent and really add to the feel of the film. Also, the first thing that appears after the credits is my birthday, so it's got that going for it.

The story, however, is so illusive. I can't fully comprehend what's real, what's fake and how to wrap my head around the time-travel paradox presented. I believe it's to be taken literal, as in Donnie lives the one life then chooses to go back in time through the portal to change the course of those events. If that's the case, then that only erases select few of the events that transpired, while others are bound to reoccur. Is the world to end in 28 days 6 hours 42 minutes and 12 seconds? Nothing seemingly changes that aspect, rendering the film as a whole, moot. Or maybe I'm not grasping the overall picture.

In the end, I don't care if I don't get it. The film on it's own is strong enough to warrant rewatches. My favorite films are ones that you can't watch just once, rather ones that are nuanced enough that you want to watch again and get more from each viewing. Donnie Darko fits that bill, even if it's not something I'd consider a personal favorite, I can see how Meg, or anyone else, would. Thanks for forcing a rewatch on me.

[Fezzik]

Would you two (Morris and Fezzik) be interested in doing two of my five runner up titles?

Sure thing!

[megladon8]

Wonderful write-up Gizmo!! Thanks so much for taking the time to re-watch and share your thoughts.



The story, however, is so illusive. I can't fully comprehend what's real, what's fake and how to wrap my head around the time-travel paradox presented. I believe it's to be taken literal, as in Donnie lives the one life then chooses to go back in time through the portal to change the course of those events. If that's the case, then that only erases select few of the events that transpired, while others are bound to reoccur. Is the world to end in 28 days 6 hours 42 minutes and 12 seconds? Nothing seemingly changes that aspect, rendering the film as a whole, moot. Or maybe I'm not grasping the overall picture.

I took the whole thing as pretty much the most extreme, literal embodiment of teenage angst I can think of - the entire world will end just because Donnie exists.

Being a person who has struggled with depression and suicidal tendencies, it's hard to not be moved by a story of a young man who realizes that everyone in his life would not only be better off, but will not die if he commits suicide. In the end it really doesn't make much sense - just like depression. It doesn't make any logical sense, but to the person experiencing it, it is as real as anything else.

It's a film I saw for the first time when I was in the midst of one of the worst periods in my life, so it's forever tied to that time for me.


In the end, I don't care if I don't get it. The film on it's own is strong enough to warrant rewatches. My favorite films are ones that you can't watch just once, rather ones that are nuanced enough that you want to watch again and get more from each viewing. Donnie Darko fits that bill, even if it's not something I'd consider a personal favorite, I can see how Meg, or anyone else, would. Thanks for forcing a rewatch on me.

I'm glad you mentioned the soundtrack. Hearing the first few notes of "The Killing Moon" will forever remind me of the opening image of Donnie biking home after waking up outside. Tears for Fears' "Head Over Heels", Duran Duran's "Notorious"...it's an incredible mix of 80s pop rock, and it works symbiotically with the film it accompanies.

[MadMan]

I flat out love Blade Runner, warts and all, multiple versions and all....all of it.

I didn't post my review at first because I thought there was an order to this. So without further ado....

http://img2-1.timeinc.net/ew/i/2012/01/18/Night-Living-Dead_610.jpg

While horror did exist prior to 1968 to me that year is truly when modern horror was born. Hammer Studios did a fine job bringing the genre back to life yet their films lacked a certain bite-they still had a line they didn't quite cross. However when George A. Romero brought us Night Of The Living Dead he created arguably the Citizen Kane of horror movies. This same year also saw Roman Polanski delivering one of his masterpieces in Rosemary's Baby, which also helped usher in the new wave of horror movie. From that point on horror films were different: they were more violent, more unflinching, and at times rather unforgiving. What Romero gave us was a new vision, a movie that had something new and put a fine twist on a sub-genre that already existed: the zombie film.

Before Romero's flesh eating monsters terrorized the screen zombies were mostly just eerie beasts that didn't really do anything. It wasn't until 1966 when zombies actually attacked people in a way similar to what was featured in Romero's film. That movie was actually from Hammer Studios, and its an underrated film called Plague of the Zombies. Yet those creatures did not bite people, and so when Romero had his monsters pass on their disease to people through bites that was a rather novel and original idea. Also having the creatures devour people was terrifying and stark, a concept that is literally body horror centered and managed to be very scary. As the 60s drew to a close Romero gave us the nightmare that your friends, your family, your neighbors could turn into flesh eating ghouls that would consume you without conscience, without remorse.

http://cdn5.movieclips.com/public-domain/n/night-of-the-living-dead-1968/0354561_23765_MC_Tx304.jpg

By 1968 the public had turned against the Vietnam War, haunted by images of the violence on their TV sets. Romero's film came out before Charles Manson and his Family of murders slaughtered Polanski's wife and others, before the 1969 Rolling Stones concert went horribly wrong. In a way Romero was anticipating violence that had not yet occurred, delivering a masterpiece of terror that shocked audiences. You have a zombie girl who brutally murders her parents, a racial subtext that mirrored the racial problems happening in this country at the time, and an ending that was uncompromising and unexpected. Night of the Living Dead is a classic, a film that is my favorite horror movie and one of the best I've ever seen, an experience so different from many other movies.

While Romero equaled it with Dawn of the Dead and gave us many other horror classics I can't help but think of his beginning first and foremost. Ben is one of the best characters I've witnessed in a horror movie, and even though the rest of the group isn't as strong as he is both literally and character wise he anchors the movie. Duane Jones sadly did not have as great or as long of a career as Ken Foree did and yet he left his excellent mark on the genre all the same (I also eagerly recommend Ganja & Hess, a really creepy vampire film he also starred in). I'll never forget that Ben never hesitated to escape his situation, willing to do anything and everything to survive. Even by today's horror standards Romero's classic still manages to shock and surprise, ever sadly relevant now. Now that is how you classify and identify a truly magnificent film.

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/0d/15/54/0d15544b89a81cbb6c340930a22b11 af.jpg

[megladon8]

Another fantastic review from MadMan - thank you! :)

I completely agree about Duane Jones being quite a presence. It's really sad to hear him now, as he actually seems quite bitter about the fact that he didn't have a better career after this film. Because of this he is also reluctant to do events and conventions, because he dislikes being identified only as Ben.

It's too bad, because as you said, his character is just wonderful. I suppose it's hard to understand living with that kind of an albatross in your career.

Jen and I re-watched this the other night and it's still just one of the best horror films ever. You nailed it when you said it's still shocking.

[ledfloyd]

Love that movie. I really need to take a trip down to that cemetery sometime. I'm 45 minutes from where they shot it.

[Morris Schæffer]

Would you two (Morris and Fezzik) be interested in doing two of my five runner up titles?

Yeah, i'll do it. But again, the rules are? I suppose seeing the movie, but what if I can 't find it?

[megladon8]

Yeah, i'll do it. But again, the rules are? I suppose seeing the movie, but what if I can 't find it?

There really aren't rules - be completely honest about the movie (if it's a title you hate, then be honest!).

I'll PM you your title. If you can't find it, I'll give you a different one.

[Morris Schæffer]

There really aren't rules - be completely honest about the movie (if it's a title you hate, then be honest!).

I'll PM you your title. If you can't find it, I'll give you a different one.

i'll see what i can do! Be in touch!

[Pop Trash]

Is there a descending order here? Or do we just post our write-up whenever?

[megladon8]

Is there a descending order here? Or do we just post our write-up whenever?


Just post it whenever.

[Morris Schæffer]

Just post it whenever.

Looks like I may find it...somewhere. Give me some time to do this. I'm sure the thread isn't going anywhere.:)

[dreamdead]

This is an interesting question and my first blush response is to say -- Roy's intentions can be summed up in lines like, "We're not computers, Sebastian, we're physical" and "I want more life, fucker." The replicants are hedonists, and represent a certain freedom that the pure humans -- Deckard, Sebastian, Tyrell -- don't seem to enjoy. Tyrell is immensely wealthy, lives in a post-apoc Xanadu, but spends his evenings alone in a dim bedroom. Sebastian invents company for himself. Deckard subsists in cramped spaces surrounded by antique furniture (a piano?) and the pale, gauzy ephemera of old photographs and video printouts. All of them are isolated and lack human contact. That's a stark contrast to the androids, who not only have banded together for mutual survival, but seemed to have formed lasting, real relationships.

The androids want life, all of it, everything it offers, as long as it's immediate and physical.

This does pose an interesting take on the relative mutedness that elsewhere existed in my viewing. I found myself longing for more of Prys and Roy, as I'd always remembered being fascinated by their engagement with culture. You highlight an interesting duality if the film (intentionally or not) structures the replicants as being the only ones engaged in experiencing the surrounding culture. It's true that all of the humans have insulated themselves from the culture, even if their surroundings have open windows and the consumerist tendencies pierce and reflect into their lives nonetheless. (I'm thinking specifically of the Deckard/Rachael love scene with Scott cutting to the Coke ad that echoes their orgasmic bliss.)

It also suggests ways in which Scott's filmmaking is inherently privileging the replicants, since I care less for Deckard in general, as he feels too cypher-like for me.


The theatrical release did slightly better here, because at least there's a voiceover from Deckard speculating about Roy's actions. But that final scene is really just a culmination of the movie's focus and central theme -- that the androids are more human than the actual humans. (This despite Scott's inane interpretations of his own film in subsequent years).

Yeah, I went back and read up on the theatrical cut a little--looking at how the film frames Deckard/Rachael's escape as something successful. It's an interesting reversal of my complaint about the film's mutedness that I think the film's refusal to consign failure or victory to their fleeing--that ambiguity is necessary and does legitimately amplify some of the Deckard/Roy scenes.

I think one of my constant questions is whether we're meant to sympathize with the replicants being uniformly snuffed out. I know that I do symphatize with their plight, but there's ways in which I want Deckard to reflect that more verbally and get the film headed toward an interrogation of these questionable ethics. The fact that he's much more only interested in rapey love feelings for Rachael makes the film (sometimes intriguingly, sometimes maddeningly) problematic.

[dreamdead]

Did you feel that this point could have had to do with the theory that Deckard is, himself, a replicant? Perhaps he was (even unknowingly or at least unconsciously) trying to preserve "his people"?

The actions of Batty and the other replicants certainly showed fierce loyalty towards one another, so maybe that kicked in when he was faced with Batty's death?


I was trying to anticipate this question with this viewing, since the central plot was familiar to me by now. I don't think the film plants enough there for me to really buy the whole Deckard-as-replicant angle. The whole intercutting of eyes in the beginning doesn't receive that much emphasis later in the film, and Scott remains ambiguous about whose eyes we're even looking at. Some of the uniform imagery to the origami are interesting, but don't have that much follow-through, which impedes my ability to do more with it. I suspect Dick's novel plays up this indeterminacy far more; the film, for me, lacks enough engagement to feel it register as a real possibility by itself.

Did love the score, though, and the extent to which Blade Runner's noir influence and aesthetic can be felt on something like Dark City, which I sometimes feel is a more successful take on the content of Scott's film.

[megladon8]

Dark City is a wonderful film which becomes awkwardly, unintentionally funny with its final Dragonball Z encounter.

Up to that point, I almost want to use the word "masterful". But that poorly realized psychic showdown really causes a stumble.

[MadMan]

Another fantastic review from MadMan - thank you! :)Hey man it was nothing, really-your welcome. I enjoy writing for fun. I doubt I'll ever get paid for it, but if I do I would love that. If not oh well.


I completely agree about Duane Jones being quite a presence. It's really sad to hear him now, as he actually seems quite bitter about the fact that he didn't have a better career after this film. Because of this he is also reluctant to do events and conventions, because he dislikes being identified only as Ben.

It's too bad, because as you said, his character is just wonderful. I suppose it's hard to understand living with that kind of an albatross in your career.That's really sad. At the same time many other actors have made careers out of one performance that was notable. Some people embrace being that guy or girl, others can't handle it. That's life I guess.


Jen and I re-watched this the other night and it's still just one of the best horror films ever. You nailed it when you said it's still shocking.Nice.


Love that movie. I really need to take a trip down to that cemetery sometime. I'm 45 minutes from where they shot it.Whoa. Awesome.

[Spinal]

I (re)watched mine tonight and I'm looking forward to writing up some thoughts on it soon. I just happened to get a movie that I also hold in very high esteem.

[Morris Schæffer]

I should watch my movie tonight!

[ledfloyd]

http://content8.flixster.com/photo/11/56/13/11561382_ori.jpg

Early on in Ridley Scott’s Alien, you can see evidence of the obsession with design that would inform Blade Runner. The shots caressing the exterior of the Nostromo that Mel Brooks would parody in Spaceballs. The long, slow, tracking shots that probe the ship’s corridors. It’s over five minutes before we see a human being, and nearly seven until the first word is uttered. The close attention to detail carries over to the sound design (not to mention Jerry Goldsmith’s legendary score). The chaos of the planet they reach contrasted with the serenity of life on the ship. It feels acutely aware of Kubrick’s 2001. Right down to the “open the pod bay doors, Ripley” scene when the crewmembers return from the alien ship.

But a closer touchstone might be Jaws. It would be easy to dismiss the film as “Jaws in space” if one approached the film solely from a superficial perspective. What separates Alien from a film like Jaws is its subtext. It’s no secret that Dan O’Bannon wanted to create a male analogue to rape, and he achieves it wonderfully. The combination of Giger’s unsettling designs and the Cronenbergian body horror achieve this to great effect. With its female protagonist, it’s possible to view Alien as a story about a woman overcoming the threat of rape.

It’s the synthesis of these modes—Cronenbergian imagery, Spielbergian adventure, and Kubrickian design—that make Alien something wholly unique. It is one of the great horror films, and viewed alongside Blade Runner it suggests Ridley Scott’s career ca. 1980 was one of endless potential. It’s unfortunate that that potential was never again realized as clearly as it is in these two films.

[Spinal]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v696/joel_harmon/ngbbs512b7b9132a6d_zpsf85a93c0 .jpg

Halloween (John Carpenter, 1978)

First of all, before reading anything that I have to say, I encourage you to click here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfBHEIANFSA) and listen to some music in another window as you peruse my thoughts.

As you likely know, Carpenter himself composed the theme music to the highly influential horror film, Halloween. Like everything else about the film, the music is hardly what you would call sophisticated. However, both the movie and the theme remain among the greatest of all-time in their respective categories due to Carpenter's admirable economy and efficiency. The chills and scares in Halloween are not achieved through elaborate set pieces, but rather through blunt, sharp shocks. If this seems like an easy feat, consider the vast number of films that attempted to ape Halloween's basic formula and failed. It is as if Carpenter has analyzed the various routes to fear and masterfully selected the swiftest, the sharpest, the most palpable.

Carpenter is not afraid to borrow the best bits from his predecessors. He borrows the first person p.o.v. shot from Peeping Tom, a dead-faced mask from The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, a super creepy moment of unexpected rising from Nosferatu and even his lead actress from the womb of Psycho star, Janet Leigh. However, unlike Hitchcock's treatment of the psychologically disturbed Norman Bates, Carpenter makes little to no effort in psychoanalyzing his killer. As Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence) notes at one point, he simply gave up trying to make sense of Michael Myers' violent behavior and eventually came to accept him as an unyielding malevolent force. When Myers opportunistically escapes from his psychiatric hospital, Loomis notes with horror that "The evil is gone!"

Over the course of the film, despite a brief unmasking, we will come to understand that Myers is something other than human. He is most often referred to as 'The Bogeyman'. In the film's final scenes, he endures more physical damage than any human could realistically withstand and survive. And yet he does. Why? I will offer the opinion that either instinctively or intellectually Carpenter has crafted a character that represents a suburban community's worst fears made flesh.

Many have read into Myers' slaughter of horny teenagers a kind of moral judgment against their perceived promiscuous behavior. However, it seems that Myers is more of an opportunist than a moralist. I prefer to think of the film as one that, like Poltergeist which followed it, successfully captures the primal human fears that remain, even when we attempt to surround ourselves with a sanitized, comfortable community. We know that our children grow into teenagers who want to experiment, take risks and awkwardly climb towards adulthood. A night like Halloween offers ample opportunity to play pranks and engage in mischief. However, there is also real danger in the world that is unavoidable, waiting to take down the unlucky. When the neighbor girl screams on your doorstep on Halloween night, do you take her seriously? Or do you draw the blinds, assuming that she is craving attention? Michael Myers' senseless murder of his sister, seen in the film's opening sequence, is the gloomy shadow that hangs over the community fifteen years later. It is a tale that is passed on over generations. It is the kind of tale that everyone knows, but which no one can scarcely believe.

Unlike many other films that have followed in its wake, Halloween is surprisingly low on visible blood and gore. While it is possible that this was simply due to budgetary constraints, Carpenter more than makes up for it with thoughtful, oft-times surprising choices: a horrifying face gradually illuminated, the rickety protection of closet doors, one unfortunate victim unable to slump in death because he has been stuck unceremoniously to the wall, even an unexpected moment of humor when Myers approaches his next victim in an absurd disguise. Carpenter's film hits hard and lingers in the brain because it successfully captures fear at a primal level. Like the film's theme, there is nary a wasted note, each calculated to hit hard, hit quickly and leave an indelible mark.

[Winston*]

Seen both of the last films on the big screen in the last year. Alien was amazing, once I moved seats away from a guy who had decided that the opening credits needed to be atmospherically re-scored with the sounds of the selection and consumption of potato chips.

Halloween on Halloween last year was one of my worst film-going experiences ever: non-stop drunk cackling at the film's 'cheesiness' from frame one. Bleh.

[Spinal]

Halloween on Halloween last year was one of my worst film-going experiences ever: non-stop drunk cackling at the film's 'cheesiness' from frame one. Bleh.

Bummer considering it's actually held up quite well with time. The weirdest part for me was trying to process Jamie Lee (Activia Yogurt) Curtis as a teenager. Couldn't make it work in my brain.

[megladon8]

Holy crap, two back-to-back incredible write-ups!

Before I tackle them one at a time, it's a good time to mention some of the trouble I had with my list - to the point where, if I could redo it, I would.

With ledfloyd's entry for Alien, we can now see that I have two Ridley Scott films on my list. This happens once more (two films by one director).

It was such a glaring oversight that I didn't notice it until it was too late and the films had been assigned. I wish I had saved one of each of the directors' films as "runners up", but it's too late.

Regardless, I still consider each of the 4 films in question to be absolute all-time favorites...so hopefully this little flub can be overlooked :)

[megladon8]

Early on in Ridley Scott’s Alien, you can see evidence of the obsession with design that would inform Blade Runner. The shots caressing the exterior of the Nostromo that Mel Brooks would parody in Spaceballs. The long, slow, tracking shots that probe the ship’s corridors. It’s over five minutes before we see a human being, and nearly seven until the first word is uttered. The close attention to detail carries over to the sound design (not to mention Jerry Goldsmith’s legendary score). The chaos of the planet they reach contrasted with the serenity of life on the ship. It feels acutely aware of Kubrick’s 2001. Right down to the “open the pod bay doors, Ripley” scene when the crewmembers return from the alien ship.

I love that you mention Scott's patience and attention to detail in the opening, as I felt that was sorely lacking in Prometheus - not the opening itself (I actually thought the 2012 film had a wonderful opening sequence), but the film as a whole. At no point did it develop the tension and mystery that Scott had in Alien.



But a closer touchstone might be Jaws. It would be easy to dismiss the film as “Jaws in space” if one approached the film solely from a superficial perspective. What separates Alien from a film like Jaws is its subtext. It’s no secret that Dan O’Bannon wanted to create a male analogue to rape, and he achieves it wonderfully. The combination of Giger’s unsettling designs and the Cronenbergian body horror achieve this to great effect. With its female protagonist, it’s possible to view Alien as a story about a woman overcoming the threat of rape.

I was talking about the intensely sexual design of the creatures with a friend at work the other day. We both grew up watching these movies, and we both commented on how deeply ingrained the idea of sexual torture is in the human psyche. Even when watching the film as a kid and not "getting" the on-the-nose sexual imagery (the alien's head is a giant penis, which penetrates you with another smaller penis; the face hugger turned upside down is a vagina, etc.), something about it made us intensely uncomfortable. We didn't know what, and it wasn't just gross. Dawn of the Dead was gross...this was...weird and creepy and it made us uncomfortable in some way we didn't understand as kids.

That Scott (and Giger) were able to tap into something so primal and universal is quite impressive.



It’s the synthesis of these modes—Cronenbergian imagery, Spielbergian adventure, and Kubrickian design—that make Alien something wholly unique. It is one of the great horror films, and viewed alongside Blade Runner it suggests Ridley Scott’s career ca. 1980 was one of endless potential. It’s unfortunate that that potential was never again realized as clearly as it is in these two films.

Completely agree about the disappointment in the way Scott's career went. I tell you, if Scott had had a 30 year career of this caliber, he'd be a rival to any of the "greats".

For me, one of the greatest aspects of the film is the dynamic of the crew. The banter between Kotto and Stanton, the power play between Ash and Dallas, and the overall understated, naturalistic delivery of the dialogue. When the crew are together in the mess hall, talking about their bonuses and how the only good thing on the ship is the coffee, they feel like real people. Hell, they feel like people I know at my work. That makes the horror to come that much more potent - this is happening to people we know.

[Grouchy]

Halloween on Halloween last year was one of my worst film-going experiences ever: non-stop drunk cackling at the film's 'cheesiness' from frame one. Bleh.
Disgraceful. I also saw it on the big screen recently but my crowd was better than yours.

[ledfloyd]

For me, one of the greatest aspects of the film is the dynamic of the crew. The banter between Kotto and Stanton, the power play between Ash and Dallas, and the overall understated, naturalistic delivery of the dialogue. When the crew are together in the mess hall, talking about their bonuses and how the only good thing on the ship is the coffee, they feel like real people. Hell, they feel like people I know at my work. That makes the horror to come that much more potent - this is happening to people we know.
Yeah, I should have touched on this. There was too much time between when I rewatched it and when I finally sat down to write about it. It's interesting how they set up a class struggle between the mechanics and the guys upstairs that is never really followed through on. I guess if there's anything there it's that those differences disappear in light of an external threat.

[megladon8]

Oh, and even considering the sexual tones of the movie, I have never been in the camp that believed Lambert (Veronica Cartwright) was raped by the alien's spiky tail.

That's just dumb.

[megladon8]

Carpenter is not afraid to borrow the best bits from his predecessors. He borrows the first person p.o.v. shot from Peeping Tom, a dead-faced mask from The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, a super creepy moment of unexpected rising from Nosferatu and even his lead actress from the womb of Psycho star, Janet Leigh. However, unlike Hitchcock's treatment of the psychologically disturbed Norman Bates, Carpenter makes little to no effort in psychoanalyzing his killer. As Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence) notes at one point, he simply gave up trying to make sense of Michael Myers' violent behavior and eventually came to accept him as an unyielding malevolent force. When Myers opportunistically escapes from his psychiatric hospital, Loomis notes with horror that "The evil is gone!"

Over the course of the film, despite a brief unmasking, we will come to understand that Myers is something other than human. He is most often referred to as 'The Bogeyman'. In the film's final scenes, he endures more physical damage than any human could realistically withstand and survive. And yet he does. Why? I will offer the opinion that either instinctively or intellectually Carpenter has crafted a character that represents a suburban community's worst fears made flesh.

What you touch on here - the almost normality of the primal terror that Myers represents - is a big reason why Zombie's interpretation of Myers as a hulking brute never really worked for me. The presence of Myers as a completely normal seeming entity in the community (similar to initial impressions of Norman Bates in Hitchcock's film) makes him so much more terrifying. Myers could be anyone.



Many have read into Myers' slaughter of horny teenagers a kind of moral judgment against their perceived promiscuous behavior. However, it seems that Myers is more of an opportunist than a moralist. I prefer to think of the film as one that, like Poltergeist which followed it, successfully captures the primal human fears that remain, even when we attempt to surround ourselves with a sanitized, comfortable community. We know that our children grow into teenagers who want to experiment, take risks and awkwardly climb towards adulthood. A night like Halloween offers ample opportunity to play pranks and engage in mischief. However, there is also real danger in the world that is unavoidable, waiting to take down the unlucky. When the neighbor girl screams on your doorstep on Halloween night, do you take her seriously? Or do you draw the blinds, assuming that she is craving attention? Michael Myers' senseless murder of his sister, seen in the film's opening sequence, is the gloomy shadow that hangs over the community fifteen years later. It is a tale that is passed on over generations. It is the kind of tale that everyone knows, but which no one can scarcely believe.

Whether you intended to leave t out or not, I am glad you didn't bring up the theory that Myers was expressing some kind of sexual inadequacy/jealousy in his acts of violence - that the knife is replacing his penis, as he penetrates his victims.

It's a theory I've always seen as just about the definitive example of a "straw man argument" - it carries so little weight that, while perhaps interesting as an aside for discussion, cannot seriously be seen as the intention of the film.

I much prefer (and share) your view of Myers as the literal "bogeyman", the thing that parents and communities as a whole in this suburban areas fear the most. Evil living and moving among them unnoticed, ready and able to strike those unlucky enough to cross its path at the wrong time. That no matter the precautions you take, this person is going to strike and you could be their prey, for the simple mistake of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.



Unlike many other films that have followed in its wake, Halloween is surprisingly low on visible blood and gore. While it is possible that this was simply due to budgetary constraints, Carpenter more than makes up for it with thoughtful, oft-times surprising choices: a horrifying face gradually illuminated, the rickety protection of closet doors, one unfortunate victim unable to slump in death because he has been stuck unceremoniously to the wall, even an unexpected moment of humor when Myers approaches his next victim in an absurd disguise. Carpenter's film hits hard and lingers in the brain because it successfully captures fear at a primal level. Like the film's theme, there is nary a wasted note, each calculated to hit hard, hit quickly and leave an indelible mark.

Jen and I have commented several times on how the body count and overall violence is actually quite low when compared to other films of its ilk (even ones out around the same time). But it had so much more lasting effect than most any others.

My strongest memory of this film is from my first viewing - a friend's birthday party (I'm thinking we were about 12 at the time). We rented and watched this in his living room, which had a patio door out to his backyard.

At one point when Myers' mask is prominently displayed on the screen, it reflected at the perfect height and size on the patio door to look like Myers was standing outside on the porch, peering in at us watching his movie.

It scared the bejeesus out of all of us. It was great.

[Spun Lepton]

All right, I will watch my movie this week and review it. Been a bit crazy moving and unpacking, but I think things are calming down enough for me to tackle this. I wanted to give it my full attention, since the first time I saw it, I was only lukewarm toward it. And I've been meaning to re-watch it, since there's so much general praise for it.

[MadMan]

I was lucky that my crowd was good at the showing of Halloween I went to. Its also good for them because if anyone had been laughing or acting up I would have used the ushers to get them kicked out.

[Gittes]

I saw Halloween for the first time several months ago. What stayed with me, among several other things, is a moment of unexpected beauty from early in the film (see below). Nancy Kyes and Jamie Lee Curtis are driving around, near dusk, and the film suddenly takes on a splendid, magic hour patina. This persists throughout the scene. It's a small opening in Halloween's aesthetic where a very specific kind of visual splendour is allowed. I've thought back to this several times.

If I recall correctly, this takes place during yet another scene where the representation of teenage life is given a surprising amount of consideration and some credible shadings. A lot of this is to Debra Hill's credit, I believe, as she handled the parts of the script that explicitly deal with teenage dialogue and concerns, whereas Carpenter wrote the more sinister and horrific portions.

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2917/14423117060_91396ac049_o.jpg
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5526/14586745286_2fdf979be3_o.jpg

[Pop Trash]

Yeah, Halloween is a really beautifully made film.

[megladon8]

All right, I will watch my movie this week and review it. Been a bit crazy moving and unpacking, but I think things are calming down enough for me to tackle this. I wanted to give it my full attention, since the first time I saw it, I was only lukewarm toward it. And I've been meaning to re-watch it, since there's so much general praise for it.


To be totally honest, I thought the general consensus on your title was more or less "meh".

I thought I was the odd-one-out in my "it's fucking brilliant" view.

Really looking forward to reading your thoughts :)

[Morris Schæffer]

Haven't gotten around seeing mine yet. Apologies. I'll try to squeeze it in this week for sure.

[megladon8]

No worries, Morris :)

We had a burst of a few reviews in just a day or two, so it's cool to have a little down period and let things stretch.

[Thirdmango]

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d185/thirdmango/Match-Cut/princessmononoke_zps3b3d2700.j pg

Princess Mononoke (Hayao Miyazaki 1997)

The last time I saw this movie was sometime in the late 90s. I have since seen all but one Miyazaki film and always felt this was the weakest of the bunch. But then a friend of mine had a theory for me and it was all about me at the time. At the time the only anime I really knew was Dragonball Z, so then I saw this and didn't really get it. Seeing it now a second time I definitely agree with that. It's much better then I gave it credit for oh so long ago.

The first thing that really hit me was I immediately recognized Joe Hisaishi's music. His music is so beautiful and really is my favorite part of the movie, it's scored so beautifully.

The story is great but what's really good about it is how there is a lot of characters who all believe their doing right and in a way a lot of them are. The villain is also righteous in saving all the women from the brothels, the dogs are valiant but want to kill all humans. The main character especially is pure good and yet has an arm that will kill everyone and everything. It's such a good look at the idea of good vs. evil and showing there isn't really a total right or wrong and that it's much more complex.

The animation is great. This movie is just great. It's still not my favorite Miyazaki but I'm more excited to revisit it again and again. I'm glad this was the film I was given since as I stated earlier I've not seen this in around 15 years.

[Irish]

The story is great but what's really good about it is how there is a lot of characters who all believe their doing right and in a way a lot of them are. The villain is also righteous in saving all the women from the brothels, the dogs are valiant but want to kill all humans. The main character especially is pure good and yet has an arm that will kill everyone and everything. It's such a good look at the idea of good vs. evil and showing there isn't really a total right or wrong and that it's much more complex.

This is what makes it such a grand film. The world isn't black and white, good guys versus bad. Nobody is really "evil"; they're just doing what makes the most sense from their point of view.

Mononoke is worlds more sophisticated than just about any American animated feature I can think of. Or hell, more sophisticated than most American features, period.

As an added bonus, the whole thing ties neatly into Japanese culture & religion (Shintoism, etc).

[megladon8]

So great, Thirdmango - I am really happy a re-watch made you appreciate it more :)

The score is truly wonderful. I actually have the theme song on my iPhone...


http://youtu.be/6y85Er8-5yk

This is really the first anime I ever saw - it was about 1999/2000. I had a friend named James (still a good friend) who recommended this to me, me being someone who wasn't into "Dragonball Z" or "Pokemon" (which were the fairly typical introductions to anime that most other kids around our age were in to).

I loved it so much that I bought an anime magazine, and he and I biked to the local comic shop (and anime DVD retailer!), and we each bought a copy of Akira on DVD, and I bought Angel Sanctuary (based solely on the cool advertisement for it in the magazine I owned).

This has remained a favorite, and I personally consider it just about the best animated film ever made.

[Irish]

http://i.imgur.com/4CY2P6g.jpg?1

Le Samouraï (1967)
Directed by Jean-Pierre Melville

My favorite scene in Melville's Le Samourai occurs right at the start. Our hero sits in traffic in a stolen coupe. Opposite him, a pretty young woman in a roadster catches a glance. He's handsome, almost too good looking, Grecian marble cast in flesh and fashionably dressed. She cranes her neck forward to get a better look. He notices and turns his head too. His upper lip begins a slow curl and he looks away, his face cold, impassive. He drives on without a second glance. It's a five second sequence with no dialogue and it tells us everything we need to know about this man. I love it.

Le Samourai is a movie about smart, careful people doing an ugly business in an ugly world. Our guy Jef works murder for hire. We're not sure of him yet, but he makes pains to set up an alibi before the job, passing by a private card game and dropping in on his girl. There's a modernity here that American movies lack; Jef doesn't flinch when his girl casually tells him that another man is coming to visit her at 2am. "Then I'll stay until 1:45," he says. We come back to this idea of him, again again. Efficient and impersonal.

Later, we see more of that efficiency when it comes time for the job. Jef arrives at a crowded nightclub, complete with band and brass bar and torch singer. He moves to the offices in the back. A man behind a desk says, "Who are you?" It doesn't matter. "What do you want?" "To kill you," and then he does. The exit creates a problem. That torch sees him, sees his face up close, as he leaves. Loose ends.

The cops come around, pick up the singer, and grab Jef in a drag at the card game. At the station, they're face to face. She can put him away with a simple identification. One "oui" in response to a question from a disinterested detective and Jef is done. But she doesn't do it. They look at each other full in the face and she says, "That's not the man." He thanks her, unsure of the reprieve. Why did she lie? We don't know, but it's something to consider, something to worry over. Jef's bosses worry, too. They acknowledge that he's the best in the game, but now he is a liability. The cops sniff around, find nothing, but it's too much. The situation is out of hand, they decide. He must be dealt with in short order. No mess, no sentimentality.

Melville paints his movie in solid, drab colors and arranges his sets in pristine lines. The characters appear picture perfect, as if they stepped off a Parisian runway. Inside, they're frail, corrupted, ill at ease. Everyone is careful and smart, and Melville builds a great deal out of tension in the ways Jef must struggle to stay ahead of the curve. We root for him not because of who he is-- we know next to nothing about him. And not because of what he does-- he's a cold blooded killer. We root for him because the deck is stacked and everyone else here is just a little bit uglier, a little bit worse. Our good man Le Commissaire tries to strong arm Jef's girl into breaking Jef's alibi. His employers send a clean up man around Jef's way to pay him off and put him down. They have no center, no code. Jef doesn't kill innocents and he doesn't kill off the clock. That's enough to become a hero in this kind of world.

This is also a movie about detail and process. It uses soundless sequences and a methodical approach to fill out the details of its world, and those details inform on the characters and action. When we see the police captain, Le Commisaire, rounding up the usual suspects, taking statements, grilling and cross examining witnesses, we see the plodding work that goes into a routine investigation. We see the sweat and the trouble. So when later, this same man exclaims that something smells fishy, that he's sure one woman is lying, another is telling the truth, and Jef is guilty, we believe him. He's not another Hollywood hero given grace by the script, another cop with a theory no one believes in. We've seen the work, and the man knows his business. He's earned it, the short truth of meaning what he says when he says it.

In another wordless sequence, two cops break into Jef's apartment. They want to wire the place in the hopes of tripping him up. This too, is about process. Melville's camera patiently shows us every detail. One cop carefully places a bug, covers it with curtain, and turns to leave. He stops, reconsiders, and goes back to reposition it. Another one tosses a chest of drawers, starting at the top, taking his time, being sure he won't miss anything. We, too, never miss a moment and it's in this kind of methodical, maniacal detail that Le Samourai excels.

Pieces of this movie remind me something of Raymond Chandler, in novels like "Farewell My Lovely," and James M Cain, in his "Serenade." They were pulp masters who could burn five hundred words describing a guy making a pot of coffee and a couple of eggs and turn that minutiae into a page turner, fascinating and tense and weighty with expectation. As readers, we enjoy the respite as we wait for that other shoe. We know it's coming and so does the hero. Something violent and ugly and cataclysmic.

Le Samourai is like that, an old American pulp fiction of the best tradition, shot through the eyes of a Frenchman. A chic movie about shabby people.

[Morris Schæffer]

No worries, Morris :)

We had a burst of a few reviews in just a day or two, so it's cool to have a little down period and let things stretch.

Seen it! Will present thoughts in the following days! It's Germany-Argentina right now.

[Ezee E]

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y288/bialasishaha/D1FE5F36-CB64-4164-BC47-BAFEA3DAB9F1_zps4i3zzrpw.jpg

ONE OF MEG'S TOP TWENTY - DAWN OF THE DEAD (George Romero, 1978):
Or what I consider the most overrated zombie movie of all time.

Standing with a 95% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and noted as one of the best horror films of all time by Roger Ebert, Dawn of the Dead dumbfounds me at its standing as one of the top zombie movies of all time. It is especially noted for its satire and and themes which I find as deep as the end of a Full House episode. I wanted to find David Emge's famous line that seems to be the centrepiece of the theme of the movie, instead, I'll provide his line:


Some kind of instinct. Memory of what they used to do. This was an important place in their lives.

Blegh.

Next, I'll provide one of the final scenes of the movie.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oExv5jq8yg

I find it edited out to almost a boring degree, and Foree's portion is borderline comedic with the choice of gun, considerations of suicide, and the realization that he can take on twenty of those slow things at once.

It's a slow, slow movie.

MEG, speak to this! I'll agree to disagree!

What I can respect is that it led to much stronger zombie movies in the 2000s with the revival of Dawn of the Dead, Shaun of the Dead, and the Walking Dead series of all its formats. The revision doesn't try to have a strong theme, but it does try to keep you in high suspense of its characters. It's more action-packed than horror almost, and Snyder pulls it off. The opening scene could still be the best scene in the zombie genre.

So without Romero's version, who knows if any of the 2000's revived zombie genre could even exist.

And for that, I can respect it.

[Dukefrukem]

I'd like to believe that I loved Dawn of the Dead before the whole zombie craze exploded- but I can't prove it so I'll just arrogantly think that I did. I do remember feverishly trying to find all three Romero's movies on VHS that didn't sell for $70 at that Mall movie store as a kid, I forget the name of the store.

But definitely not the most overrated zombie movie of all time E. That would be DAY of the Dead.

[megladon8]

Woo! Two great reviews! And super excited to see the first all-out negative review!

I am just heading out the door, but I will post comments and questions on the individual reviews when I get back later today.

[MadMan]

I love Le Samourai. Also boo Ezee and Duke. Dawn of the Dead 1978 is a classic and I really like Day of the Dead. I did really dig the 2004 Dawn of the Dead however.

Princess Mononoke is one of those movies I'm ashamed to admit I haven't seen yet.

[Spun Lepton]

Complication. I sat down last night to watch my movie on the assumption it would be available on Amazon, but it's not. I may be able to find it on RedBox. I'll keep looking Meg.

[megladon8]

My favorite scene in Melville's Le Samourai occurs right at the start. Our hero sits in traffic in a stolen coupe. Opposite him, a pretty young woman in a roadster catches a glance. He's handsome, almost too good looking, Grecian marble cast in flesh and fashionably dressed. She cranes her neck forward to get a better look. He notices and turns his head too. His upper lip begins a slow curl and he looks away, his face cold, impassive. He drives on without a second glance. It's a five second sequence with no dialogue and it tells us everything we need to know about this man. I love it.

Yes! The entire beginning to the film is just wonderful, and sets the tone so well.

I saw the film (which, by the way, was recommended to me by KF and I am eternally grateful to him for putting this one in my sights) back in 2007, and at the time I was hosting a Jazz Show on the radio.

I ended up playing this tune (which you'll recognize from the beginning of the film) a few times on the show:


http://youtu.be/zTlevBYHzOs?list=PL1964A363352 14371



The cops come around, pick up the singer, and grab Jef in a drag at the card game. At the station, they're face to face. She can put him away with a simple identification. One "oui" in response to a question from a disinterested detective and Jef is done. But she doesn't do it. They look at each other full in the face and she says, "That's not the man." He thanks her, unsure of the reprieve. Why did she lie? We don't know, but it's something to consider, something to worry over. Jef's bosses worry, too. They acknowledge that he's the best in the game, but now he is a liability. The cops sniff around, find nothing, but it's too much. The situation is out of hand, they decide. He must be dealt with in short order. No mess, no sentimentality.

Did you love the motif of swinging doors in the police station scene?

Everything felt simultaneously more dynamic and more static with the doors constantly swinging back and forth as people enter and exit rooms and traverse the police station. It turns the location itself into a maze, a puzzle of sorts to be navigated.



Melville paints his movie in solid, drab colors and arranges his sets in pristine lines. The characters appear picture perfect, as if they stepped off a Parisian runway. Inside, they're frail, corrupted, ill at ease. Everyone is careful and smart, and Melville builds a great deal out of tension in the ways Jef must struggle to stay ahead of the curve. We root for him not because of who he is-- we know next to nothing about him. And not because of what he does-- he's a cold blooded killer. We root for him because the deck is stacked and everyone else here is just a little bit uglier, a little bit worse. Our good man Le Commissaire tries to strong arm Jef's girl into breaking Jef's alibi. His employers send a clean up man around Jef's way to pay him off and put him down. They have no center, no code. Jef doesn't kill innocents and he doesn't kill off the clock. That's enough to become a hero in this kind of world.

This is also a movie about detail and process. It uses soundless sequences and a methodical approach to fill out the details of its world, and those details inform on the characters and action. When we see the police captain, Le Commisaire, rounding up the usual suspects, taking statements, grilling and cross examining witnesses, we see the plodding work that goes into a routine investigation. We see the sweat and the trouble. So when later, this same man exclaims that something smells fishy, that he's sure one woman is lying, another is telling the truth, and Jef is guilty, we believe him. He's not another Hollywood hero given grace by the script, another cop with a theory no one believes in. We've seen the work, and the man knows his business. He's earned it, the short truth of meaning what he says when he says it.

I love your description of the characters. Melville took archetypes and made them interesting and (hate to use this word again) dynamic.



Pieces of this movie remind me something of Raymond Chandler, in novels like "Farewell My Lovely," and James M Cain, in his "Serenade." They were pulp masters who could burn five hundred words describing a guy making a pot of coffee and a couple of eggs and turn that minutiae into a page turner, fascinating and tense and weighty with expectation. As readers, we enjoy the respite as we wait for that other shoe. We know it's coming and so does the hero. Something violent and ugly and cataclysmic.

Le Samourai is like that, an old American pulp fiction of the best tradition, shot through the eyes of a Frenchman. A chic movie about shabby people.


It's truly one of the "coolest" movies I've ever seen.

Melville uses angles and images that look simple - clean lines and angles, crisp lighting and colours - but it's all actually so complex, with so much thought put into every single movement of the camera.

I love these types of simple, hard boiled crime fiction. Stripped to the bones, giving us a noir-ish tale with seemingly only one possible outcome, everything so very deliberate and efficient. So much personality evoked from something that, at once, feels as finely tuned as a machine and as humanly flawed as its characters.

[Winston*]

Will get to my entry, meg, but just not in the right frame of mind currently to re-watch and write about this film.

[megladon8]

Will get to my entry, meg, but just not in the right frame of mind currently to re-watch and write about this film.


No problem-o! I think the thread is going really well so far :)

[megladon8]

Standing with a 95% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and noted as one of the best horror films of all time by Roger Ebert, Dawn of the Dead dumbfounds me at its standing as one of the top zombie movies of all time. It is especially noted for its satire and and themes which I find as deep as the end of a Full House episode.

Yes, admittedly Romero has no real sense of subtlety at all. However I personally find the satire apparent in the film to be one of its lesser points. Like an Argento flick, it's much more style over substance. There's some wonderful cinematography on display here, and its time capsule of late-70s style and decor is wonderful.

It's a film stuck in its time, in all the best ways - like From Russia With Love.



I find it edited out to almost a boring degree, and Foree's portion is borderline comedic with the choice of gun, considerations of suicide, and the realization that he can take on twenty of those slow things at once.

It's a slow, slow movie.

MEG, speak to this! I'll agree to disagree!

Again, I can't really refute what you're saying here, but can only say that I enjoy that aspect of it.

It's a slower paced movie for sure, but I've never been one to hold a film's speed against it.

I much prefer the pace of this one over Snyder's remake - despite, as you say, the opening of the '04 film being some of the best zombie stuff ever put on film.

The two films are entirely different beasts anyways, similar in title only. Romero's film shows how he had been influenced by the surge of Italian horror over the decade preceding it - bright colours, light on character but heavy on style, even employing Goblin to work the soundtrack. I have never found the film particularly frightening, but very effective in providing well-crafted entertainment despite corners having to be cut due to its budget (similar to Day of the Dead the final product is quite different from hat Romero had intended).



What I can respect is that it led to much stronger zombie movies in the 2000s with the revival of Dawn of the Dead, Shaun of the Dead, and the Walking Dead series of all its formats. The revision doesn't try to have a strong theme, but it does try to keep you in high suspense of its characters. It's more action-packed than horror almost, and Snyder pulls it off. The opening scene could still be the best scene in the zombie genre.

So without Romero's version, who knows if any of the 2000's revived zombie genre could even exist.

And for that, I can respect it.

So here's where I'll say "agree to disagree" because I find the 2000's output of zombie films unanimously inferior to the the 60s-80s "golden age" of the genre.

Running zombies provide, at most, a superficial sense of terror. They're faster so it ups the tension by upping the pace of everything. But the concept is still no more frightening - the dead coming back to life, feasting on the living. The only films in the "fast zombie" genre I have found successful at being frightening outside of just moving faster, were the 28 Days Later films. And in these, the fear comes from the chaos and isolation created through the writing and set work, not the mere fact that the infected move quickly.

I'm actually sick to death of zombies at this point, and it's entirely due to the "fast moving zombie" craze that has bombarded every facet of media and entertainment with these soulless creatures - film, video games, books, even music is now full of zombie-centric songs and albums.

They're churned out so fast and so often, most all of them with about as much thought put into them as their titular creatures could muster themselves.

Romero at least tried to do something interesting with this films. And in Dawn of the Dead I think he very much succeeded.

[Irish]

It's a film stuck in its time, in all the best ways - like From Russia With Love.

I enjoyed the entirety of your post, but this jumped out at me. Great line.

If we look at other media-- movies, television -- produced around the same time as Dawn, it's all slow as hell. Even with material that was more action oriented mass media (Starsky & Hutch, The Rockford Files), there are longer takes and less edits. This was stuff made before the advent of MTV & Simpson/Bruckheimer movies. Media today doesn't allow anyone to hold a steady shot for longer than ten seconds, much less allow for quiet moments.

That's a long winded way of saying I think you're absolutely right. Dawn is very much a film of its time. That doesn't mean it's bad. It means you can't go into it with the expectation that it'll be like modern stuff-- all racking shotguns, head shots, and shaky cam boom boom.

[megladon8]

I'm glad that you loved Le Samourai, Irish (at least, I took from your review that you thought it was pretty great :)).

I have yet to really explore much more of Melville's filmography. I have Bob le Flambeur but have yet to watch it.

And while it's not Melville, I'd also recommend Rififi as a great classic crime film, if you haven't seen it already.

[transmogrifier]

Melville is awesome. He's the director I had in mind when I made the "gritty crime drama" thread.

Anyway, I still haven't watched your movie. I need to be in a specific mindset for it, and hopefully this weekend will be it.

[MadMan]

Meg you would love Bob le Flambeuer. Also watch Le cercle Rouge.

[Morris Schæffer]

http://cache.20minutes.fr/img/photos/20mn/2013-10/2013-10-24/article_la_belle_et_la_bete_je an_cocteau.jpg

La belle et la bête (Cocteau, 1946)

This is one of Meg's runner-ups which is his suggestion to me. My thoughts took a long time coming, because I recently moved (and feel a bit restless, not settled in yet) and probably because the movie in question, this is fair to say, hasn't blown me away with the same force that it has Meg. The opening notes, from the director no less, politely asks us for a little "naïveté", a willingness to suspend our disbelief and believe in the enduring power of a sentence from our childhood: Once upon a time...

I think the movie worked for me, and I can see how audiences must have been raptured nearly 70 decades ago as well as today. The atmosphere is exceptionally strong, the visuals are moody and spooky, and I was particularly impressed by some of the visual trickery. Some of it, strangely enough, reminded me of Scorsese Hugo's and how Meliés was one of the pioneer of visual effects. There's a moment here when Belle "teleports" back to her own domicile and when she pops up she appears stuck on a wall as if she materialized out of thin air. That's pretty cool, and although hardly breathtaking today, it merits seeing such moments through the looking glass back to a time when that was a big deal.

In typical fairy tale tradition, several of the supporting characters are rather crudely portrayed, Belle's sisters and brother Ludovic didn't leave much of an impression and Avenant, the other role played by Jean Marais, didn't fare much better. Not bad at all, but rather moments to sit through, getting to the meatier stuff. The scenes with Belle and The Beast are the obvious highlight because of the aforementioned atmosphere, but also their verbal sparring which is always laced with a certain sorrow, an innate understanding that these two polar opposites couldn't be together. And yet, that she comes to care for the beast, stroke his fur, feed him water out of her hands, is proof of great compassion and "love" for the beast, this outcast who'd be given a wide berth by pretty much anyone, unless by those who want to kill him. That's a great message I felt which remains topical even today. It's that initial reticence on behalf of Belle and her eventual belief that someone should tender to this "monster", and that it might as well be her, that worked the best for me. It's a selfless act, and although she's also very much determined to return to her dying father, I think that Belle's compassion is genuine, heartfelt.

So in the end, a nice experiment to expand my horizon somewhat when it comes to movies. This 1946 version didn't quite lift me off my feet like the 1991 Disney version did although very old movies rarely do that to me because I'm always stuck in that nether region between trying to genuinely love and merely paying my respects to said movies.

This one fell in the middle so thanks!:)

[Morris Schæffer]

ONE OF MEG'S TOP TWENTY - DAWN OF THE DEAD (George Romero, 1978):
Or what I consider the most overrated zombie movie of all time.

Standing with a 95% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and noted as one of the best horror films of all time by Roger Ebert, Dawn of the Dead dumbfounds me at its standing as one of the top zombie movies of all time. It is especially noted for its satire and and themes which I find as deep as the end of a Full House episode. I wanted to find David Emge's famous line that seems to be the centrepiece of the theme of the movie, instead, I'll provide his line:



Blegh.

Next, I'll provide one of the final scenes of the movie.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oExv5jq8yg

I find it edited out to almost a boring degree, and Foree's portion is borderline comedic with the choice of gun, considerations of suicide, and the realization that he can take on twenty of those slow things at once.

It's a slow, slow movie.

MEG, speak to this! I'll agree to disagree!

What I can respect is that it led to much stronger zombie movies in the 2000s with the revival of Dawn of the Dead, Shaun of the Dead, and the Walking Dead series of all its formats. The revision doesn't try to have a strong theme, but it does try to keep you in high suspense of its characters. It's more action-packed than horror almost, and Snyder pulls it off. The opening scene could still be the best scene in the zombie genre.

So without Romero's version, who knows if any of the 2000's revived zombie genre could even exist.

And for that, I can respect it.

Spot-on for me your thoughts are, but I'm not even a lover of the 1968 original. My love for zombies began with the Resident Evil games and reached an all-time high with The Walking Dead TV show (Although season 4 gave me fatigue, it became repetitive).

[ledfloyd]

I really need to watch the Beauty and the Beast.

[DSNT]

I'm glad that you loved Le Samourai, Irish (at least, I took from your review that you thought it was pretty great :)).

I have yet to really explore much more of Melville's filmography. I have Bob le Flambeur but have yet to watch it.

And while it's not Melville, I'd also recommend Rififi as a great classic crime film, if you haven't seen it already.

You should try out his resistance films. Army of Shadows is one of my favorite films ever, and La silence de la mer is also good. YMMV with Leon Morin, Priest, but I loved it.

And yes, I highly recommend Dassin's Rififi to anyone who enjoys the Melville gangster movies.

[megladon8]

This is one of Meg's runner-ups which is his suggestion to me. My thoughts took a long time coming, because I recently moved (and feel a bit restless, not settled in yet) and probably because the movie in question, this is fair to say, hasn't blown me away with the same force that it has Meg. The opening notes, from the director no less, politely asks us for a little "naïveté", a willingness to suspend our disbelief and believe in the enduring power of a sentence from our childhood: Once upon a time...

I loved this opening! Like a live action Disney film, I thought it set the stage wonderfully for a lush fantasy film.

I know this will sound silly but I hope you catch my drift with what I'm saying - it's one of the most colourful black and white films I've ever seen. Even with it all in grey scale, it felt vibrant and rich with colour - like a Poweel & Pressburger production.



I think the movie worked for me, and I can see how audiences must have been raptured nearly 70 decades ago as well as today. The atmosphere is exceptionally strong, the visuals are moody and spooky, and I was particularly impressed by some of the visual trickery. Some of it, strangely enough, reminded me of Scorsese Hugo's and how Meliés was one of the pioneer of visual effects. There's a moment here when Belle "teleports" back to her own domicile and when she pops up she appears stuck on a wall as if she materialized out of thin air. That's pretty cool, and although hardly breathtaking today, it merits seeing such moments through the looking glass back to a time when that was a big deal.

This is how I saw it as well, though I have to say that I'm still wow'd by the effects they accomplished here (and I still don't know how they did a lot of them - that teleportation you mentioned, in particular).



In typical fairy tale tradition, several of the supporting characters are rather crudely portrayed, Belle's sisters and brother Ludovic didn't leave much of an impression and Avenant, the other role played by Jean Marais, didn't fare much better. Not bad at all, but rather moments to sit through, getting to the meatier stuff. The scenes with Belle and The Beast are the obvious highlight because of the aforementioned atmosphere, but also their verbal sparring which is always laced with a certain sorrow, an innate understanding that these two polar opposites couldn't be together. And yet, that she comes to care for the beast, stroke his fur, feed him water out of her hands, is proof of great compassion and "love" for the beast, this outcast who'd be given a wide berth by pretty much anyone, unless by those who want to kill him. That's a great message I felt which remains topical even today. It's that initial reticence on behalf of Belle and her eventual belief that someone should tender to this "monster", and that it might as well be her, that worked the best for me. It's a selfless act, and although she's also very much determined to return to her dying father, I think that Belle's compassion is genuine, heartfelt.

I found that the Beast was portrayed as much more of a jerk in this adaptation than in the Disney film (my favorite Disney film, by the way, and missed the list by a HAIR).

In the Disney film Beast was gruff and temperamental, but wasn't so as petty and childish as portrayed here. Each interpretation of the character worked in their film's favor - in the Disney film, making him too confrontational and unlikable would have lost a lot of the audience. Belle was taming more of a literal beast in the Disney film, whereas in this one, his beastly exterior pales in comparison to his spoiled, bratty personality. It made Belle's acceptance of him that much more daunting.


So in the end, a nice experiment to expand my horizon somewhat when it comes to movies. This 1946 version didn't quite lift me off my feet like the 1991 Disney version did although very old movies rarely do that to me because I'm always stuck in that nether region between trying to genuinely love and merely paying my respects to said movies.

This one fell in the middle so thanks!:)

I'm glad you got some enjoyment out of it (and of course wish you had LOVED it like I do...but that you liked it at all is great!).

I just love the story itself.

Thanks so much for participating!

[Morris Schæffer]

You're welcome. Once I'm all set up with my home theater - bought new speakers, still looking for an amp - i'm gonna rewatch beauty and the beast 1991. It's supposed to be one helluva blu-ray!

[transmogrifier]

I don't really like silent films.

No, that's not quite right. I don't really appreciate silent films.

I could lie to you and say that I have tried my hardest to understand the conventions underpinning the form, that I've spent a lot of time watching silent classics in the hope of achieving a breakthrough. But I haven't. I've watched a few silent films, of course, but never really enjoyed the exaggerated acting style, or the oppressive score, or the limitations of the form.

Sometimes I think I should remedy this, find a list of top-notch silents and plow through them, in a hope that sheer volume will grind down my resistance. But then I get side-tracked into lists like "The Top 10 Overlooked Film's of the 70s" and I just think "Why expend all that effort, when the cinematic universe is so vast, and I can explore those areas I'm more likely to enjoy?"

______________________________ _

I've never experience The Phantom of the Opera in any of its guises (book, film, musical). I knew that it was about some guy in a mask under the opera house, and that's about it. I had assumed that he was misunderstood, a gentle romantic ostracized over his appearance, which may have been the result of a tragic accident. So, it was a pleasant surprise to find that, at least in Rupert Julian's 1925 version of the story, he is a bit of a psycho and not a cliched "misunderstood monster." It was also illuminating to finally experience first-hand Lon Chaney's iconic performance, which has seeped into many of the nooks and crevices of popular culture that it seems as I was witnessing the birth of not just a cinematic icon, but the very idea itself, that a piece of popular entertainment can have resonance beyond the scope of the movie that contains it.

______________________________ __

Apart from so many pop culture references being explained to me, and the excellent cross-cutting during the chandelier scene, my favorite parts of the film were the very, very, very brief moments when the oppressive score shut up and silence reigned. Yes, silent films need to be quieter. I find the random change from one piece of music to another, irrespective of what is going on on-screen jarring, but the upshot is that occasionally, there is blessed silence, and the film seems a little more alive and approachable. But then 3 seconds later, the music is off again, and the moment in lost.


______________________________ ___

Overall, I liked it. Some points of the story seem bizarre to me in terms of how the characters react (e.g., someone goes missing, how they disappear is witnessed by another person, and then they don't bother to tell anyone about it for some reason, even when the story turns up in the newspaper?) and the geography of the finale is somewhat confusing to me (trapdoors everywhere!), but the set design is striking, and Chaney commands the screen. I would never have watched this movie if it wasn't for this thread, and I'm glad I did.

The Phantom of the Opera (Rupert Julian, 1925)

http://www.hollywoodgothique.com/wp-content/uploads/phantom-opera-set.JPG

[MadMan]

I really like the 1925 Phantom. Also I do struggle too with silent movies at times. Its hard when you've grown up with sound in movies. Then again I love black and white despite countless movies being made these days in color.

[Peng]

I only watch the recommended ones so I don't think I've ever been disillusioned from silent movies, at least so far. That said, comedies work much better than dramas because physical jokes and pratfalls are timeless, and mesh so well with the "exaggerated acting style" that you have mentioned.

[Morris Schæffer]

Beauty and the beast is not a silent movie!! :lol:

[MadMan]

We were talking about the 1925 Phantom of the Opera :P

[megladon8]

I don't really like silent films.

That's sad. I have Jen to thank for introducing me to them. I adore them. I could make a few more recc's if your interested?


I could lie to you and say that I have tried my hardest to understand the conventions underpinning the form, that I've spent a lot of time watching silent classics in the hope of achieving a breakthrough. But I haven't. I've watched a few silent films, of course, but never really enjoyed the exaggerated acting style, or the oppressive score, or the limitations of the form.

The exaggerated acting style certainly takes time to get used to (I guess "acquired taste" could be a term used for the appreciation I have for it). I just tend to remind myself that it's a holdover from stage acting, where actors had to EMOTE!!!!!! because there weren't close ups.

However I've found some genuinely emotionally affecting scenes in many silent films with over-acting. Check out The Man Who Laughs or He Who Gets Slapped for some heart-wrenching stuff.



Sometimes I think I should remedy this, find a list of top-notch silents and plow through them, in a hope that sheer volume will grind down my resistance. But then I get side-tracked into lists like "The Top 10 Overlooked Film's of the 70s" and I just think "Why expend all that effort, when the cinematic universe is so vast, and I can explore those areas I'm more likely to enjoy?"

I agree! I'm not huge into French New Wave, myself (exceptions, of course, but on the whole not my cup of tea).



I've never experience The Phantom of the Opera in any of its guises (book, film, musical). I knew that it was about some guy in a mask under the opera house, and that's about it. I had assumed that he was misunderstood, a gentle romantic ostracized over his appearance, which may have been the result of a tragic accident. So, it was a pleasant surprise to find that, at least in Rupert Julian's 1925 version of the story, he is a bit of a psycho and not a cliched "misunderstood monster." It was also illuminating to finally experience first-hand Lon Chaney's iconic performance, which has seeped into many of the nooks and crevices of popular culture that it seems as I was witnessing the birth of not just a cinematic icon, but the very idea itself, that a piece of popular entertainment can have resonance beyond the scope of the movie that contains it.

Cheesy as it is, I loved the musical as well (not the film with Gerard Butler, but the actual stage musical).

I have not read the book, but in the musical it's much more of a (reciprocated) love story, not a monster movie.

This '25 silent is a precursor to the Universal monster movies and should be viewed as such.

Did you know that Chaney did his makeup for this (and most of his films) himself? I find that pretty impressive - not only being a pioneer in acting but in the make-up and prosthetic field as well.



Apart from so many pop culture references being explained to me, and the excellent cross-cutting during the chandelier scene, my favorite parts of the film were the very, very, very brief moments when the oppressive score shut up and silence reigned. Yes, silent films need to be quieter. I find the random change from one piece of music to another, irrespective of what is going on on-screen jarring, but the upshot is that occasionally, there is blessed silence, and the film seems a little more alive and approachable. But then 3 seconds later, the music is off again, and the moment in lost.

Did you happen to watch the version with the colourized ballroom scene? It's very cool to see the Phantom show up as the Red Death in full, blood-soaked red colour.



Overall, I liked it. Some points of the story seem bizarre to me in terms of how the characters react (e.g., someone goes missing, how they disappear is witnessed by another person, and then they don't bother to tell anyone about it for some reason, even when the story turns up in the newspaper?) and the geography of the finale is somewhat confusing to me (trapdoors everywhere!), but the set design is striking, and Chaney commands the screen. I would never have watched this movie if it wasn't for this thread, and I'm glad I did.

I'm so happy you got some enjoyment out of it despite these movies generally not being your cup of tea!

It was one of the first I saw that really "wow'd" me and opened my eyes to the possibilities in the silent style - from there I went to more Chaney work, Chaplin, then Lloyd.

Thanks so much for participating! Again, glad you had some fun with it :)

[transmogrifier]

I saw the 106 minute version, with the Red Death scene tinted somewhat red.

[Spun Lepton]

MEG!!! It's like the world conspires against me to see the freakin' movie. It's available on RedBox instant, but the RedBox website wouldn't allow me to put my payment information in. It kept thowing me a vague error. So, out of frustration I said to hell with it and watched a movie on Netflix.

I'll try again in a couple of days. Hopefully RedBox will have its shit sorted out.

In other news, Alan Partridge is pretty damn funny.

[megladon8]

Ha! No worries, man. Get to it whenever :)

It does seem like they're conspiring against you, though!

[Dukefrukem]

http://images1.fanpop.com/images/photos/2200000/Superman-movie-remakes-2208342-600-257.jpg

Superman: The Movie; not to be confused with the slew of other Superman projects in 1978. The best analogy when comparing the casting of Christopher Reeves as Superman would be comparing the cast of Robert Downy Jr as Iron Man: The charm, the marbled mouthed Clark Kent persona and of course that hair curl, ultimately perfect.

Superman: The Movie does everything a superhero movie should do; fantastic opening scene establishing the origin of our main character, great build up classic 'superman saves pedestrians and rescues cats out of trees' to establish his relationship with the city. The introduction of our villain, Lex Luthor trying to cripple the United States in the most absurd and least plausible ways imaginable. And setting up future sequels in the franchise.

Part of the reason why Superhero movies are so beloved is not just for the fantasy or escape from our mundane lives, but it's how these characters represent other things in our lives- like religion. Superman as Jesus? That's the more obvious analogy. Jor-El sending his only son, Kal-El, to Earth much like the story of God Sending his only son to Earth... for the good of mankind. Clark's adopted parents, are unable to conceive, much like the Virgin Mary. Or Jor-El banishing General Zod from Krypton, much like God banishing Satan out of Heaven. Zod later unleashes hell on Earth.

But the more fascinating character traits are the hope and justice symbol Superman stands for, making statements, "I never lie" and intentionally ignoring the orders from his father Jor-El, (never to alter human history) by time travelling to save Lois's life in the Earthquake. Superman instead takes his Earth father's advice giving Clark (and Superman) a strong set or morals and encourage Clark to use his powers for the betterment of humanity.

This very well may remain the best Superman film we will ever see.

[megladon8]

Another great entry from Duke (and, surprise surprise, the only superhero film on the list!)




Superman: The Movie; not to be confused with the slew of other Superman projects in 1978. The best analogy when comparing the casting of Christopher Reeves as Superman would be comparing the cast of Robert Downy Jr as Iron Man: The charm, the marbled mouthed Clark Kent persona and of course that hair curl, ultimately perfect.

I couldn't agree more, Duke. Not only the best superhero casting of all time, but just one of the best cast roles in all if film history. Reeve's look, posture, demeanour, dialogue delivery - the guy was Superman.

I found it really interesting reading about Reeve's prep and approach to the role. He's an enormous Cary Grant fan, and played Kent as Grant in films like Bringing Up Baby. Watch that film sometime and keep this in mind - it's uncanny.

Also, if you have a copy of the special edition of Superman II, there's a great alternate take of the scene where Lois discovers Kent is Superman. Instead of the hotel room fireplace scene, they used a screen test wherein Lois shoots Clark.

Reeve's instant transformation in voice and posture in this scene is freaking incredible, and gave me even more respect for his nuanced performance.


Superman: The Movie does everything a superhero movie should do; fantastic opening scene establishing the origin of our main character, great build up classic 'superman saves pedestrians and rescues cats out of trees' to establish his relationship with the city. The introduction of our villain, Lex Luthor trying to cripple the United States in the most absurd and least plausible ways imaginable. And setting up future sequels in the franchise.

That opening Krypton stuff is great, eh?

I think it was D_Davis who once said the imagery and music was like something by Kubrick, and I can't think of a better way to put it.

John Williams' "The Planet Krypton" is still one of my favourite pieces of film music.


Part of the reason why Superhero movies are so beloved is not just for the fantasy or escape from our mundane lives, but it's how these characters represent other things in our lives- like religion. Superman as Jesus? That's the more obvious analogy. Jor-El sending his only son, Kal-El, to Earth much like the story of God Sending his only son to Earth... for the good of mankind. Clark's adopted parents, are unable to conceive, much like the Virgin Mary. Or Jor-El banishing General Zod from Krypton, much like God banishing Satan out of Heaven. Zod later unleashes hell on Earth.

While I respect and see the religious allegory in the story, that's never really been the way I have actively looked at the Superman lore.

I know I've mentioned the importance of Superman in my life many time before so I won't go over it all again - suffice to say his presence as a symbol of hope and resilience does not require religious backing to be potent and timeless.


But the more fascinating character traits are the hope and justice symbol Superman stands for, making statements, "I never lie" and intentionally ignoring the orders from his father Jor-El, (never to alter human history) by time travelling to save Lois's life in the Earthquake. Superman instead takes his Earth father's advice giving Clark (and Superman) a strong set or morals and encourage Clark to use his powers for the betterment of humanity.

This very well may remain the best Superman film we will ever see.

While I did feel that some of the strongest parts of Snyder's 2013 film were the scenes with Jor El and the young Clark stuff, nothing in the while film came close to the speech by Brando-El about Kal's destiny on Earth.

"They can be a great people, Kal El, if they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. It is for this reason above all - their capacity for good - that I have sent them you. My only son."

I seriously get goosebumps just typing it out.

I'm glad you love this one, Duke. Dated effects and a slightly eye-rolly conclusion don't spoil what is, to me, pretty much the textbook definition of "the magic of the movies".

Thanks so much for your entry!

PS - I still think you should use this list format to do a top 20 video games thread! I'd love to participate :)

[Dukefrukem]

I forgot to even mention my favorite part of the movie-where Clark secretly grabs the bullet from the mugger on the street when he's with Lois.

It would be difficult to do this with video games, but I'd be open to it. I'm not sure how it would work exactly.

[megladon8]

I have two runner up titles still available.

Anyone interested?

[TGM]

I have two runner up titles still available.

Anyone interested?

Okay, I'll take one.

[megladon8]

Awesome! Just fired you a PM with your title.

[ledfloyd]

I think Superman 78 is still the best live-action superhero movie (best animated is obvs The Incredibles).

The Avengers is the only real competition I can think of.

[Spinal]

This thread has worked out really well. Way to go, meg. This was a cool idea.

[Dukefrukem]

I think Superman 78 is still the best live-action superhero movie (best animated is obvs The Incredibles).

The Avengers is the only real competition I can think of.

I don't want to start this... oh maybe I do.. but Spider-man 2.

[megladon8]

This thread has worked out really well. Way to go, meg. This was a cool idea.


Thanks very much! I had a lot of fun with it - I'm glad others are having some, too :)

[Neclord]

Oh yeah, I have to write one of these. How much time do I have left?

[megladon8]

Oh yeah, I have to write one of these. How much time do I have left?


There's no time limit, I'm not that much of a jerk.

Just whenever you have time and feel like it.

[ledfloyd]

I don't want to start this... oh maybe I do.. but Spider-man 2.
Briefly considered including that with the Avengers. Wouldn't argue with that.

[Sycophant]

This is really cool, and I'd take that other runner up if it's still up fo' grabbers.

[megladon8]

This is really cool, and I'd take that other runner up if it's still up fo' grabbers.

Hey awesome! Sending your title now...

[Kurosawa Fan]

FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE (1965)

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e4/mike3245/600full-for-a-few-dollars-more-screenshot_zpsa07b3c53.jpg

I've always sort of sat on the fence in regards to Clint Eastwood and his westerns. I can see their appeal, and at times I can settle in and enjoy great western atmosphere paired with Clint's stoicism. Still, more often than not I walk away without any lasting impressions and forget them quickly. There are a few exceptions that I find more memorable, most notably High Plains Drifter and The Outlaw Josey Wales, but for the most part they are the exact type of experience that make me wish there was a "Meh" option in our yearly consensus threads. Unfortunately, For a Few Dollars More was not one of the exceptions.

The film succeeds mightily when Clint and Lee Van Cleef are on screen together. Their playfulness is without doubt the highlight of the film. Their showdown in the street at night, stomping on boots and shooting hats, is such fun I was left wishing the entire film had maintained that level of joie de vivre, sort of like a buddy bounty hunter film. The film just didn't embrace this spirit enough, instead thrusting into the narrative the farcical, cartoonish villain Indio and his gang of morose men. Gian Maria Volonté is well up to the task of chewing scenery and embracing the absurdity of his character as the fearless (actually, very fearful) leader Indio, though he is nearly outdone by the inexplicably humpbacked Klaus Kinski. These outlaws gnash their teeth, laugh maniacally, and do just about anything else to stress how mentally imbalanced they are at all times.

All this might seem to be exactly what I was asking for when I wanted more frivolity and fun. Not so, because in the case of these mustache-twirling baddie bandits, they are meant to be taken extremely seriously. I know this because the film makes sure to tell me so on many occasions, most often by way of flashbacks to a rape/murder/suicide involving Indio, as well as a familial twist that caps off the proceedings. Herein lies my great, inescapable issue with this film, which should be blatantly obvious at this point: I could not take these villains seriously. Hard as I might try, when Indio & Co. Inc. was taking up time on my screen, I was busy trying not to roll my eyes.

At this point it might seem like I hated the film. This isn't true. Clint as Clint is always enjoyable. Lee Van Cleef as friend rather than foe is a fun change of pace. The scheming they did together, their playful banter, the atmosphere and scenery, the score, the action sequences, all work in the film's favor and made the film ultimately worth seeing, especially since it was the only film in the trilogy I had yet to see. Still, in the end, if I still had a signature, this one would have two stars and be titled For a Few Dollars Meh.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Again, apologies to Meg for taking this long. Unfortunately, life with kids and moving to a new house got in the way.

[Skitch]

I haven't forgotten mine either. Kids, man....

[Irish]

Again, apologies to Meg for taking this long. Unfortunately, life with kids and moving to a new house got in the way.

Pfft! Where are your priorities? Spinal found time to write a review and buy a couple of pumas.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Pfft! Where are your priorities? Spinal found time to write a review and buy a couple of pumas.

Psh. Pumas are an advantage during tasks like this!

[Dukefrukem]

Meg removed his avatar. I think that's his way of saying he's not coming back.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Meg removed his avatar. I think that's his way of saying he's not coming back.

I'm sure he'll be back. I think he's just taking a breather, which everyone needs from time to time.

[Skitch]

Did something happen?

[Kurosawa Fan]

Did something happen?

Nothing that I'm aware of, but I really shouldn't speak for Meg at all.

[MadMan]

For A Few Dollars More is great. Not as good though as The Good, The Bad and The Ugly or Leone's Once Upon a Time films of course.

[megladon8]

Sorry for the delayed response!! Took a breather from MC and completely forgot to reply to this when I got back...mighty rude of me. My apologies!



I've always sort of sat on the fence in regards to Clint Eastwood and his westerns. I can see their appeal, and at times I can settle in and enjoy great western atmosphere paired with Clint's stoicism. Still, more often than not I walk away without any lasting impressions and forget them quickly. There are a few exceptions that I find more memorable, most notably High Plains Drifter and The Outlaw Josey Wales, but for the most part they are the exact type of experience that make me wish there was a "Meh" option in our yearly consensus threads. Unfortunately, For a Few Dollars More was not one of the exceptions.

How odd - I actually thought The Outlaw Josey Wales was pretty weak, and High Plains Drifter (while good) was hardly one of his best.

Surely you've seen Unforgiven? Did you like that one? I have often thought of that one as being the spiritual successor to the Man With No Name trilogy. That same character, now older and quieter, living with all he had done.



The film succeeds mightily when Clint and Lee Van Cleef are on screen together. Their playfulness is without doubt the highlight of the film. Their showdown in the street at night, stomping on boots and shooting hats, is such fun I was left wishing the entire film had maintained that level of joie de vivre, sort of like a buddy bounty hunter film. The film just didn't embrace this spirit enough, instead thrusting into the narrative the farcical, cartoonish villain Indio and his gang of morose men. Gian Maria Volonté is well up to the task of chewing scenery and embracing the absurdity of his character as the fearless (actually, very fearful) leader Indio, though he is nearly outdone by the inexplicably humpbacked Klaus Kinski. These outlaws gnash their teeth, laugh maniacally, and do just about anything else to stress how mentally imbalanced they are at all times.

Couldn't agree more with what you said at the start of the paragraph, with Eastwood and Van Cleef having wonderful chemistry together. And that hat shooting scene is a hoot. A show stealer for sure.

As for the inexplicably humpbacked Kinski - I still remember Jen seeing this for the first time, and when Kinski gets a match lit off his hump, Jen actually went "ohhh shiiiiit!". It's a scene I'll always giggle at because of her remark there.



All this might seem to be exactly what I was asking for when I wanted more frivolity and fun. Not so, because in the case of these mustache-twirling baddie bandits, they are meant to be taken extremely seriously. I know this because the film makes sure to tell me so on many occasions, most often by way of flashbacks to a rape/murder/suicide involving Indio, as well as a familial twist that caps off the proceedings. Herein lies my great, inescapable issue with this film, which should be blatantly obvious at this point: I could not take these villains seriously. Hard as I might try, when Indio & Co. Inc. was taking up time on my screen, I was busy trying not to roll my eyes.

I've often wondered how much of the cartoonish aspect of the villians in these movies is due to admittedly cheesy English dubbing. With few-to-none of the supporting characters actually speaking English, and less than stellar dubbing capabilities back in the day, I think it adds a factor of silliness that may not be there in the original filming.

It's very similar to the Italian horrors of the 70s and 80s, where the cast came from half a dozen different countries and everyone spoke their lines in their native tongue. Even the English-speaking actors would end up being dubbed (often by themselves, as is the case with Clint in these movies). It can be jarring at times.

That all being said, I like the almost comic book supervillainy of characters like Indio and Van Cleef's Angel Eyes in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, and I feel that a little levity was intentional. The juxtaposition if the villains' mustache-twirlingly evil deeds with their manic behaviour is a perfect balance to Clint Eastwood's too-cool-for-school Man With No Name.



At this point it might seem like I hated the film. This isn't true. Clint as Clint is always enjoyable. Lee Van Cleef as friend rather than foe is a fun change of pace. The scheming they did together, their playful banter, the atmosphere and scenery, the score, the action sequences, all work in the film's favor and made the film ultimately worth seeing, especially since it was the only film in the trilogy I had yet to see. Still, in the end, if I still had a signature, this one would have two stars and be titled For a Few Dollars Meh.

Thanks so much for watching it and participating, and for sharing your honest thoughts!

Have you seen many Spaghetti Westerns, and if so are you a fan/non-fan of the subgenre in general?

[Kurosawa Fan]

Sorry for the delayed response!! Took a breather from MC and completely forgot to reply to this when I got back...mighty rude of me. My apologies!

No apology necessary, especially after how long it took me to write the review.


How odd - I actually thought The Outlaw Josey Wales was pretty weak, and High Plains Drifter (while good) was hardly one of his best.

Surely you've seen Unforgiven? Did you like that one? I have often thought of that one as being the spiritual successor to the Man With No Name trilogy. That same character, now older and quieter, living with all he had done.

I like Unforgiven quite a bit, but like those other two mentioned a bit more. The Outlaw Josey Wales works well for me because I'm quite fond of Lone Watie. He brings the perfect amount of levity. I also like Clint's motivation, and the fact that things don't always go according to plan for him, especially that final standoff. As for High Plains Drifter, I just love the relentless ugliness of the film. It's such an amoral revenge tale, and it embraces that with zeal.


I've often wondered how much of the cartoonish aspect of the villians in these movies is due to admittedly cheesy English dubbing. With few-to-none of the supporting characters actually speaking English, and less than stellar dubbing capabilities back in the day, I think it adds a factor of silliness that may not be there in the original filming.

It's very similar to the Italian horrors of the 70s and 80s, where the cast came from half a dozen different countries and everyone spoke their lines in their native tongue. Even the English-speaking actors would end up being dubbed (often by themselves, as is the case with Clint in these movies). It can be jarring at times.

That all being said, I like the almost comic book supervillainy of characters like Indio and Van Cleef's Angel Eyes in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, and I feel that a little levity was intentional. The juxtaposition if the villains' mustache-twirlingly evil deeds with their manic behaviour is a perfect balance to Clint Eastwood's too-cool-for-school Man With No Name.

It's possible, though it didn't bother me much with GB&U or with Fistful. I just think Indio was way too out there, as though he was supposed to exist as some sort of comic relief while also remaining a menacing threat. It just didn't work.


Thanks so much for watching it and participating, and for sharing your honest thoughts!

Have you seen many Spaghetti Westerns, and if so are you a fan/non-fan of the subgenre in general?

It was a pleasure. I commend you on such a great idea for a thread. I'm glad I decided to participate.

As for Spaghetti Westerns, I've seen most, and while I wouldn't call myself a "fan" per say, I love a few of them individually, with Once Upon a Time in the West being my favorite off the top of my head.

[transmogrifier]

The Outlaw Josey Wales is great.

[Spinal]

Bumped for guilting purposes.

[Spun Lepton]

I've been blocked on my review for weeks now.

Eh, I've been blocked in all aspects of my writing.

Sorry, meg. I didn't want to half-ass it.

[Spun Lepton]

American Psycho
(Harron; 2000)
http://i.imgur.com/pskDvoZ.gif


I first saw American Psycho during its release in the theater. I wasn't overly impressed, but I had much different expectations while going in. I wasn't expecting the comedy. No, I had not (and have not) read the book. I had also missed a fair bit of the subtlety.

The film is about Patrick Bateman, a Wall Street CEO who takes special delight in murdering people during his spare time. He's perfectly groomed, perfectly buff, and he blends in with his peers perfectly. He blends in so well, Paul Allen repeatedly mistakes Bateman for some other guy and Bateman kills him with an axe. This is, after all, perfect cover for a serial killer.

Harron and company don't waste much time getting to the gruesome business. It moves at a decent pace, the acting is mostly solid with a handful of clunky lines. It does seem like a chunk of story is missing between the second and third acts. Bateman's madness goes from fairly controlled to out of control in the blink of an eye in the last twenty minutes. It's a bit jarring, but not a deal-breaker.

Much of the film flip-flops between Bateman's bland, piggish corporate life and his murder life. At first he's careful, but the madness begins to dribble out. Bateman begins to tempt fate. He almost kills a street walker and then invites her back just days later. He runs down apartment building hallways with blazing chainsaws, screaming like the maniac he is. It finally comes to a head, but nobody bats an eye. At the end, Bateman becomes the architect of his own nightmare. Driven mad by his need to kill, desperate for somebody to catch him, but insulated from capture by blending in too well.

7/10

[MadMan]

I love American Psycho. At some point I should read the book.

[megladon8]

First off, Spun, my apologies for not replying to this sooner. Don't know if you ever check out the "Bugs..." thread, but I have only been able to access MC on my phone for over a week. I like to reply point-by-point to the posts in this thread, which is very tedious on a phone.

So, without further ado...




I first saw American Psycho during its release in the theater. I wasn't overly impressed, but I had much different expectations while going in. I wasn't expecting the comedy. No, I had not (and have not) read the book. I had also missed a fair bit of the subtlety.

It's most definitely one that took a couple of viewings for me to "get", as well. Due to two things - it was very much marketed as a horror film, so I went in expecting a slasher; and I was only 14 when I saw it for the first time. Didn't really get a lot of it until a few years later. I think it was around 2007 that I became totally enamored with it, watching it a good 5 or 6 times in that one year.



The film is about Patrick Bateman, a Wall Street CEO who takes special delight in murdering people during his spare time. He's perfectly groomed, perfectly buff, and he blends in with his peers perfectly. He blends in so well, Paul Allen repeatedly mistakes Bateman for some other guy and Bateman kills him with an axe. This is, after all, perfect cover for a serial killer.

This leads to, I think, one of the most common misconceptions about the film and its ending. I'll touch on this more further down, but I believe you and I feel the same way about the conclusion and what happened (or didn't).



Harron and company don't waste much time getting to the gruesome business. It moves at a decent pace, the acting is mostly solid with a handful of clunky lines. It does seem like a chunk of story is missing between the second and third acts. Bateman's madness goes from fairly controlled to out of control in the blink of an eye in the last twenty minutes. It's a bit jarring, but not a deal-breaker.

While I believe most of the film and Bateman's crimes did indeed occur, I think the "breaking point" (where his acts began to be tainted by his own fantasies) was the ATM reading "Feed me a stray cat". From that point until Bateman's manic call to his lawyer, we can't trust what Bateman is showing us. The simple fact is, there is no way he could have killed police officers and blown up a car without being caught.



Much of the film flip-flops between Bateman's bland, piggish corporate life and his murder life. At first he's careful, but the madness begins to dribble out. Bateman begins to tempt fate. He almost kills a street walker and then invites her back just days later. He runs down apartment building hallways with blazing chainsaws, screaming like the maniac he is. It finally comes to a head, but nobody bats an eye. At the end, Bateman becomes the architect of his own nightmare. Driven mad by his need to kill, desperate for somebody to catch him, but insulated from capture by blending in too well.

And here is the aforementioned misconception I've been reading about since our days on RT. Many people took Bateman's final words as meaning that none of this happened, but I never thought that at all.

It all happened (aside from the action movie-esque final rampage I referenced earlier). All the murders of prostitutes, the murder of Paul Allen, the homeless man and his dog, etc. These weren't figments of a demented imagination, these things actually happened. Bateman is a killer.

And this is where the film's greatest commentary on the '80s Wall Street culture exists - they are all "American Psychos". All of the characters in Bateman's firm are disgusting, self-obsessed sociopaths, "manufactured" so identically that not even their friends and family can tell them apart. Hell, not even Willem Dafoe's detective can tell them apart in his investigation. If anything, Bateman may very well be the most sane of the bunch because he sees the insanity inside himself, and the complete non-existence they are all leading. His punishment for taking part in this lifestyle is to be doomed to it forever, unable to escape it even to a life in prison. His crimes will forever be confused with those of another just like him.

It's a brilliantly hilarious social critique.

Thanks for participating in the thread, Spun. I'm glad you found a little more enjoyment with your second viewing :)

Now I have to go. I have a meeting with Cliff Huxtable.

[Spun Lepton]

It all happened (aside from the action movie-esque final rampage I referenced earlier). All the murders of prostitutes, the murder of Paul Allen, the homeless man and his dog, etc. These weren't figments of a demented imagination, these things actually happened. Bateman is a killer.

I was aware of the whole "it was all in his head" take on the movie, so when I started it, I decided to approach everything as fact. As if the camera were telling the whole truth and nothing but. Taken this way, his final rampage is even funnier, as it highlights the futility behind his attempts to turn himself in. No matter how hard he tries, no matter what he does, he is trapped in a narcissist's nightmare.

[megladon8]

Just to call some folks out for not doing this yet (:)) here's a list of everyone who signed up to participate...

???? - baby doll
???? - Dead and Messed Up
Blade Runner - dreamdead (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5498-My-top-20-of-all-time-an-interactive-list!&p=517812&viewfull=1#post517812)
Superman ('78) - Dukefrukem (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5498-My-top-20-of-all-time-an-interactive-list!&p=520429&viewfull=1#post520429)
Dawn of the Dead ('78) - Ezee E (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5498-My-top-20-of-all-time-an-interactive-list!&p=519086&viewfull=1#post519086)
Donnie Darko - Gizmo (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5498-My-top-20-of-all-time-an-interactive-list!&p=517888&viewfull=1#post517888)
Le Samouraï - Irish (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5498-My-top-20-of-all-time-an-interactive-list!&p=519030&viewfull=1#post519030)
???? - Ivan Drago
For a Few Dollars More - Kurosawa Fan (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5498-My-top-20-of-all-time-an-interactive-list!&p=522781&viewfull=1#post522781)
Alien - ledfloyd (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5498-My-top-20-of-all-time-an-interactive-list!&p=518271&viewfull=1#post518271)
Night of the Living Dead ('68) - MadMan (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5498-My-top-20-of-all-time-an-interactive-list!&p=517918&viewfull=1#post517918)
???? - Mitty
???? - Neclord
???? - Pop Trash
???? - Skitch
Halloween ('78) - Spinal (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5498-My-top-20-of-all-time-an-interactive-list!&p=518310&viewfull=1#post518310)
American Psycho - Spun Lepton (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5498-My-top-20-of-all-time-an-interactive-list!&p=524472&viewfull=1#post524472)
Princess Mononoke - Thirdmango (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5498-My-top-20-of-all-time-an-interactive-list!&p=518946&viewfull=1#post518946)
The Phantom of the Opera ('25) - transmogrifier (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5498-My-top-20-of-all-time-an-interactive-list!&p=519711&viewfull=1#post519711)
???? - Winston*


Runners Up? Runner Ups?

Ed Wood - megladon8 (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5498-My-top-20-of-all-time-an-interactive-list!&p=517481&viewfull=1#post517481)
Beauty and the Beast ('46) - Morris Schæffer (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5498-My-top-20-of-all-time-an-interactive-list!&p=519526&viewfull=1#post519526)
???? - Peng
???? - Sycophant
???? - TGM

[Skitch]

Crap, I forgot! :D

[megladon8]

Just wondering - are folks not wanting / able to do these?

I would still like to post the rest of the list at some point. Just let me know if you don't want to do it, and I can either find another poster to take your entry, or I'll do it myself :)

[Neclord]

Whoops! I think a fresh and novel consideration of my entry was maybe a bit beyond my capabilities, feel free to give it to someone else.

[Skitch]

I havent liked anything Ive written for mine. I keep deleting and starting over. Im bad at writing reviews for good movies. :( I'll keep trying, but pass it on if someone wants it.