Iro's One Movie a Day Thread

[Iroquois]

You heard me.

Rules:

#1. For a movie to count towards a particular day, it must get watched between 12:00 a.m. and 11:59 p.m. on said day. If I stay up past midnight then watch a movie, it counts towards the next day.
#2. Anything that qualifies as a film is fair game. The criteria will usually involve cross-referencing it with other webiste (Wikipedia, IMDb, etc.) but I daresay most of these examples will be obvious. Examples include short films, made-for-TV movies, etc.
#3. I won't count any film that I see during an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000 because they generally get edited and (obviously) have the characters talking over them. Despite that...
#4. I am going to count instances of me watching a film with an audio commentary track playing. Chances are I'll have seen the film already (probably multiple times) so paying complete attention to the base audio won't be such a big deal. As long as the film gets watched, I figure it counts.
#5. Watching multiple films in the space of a single day won't count towards the "one film per day" requirement.
#6. Films I have watched for the first time will be highlighted in blue while films I am re-watching will be highlighted in red. Films with audio commentary will get highlighted in green.

Rating:

I give a base rating to all films, most of which is driven by subjective appreciation. A rough guide to what my base ratings mean:

5 - All-time favourite (or as close as any film is likely to get).
4.5 - Second-tier favourite, definitely excellent.
4 - All-around great film and highly recommended.
3.5 - Good film that's missing a certain something that makes a film great.
3 - Generally alright.
2.5 - Slightly more bad than good but still tolerable.
2 - Significantly flawed, but it has it moments.
1.5 - Generally boring. I don't like it at all, but I don't hate it either.
1 - All-around horrible, but doesn't inspire hatred the way a 0.5 does.
0.5 - No redeeming featuers whatsoever.

I may or may not do "camp ratings", as I have tended to do in my Movie Tab posts.

Expect the entries to start soon.

[Iroquois]

LIST OF FILMS SEEN:

#1 - Dead Poets Society (1/1)
#2 - The Naked Gun 33 1/3: The Final Insult (2/1)
#3 - Clueless (3/1)
#4 - A Christmas Story (4/1)
#5 - Italian Spiderman (4/1)
#6 - Billy Madison (5/1)
#7 - Happy Gilmore (5/1)
#8 - Electric Boogaloo: The Wild, Untold Story of Cannon Films! (6/1)
#9 - What We Do in the Shadows (7/1)
#10 - The Ward (8/1)
#11 - Cowboys and Aliens (8/1)
#12 - Punch-Drunk Love (9/1) REWATCH #1
#13 - Rambo: First Blood Part II (10/1)
#14 - The Water Diviner (10/1)
#15 - A Beautiful Mind (10/1)
#16 - JFK (11/1)
#17 - Death Wish (11/1) REWATCH #2
#18 - Blow Out (12/1)
#19 - Donnie Brasco (12/1)
#20 - The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (SWE) (12/1)
#21 - Me and Orson Welles (12/1)
#22 - Rambo III (13/1)
#23 - Blossoms and Blood (13/1)
#24 - Rambo (13/1)
#25 - Every Which Way But Loose (14/1)
#26 - Any Which Way You Can (14/1)
#27 - Holy Flying Circus (14/1)
#28 - Evil Dead II (14/1) REWATCH #3
#29 - Amores Perros (15/1)
#30 - Splendor in the Grass (15/1)
#31 - A Band Called Death (15/1)
#32 - Troll 2 (15/1) REWATCH #4
#33 - Saturday Night Fever (16/1)
#34 - The Adventures of Tintin (16/1)
#35 - The Secret in their Eyes (117/1)
#36 - The Song Remains the Same (17/1)
#37 - A Hard Day's Night (17/1)
#38 - Star Trek: The Motion Picture (17/1)
#39 - Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (18/1)
#40 - Amadeus (19/1)
#41 - Birdman (19/1)
#42 - Troll (20/1)
#43 - Quantum of Solace (21/1) REWATCH #5
#44 - The Bat (22/1)
#45 - Stay Hungry (23/1)
#46 - Shakespeare in Love (24/1)
#47 - The Bourne Supremacy (25/1)
#48 - The Bourne Ultimatum (25/1)
#49 - Two Hands (26/1) REWATCH #6
#50 - American Sniper (27/1)
#51 - Play Misty for Me (28/1)
#52 - Sin City: A Dame to Kill For (28/1)
#53 - Coffy (29/1)
#54 - Lemmy (29/1)
#55 - Ghostbusters (29/1) REWATCH #7
#56 - The King's Speech (30/1)
#57 - Ghostbusters II (30/1) REWATCH #8
#58 - Foxy Brown (30/1)
#59 - Mean Girls (30/1) REWATCH #9
#60 - Kill Bill Vol. 2 (31/1) REWATCH #10
#61 - City of God (31/1) REWATCH #11
#62 - The Blob (31/1)
#63 - Death Wish 3 (1/2)
#64 - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1/2)
#65 - Stalag 17 (2/2)
#66 - Blow (3/2)
#67 - The Rum Diary (3/2)
#68 - Predestination (4/2)
#69 - The Wind Rises (4/2)
#70 - 10 Things I Hate About You (4/2)
#71 - Million Dollar Baby (5/2)
#72 - Drunken Master II (6/2)
#73 - Annie Hall (6/2) REWATCH #12
#74 - My Left Foot (6/2)
#75 - The English Patient (7/2)
#76 - Kramer vs. Kramer (7/2)
#77 - Gandhi (7/2)
#78 - Prizzi's Honor (8/2)
#79 - Lolita (9/2)
#80 - The Grapes of Wrath (9/2)
#81 - Life is Beautiful (10/2)
#82 - The Yakuza (10/2)
#83 - Unbroken (11/2)
#84 - Ordinary People (11/2)
#85 - Death Rides a Horse (12/2)
#86 - West Side Story (12/2)
#87 - The Ghost and Mrs. Muir (13/2)
#88 - The Asphalt Jungle (13/2)
#89 - Mildred Pierce (13/2)
#90 - Oblivion (13/2)
#91 - Nightcrawler (14/2)
#92 - The French Connection (14/2) REWATCH #13
#93 - Mission: Impossible (15/2) REWATCH #14
#94 - Gone Baby Gone (15/2)
#95 - The Way We Were (16/2)
#96 - Oliver! (16/2)
#97 - To Catch a Thief (17/2)
#98 - The Theory of Everything (17/2)
#99 - Still Alice (17/2)
#100 - Michael Clayton (17/2)
#101 - The Imitation Game (18/2)
#102 - Spartacus (19/2)
#103 - The Miracle Worker (20/2)
#104 - The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith (20/2)
#105 - Gone with the Wind (21/2)
#106 - Hawking (22/2)
#107 - Infernal Affairs (23/2) REWATCH #15
#108 - The Departed (24/2) REWATCH #16
#109 - The Usual Suspects (24/2) REWATCH #17
#110 - New York, New York (24/2)
#111 - Whiplash (25/2)
#112 - Driving Miss Daisy (26/2)
#113 - The Babadook (27/2)
#114 - Witness (28/2)
#115 - Turkey Shoot (1/3)
#116 - The Girl Who Played with Fire (SWE) (2/3)
#117 - In the Heat of the Night (2/3)
#118 - Selma (3/3)
#119 - Lincoln (3/3)
#120 - The Hunger (3/3)
#121 - Doctor Zhivago (4/3)
#122 - Big Fan (5/3)
#123 - The Bicycle Thieves (6/3)
#124 - Far from the Madding Crowd (7/3)
#125 - The Omen (8/3)
#126 - An American Werewolf in London (8/3) REWATCH #18
#127 - Misery (8/3)
#128 - Kingsman: The Secret Service (8/3)
#129 - Adam's Rib (9/3)
#130 - Sherlock, Jr. (9/3)
#131 - School of Rock (10/3)
#132 - The Help (11/3)
#133 - The Ipcress File (11/3)
#134 - Mystic River (11/3)
#135 - Black Hawk Down (12/3)
#136 - Quills (12/3)
#137 - Gladiator (13/3) REWATCH #19
#138 - Sense and Sensibility (13/3)
#139 - The Craft (14/3)
#140 - The Naked Spur (14/3)
#141 - Black Hawk Down (15/3) REWATCH #20
#142 - Zoolander (15/3)
#143 - Hannah and her Sisters (16/3)
#144 - Logan's Run (17/3)
#145 - Edge of Tomorrow (17/3)
#146 - The Zero Theorem (18/3)
#147 - Patton (18/3)
#148 - Signs (18/3)
#149 - Fruitvale Station (19/3)
#150 - Prisoners (20/3)
#151 - Inherent Vice (21/3)
#152 - Midnight in Paris (22/3)
#153 - In the Mood for Love (23/3)
#154 - Big Hero 6 (24/3)
#155 - How to Train Your Dragon (24/3)
#156 - How to Train Your Dragon 2 (24/3)
#157 - Two Days, One Night (25/3)
#158 - Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (26/3)
#159 - Convoy (26/3)
#160 - Inception (26/3) REWATCH #21
#161 - Girl, Interrupted (27/3)
#162 - The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (USA) (27/3)
#163 - Fatal Attraction (28/3)
#164 - Double Team (28/3)
#165 - Roadgames (28/3)
#166 - The Reluctant Fundamentalist (29/3)
#167 - Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (29/3)
#168 - Knocked Up (29/3) REWATCH #22
#169 - X-Men: The Last Stand (30/3)
#170 - Jaws: The Revenge (30/3)
#171 - McLintock! (30/3)
#172 - The Vanishing (30/3)
#173 - Tusk (31/3)
#174 - John Wick (31/3)
#175 - Maps to the Stars (1/4)
#176 - Moulin Rouge! (2/4)
#177 - 3 Idiots (3/4)
#178 - The Game (3/4)
#179 - Snowtown (4/4)
#180 - The Adjustment Bureau (5/4)
#181 - 21 Jump Street (5/4)
#182 - Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (6/4)
#183 - Man of Steel (6/4)
#184 - Up (6/4) REWATCH #23
#185 - The Island (6/4)
#186 - 2010 (7/4)
#187 - The Day the Earth Stood Still (7/4)
#188 - X-Men Origins: Wolverine (7/4)
#189 - When Harry Met Sally... (7/4)
#190 - Fantastic Voyage (8/4)
#191 - RoboCop 3 (9/4)
#192 - Death Wish II (9/4)
#193 - Marathon Man (9/4)
#194 - RoboCop [2014] (9/4)
#195 - Waiting for Guffman (10/4)
#196 - The Sting (10/4)
#197 - The Killing (10/4)
#198 - Knights of Badassdom (10/4)
#199 - Wanted (11/4)
#200 - The Straight Story (11/4)
#201 - Cape Fear (11/4)
#202 - Tootsie (12/4)
#203 - Shine (12/4)
#204 - Bad Boys (13/4)
#205 - Metropolis [2002 version] (13/4)
#206 - All the President's Men (13/4)
#207 - Senna (14/4)
#208 - Star Trek: Nemesis (14/4) REWATCH #24
#209 - Armageddon (15/4)
#210 - Giant (15/4)
#211 - Bull Durham (15/4)
#212 - The Natural (15/4)
#213 - Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures (16/4)
#214 - Mean Girls 2 (17/4)
#215 - Charlie's Angels (17/4)
#216 - Disaster Movie (17/4)
#217 - Shane (17/4)
#218 - On the Town (18/4)
#219 - A Good Day to Die Hard (18/4)
#220 - Bad Day at Black Rock (18/4)
#221 - Out of Africa (19/4)
#222 - Housos vs. Authority (19/4)
#223 - The Spectacular Now (19/4)
#224 - Hannibal (20/4)
#225 - Red Dragon (21/4)
#226 - The Kid (21/4)
#227 - Planet of the Apes [2001] (21/4)
#228 - The Truman Show (22/4) REWATCH #25
#229 - Exit Through the Gift Shop (22/4)
#230 - Avengers: Age of Ultron (22/4)
#231 - Brief Encounter (22/4)
#232 - Platoon (23/4) REWATCH #26
#233 - Jesus Camp (23/4)
#234 - The Tree of Life (23/4) REWATCH #27
#235 - The Perfect Host (24/4)
#236 - All Quiet on the Western Front [1930] (24/4)
#237 - Room 237 (24/4)
#238 - Wristcutters: A Love Story (25/4)
#239 - Team America: World Police (26/4) REWATCH #28
#240 - Judgment at Nuremberg (26/4)
#241 - 22 Jump Street (26/4)
#242 - Daredevil (27/4)
#243 - The Cable Guy (27/4)
#244 - The Last Stand (28/4)
#245 - The Brothers Grimm (29/4)
#246 - Rain Man (29/4)
#247 - Hulk (29/4) REWATCH #29
#248 - Harry Brown (30/4)
#249 - Mrs. Miniver (30/4)
#250 - Airplane II: The Sequel (30/4)
#251 - The Dirty Dozen (1/5)
#252 - Manhattan (1/5) REWATCH #30
#253 - War Horse (1/5)
#254 - Love is a Many-Splendored Thing (1/5)
#255 - The Philadelphia Story (1/5)
#256 - Ninotchka (2/5)
#257 - The Bad and the Beautiful (2/5)
#258 - Man on Fire (2/5)
#259 - Bad Lieutenant (3/5)
#260 - The Grey (3/5)
#261 - Hot Rod (4/5)
#262 - Panic Room (4/5)
#263 - Sharknado 2: The Second One (4/5)
#264 - It's Such A Beautiful Day (5/5)
#265 - Rejected (6/5) REWATCH #31
#266 - Whiplash (6/5) REWATCH #32
#267 - For a Few Dollars More (6/5) REWATCH #33
#268 - Dressed to Kill (6/5)
#269 - Re-Animator (7/5) REWATCH #34
#270 - Mad Max 2 (7/5) REWATCH #35
#271 - The Petrified Forest (7/5)
#272 - Moonstruck (7/5)
#273 - Winter Light (7/5)
#274 - Natural Born Killers (8/5) REWATCH #36
#275 - Ghost (8/5)
#276 - Rango (8/5)
#277 - What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (9/5)
#278 - Coraline (9/5)
#279 - Nashville (9/5)
#280 - Family Plot (9/5)
#281 - A Passage to India (9/5)
#282 - Kelly's Heroes (10/5)
#283 - Rush (10/5)
#284 - Children of Men (10/5) REWATCH #37
#285 - Escape From New York (10/5) REWATCH #38
#286 - The Thing [1982] (10/5) REWATCH #39
#287 - Rise of the Planet of the Apes (11/5)
#288 - Two-Lane Blacktop (12/5)
#289 - Brazil (12/5) REWATCH #40
#290 - Pretty Woman (13/5)
#291 - Trance (13/5)
#292 - Seven Brides for Seven Brothers (13/5)
#293 - Mad Max: Fury Road (14/5)
#294 - Iron Sky (14/5)
#295 - Bride of Re-Animator (15/5)
#296 - Three Days of the Condor (15/5)
#297 - Young Adult (16/5)
#298 - The Maltese Falcon (16/5) REWATCH #41
#299 - Open Range (17/5)
#300 - 300: Rise of an Empire (17/5)
#301 - Secrets & Lies (17/5)
#302 - Born on the Fourth of July (18/5)
#303 - Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (19/5)
#304 - Starship Troopers (20/5) REWATCH #42
#305 - High Society (20/5)
#306 - Pan's Labyrinth (20/5) REWATCH #43
#307 - Vertigo (21/5) REWATCH #44
#308 - Planet of the Apes [1968] (21/5) REWATCH #45
#309 - Beasts of the Southern Wild (21/5)
#310 - Torn Curtain (21/5)
#311 - My Fair Lady (21/5)
#312 - The Immigrant (22/5)
#313 - Winter Sleep (22/5)
#314 - Underworld (23/5)
#315 - The Emperor's New Groove (23/5)
#316 - Suck Me Shakespeer (24/5)
#317 - The Gold Rush (25/5)
#318 - Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (26/5)
#319 - Lawless (27/5)
#320 - John Dies at the End (28/5)
#321 - Victor/Victoria (29/5)
#322 - Meet Me in St. Louis (29/5)
#323 - Sunset Blvd. (29/5) REWATCH #46
#324 - Woman of the Year (29/5)
#325 - Gunbuster (30/5)
#326 - Kung Fury (30/5)
#327 - The Face of Another (30/5)
#328 - Green Lantern (30/5)
#329 - The Lost World: Jurassic Park (30/5)
#330 - Superman Returns (31/5)
#331 - The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean (1/6)
#332 - Bronson (2/6)
#333 - Throne of Blood (3/6)
#334 - Jerry Maguire (4/6)
#335 - The Endless Summer (4/6)
#336 - Coogan's Bluff (4/6) REWATCH #47
#337 - Ride the High Country (4/6)
#338 - Margin Call (4/6)
#339 - The Hill (5/6)
#340 - Godzilla [1998] (5/6)
#341 - Village of the Damned (6/6)
#342 - Godzilla [2014] (6/6)
#343 - Jurassic Park III (6/6)
#344 - The Sky Crawlers (7/6)
#345 - Inland Empire (7/6)
#346 - The Incredible Hulk (7/6)
#347 - Now, Voyager (8/6)
#348 - Camille (8/6)
#349 - Six Figures Getting Sick (Six Times) (8/6)
#350 - Head with Hammer (8/6)
#351 - Pierre and Sonny Jim (8/6)
#352 - Premonitions Following An Evil Deed (8/6)
#353 - Intervalometer Experiments (8/6)
#354 - The Alphabet (8/6)
#355 - The 3 Rs (8/6)
#356 - Lost Highway (8/6) REWATCH #48
#357 - Seconds (9/6)
#358 - Ex Machina (10/6)
#359 - Bad Boys II (11/6)
#360 - xXx (11/6)
#361 - Soylent Green (12/6)
#362 - An American in Paris (12/6)
#363 - Rejected (13/6) REWATCH #49
#364 - Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders From Mars (13/6)
#365 - Across the Wide Missouri (13/6)
#366 - The Limits of Control (13/6)
#367 - The Wolverine (14/6)
#368 - Cobra (14/6)
#369 - The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (15/6)
#370 - The Terminal (15/6)
#371 - The Manchurian Candidate [1962] (16/6)
#372 - The Big Heat (16/6)
#373 - Being There (17/6)
#374 - Once Upon a Time in the West (18/6) REWATCH #50
#375 - Forbidden Planet (18/6)
#376 - Body of Lies (18/6)
#377 - The Americanization of Emily (19/6)
#378 - Yojimbo (19/6) REWATCH #51
#379 - Spawn (20/6)
#380 - Don't Hug Me I'm Scared (20/6)
#381 - Don't Hug Me I'm Scared 2: Time (20/6)
#382 - Don't Hug Me I'm Scared 3 (20/6)
#383 - Don't Hug Me I'm Scared 4 (20/6)
#384 - Stargate (20/6)
#385 - Roman Holiday (20/6)
#386 - Sabrina (21/6)
#387 - A Town Called Panic (22/6)
#388 - Two for the Road (23/6)
#389 - A Fistful of Dollars (23/6) REWATCH #52
#390 - if... (24/6)
#391 - The Silence of the Lambs (25/6) REWATCH #53
#392 - Guardians of the Galaxy (25/6) REWATCH #54
#393 - Red Beard (25/6)
#394 - Through a Glass Darkly (26/6)
#395 - Kony 2012 (26/6)
#396 - Harakiri (26/6)
#397 - Elysium (27/6)
#398 - Taken (27/6)
#399 - The Virgin Spring (27/6)
#400 - Mad Max: Fury Road (27/6) REWATCH #55
#401 - The Terminator (28/6) REWATCH #56
#402 - Red Heat (28/6)
#403 - Terminator 2: Judgment Day (28/6) REWATCH #57
#404 - Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (29/6) REWATCH #58
#405 - Showdown in Little Tokyo (29/6)
#406 - The Long Kiss Goodnight (30/6)
#407 - Terminator Salvation (1/7)
#408 - Terminator Genisys (1/7)
#409 - The Picture of Dorian Gray (2/7)
#410 - Premium Rush (2/7)
#411 - Kung Fury (3/7) REWATCH #59
#412 - A Fistful of Dynamite (3/7)
#413 - Wild Wild West (4/7) REWATCH #60
#414 - When Marnie Was There (4/7)
#415 - Eyes Wide Shut (4/7)
#416 - House (5/7)
#417 - Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles (5/7)
#418 - Prometheus (6/7) REWATCH #61
#419 - Sanjuro (6/7)
#420 - Friday (6/7) REWATCH #62
#421 - The Notebook (7/7)
#422 - The Last Airbender (7/7)
#423 - Black Dynamite (7/7) REWATCH #63
#424 - The Color Purple (8/7)
#425 - The African Queen (8/7)
#426 - Eden Lake (8/7)
#427 - Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (9/7)
#428 - A Day at the Races (10/7)
#429 - Female Prisoner 701: Scorpion (10/7)
#430 - Audition (10/7)
#431 - Margaret (11/7)
#432 - Creature from the Black Lagoon (11/7)
#433 - Anna Karenina [1935] (11/7)
#434 - Going My Way (12/7)
#435 - Taxi Driver (12/7) REWATCH #64
#436 - The Insider (13/7)
#437 - Avatar (14/7) REWATCH #65
#438 - Evolution (14/7) REWATCH #66
#439 - Shark Tale (14/7) REWATCH #67
#440 - Ida (14/7)
#441 - Don't Look Now (15/7) REWATCH #68
#442 - Lady Snowblood (15/7)
#443 - 42nd Street (15/7)
#444 - The Ring [USA] (16/7)
#445 - Cars (16/7)
#446 - Deadfall (17/7)
#447 - Jurassic World (17/7)
#448 - Only God Forgives (18/7)
#449 - Judge Dredd (18/7)
#450 - Love Story (19/7)
#451 - Akira (19/7) REWATCH #69
#452 - Ghost in the Shell (19/7) REWATCH #70
#453 - Lucy (19/7)
#454 - THX 1138 (20/7)
#455 - Blue Steel (20/7)
#456 - The Shop Around the Corner (21/7)
#457 - Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (22/7) REWATCH #71
#458 - Blue Jasmine (22/7)
#459 - Battle Royale (22/7) REWATCH #72
#460 - Akira (22/7) REWATCH #73
#461 - Pixels [2010] (23/7)
#462 - The Caine Mutiny (23/7)
#463 - The Defiant Ones (23/7)
#464 - Match Point (24/7)
#465 - Wag the Dog (24/7)
#466 - Frenzy (24/7)
#467 - Valhalla Rising (25/7)
#468 - Onibaba (26/7)
#469 - Battle Royale II: Requiem (26/7)
#470 - Killing Them Softly (27/7)
#471 - Lava (28/7)
#472 - Inside Out (28/7)
#473 - Chappie (28/7)
#474 - Jupiter Ascending (28/7)
#475 - It Follows (28/7)
#476 - Kingsman: The Secret Service (29/7) REWATCH #74
#477 - Mission: Impossible III (30/7)
#478 - Death Race 2000 (30/7)
#479 - Mission: Impossible II (30/7) REWATCH #75
#480 - Tomorrow, When the War Began (31/7)
#481 - Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation (1/8)
#482 - Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid (1/8)
#483 - Funeral Parade of Roses (2/8)
#484 - The Fault in our Stars (2/8) REWATCH #76
#485 - The Princess Bride (2/8) REWATCH #77
#486 - Resident Evil: Apocalypse (3/8)
#487 - G.I. Jane (3/8)
#488 - Hell Comes to Frogtown (3/8)
#489 - They Live (4/8) REWATCH #78
#490 - Boyz n the Hood (4/8)
#491 - Big Trouble in Little China (4/8) REWATCH #79
#492 - Angel Face (4/8)
#493 - Sunshine (5/8) REWATCH #80
#494 - Hana-bi (5/8) REWATCH #81
#495 - Outrage (5/8)
#496 - Blackhat (6/8)
#497 - Interstellar (6/8) REWATCH #82
#498 - A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night (7/8)
#499 - Visitor Q (7/8)
#500 - Raiders of the Lost Ark (8/8) REWATCH #83
#501 - Resident Evil: Extinction (8/8)
#502 - Catwoman (8/8)
#503 - The Hunt for Red October (9/8)
#504 - 28 Days Later... (10/8) REWATCH #84
#505 - Kurt & Courtney (10/8)
#506 - Cobain: Montage of Heck (11/8)
#507 - Maggie (12/8)
#508 - A Most Violent Year (12/8)
#509 - Black Swan (12/8) REWATCH #85
#510 - Ant-Man (13/8)
#511 - Catch Me If You Can (13/8) REWATCH #86
#512 - Fantastic Four [2015] (14/8)
#513 - Stoker (14/8)
#514 - Spring Breakers (14/8)
#515 - A Fish Called Wanda (15/8)
#516 - Shampoo (15/8)
#517 - The Way of the Dragon (16/8)
#518 - The Last Dragon (16/8)
#519 - Dead Leaves (16/8)
#520 - Woman in the Dunes (16/8)
#521 - The Dead Zone (16/8)
#522 - Gangster No. 1 (17/8)
#523 - Fist of Fury (18/8) REWATCH #87
#524 - Black Robe (18/8)
#525 - Constantine (19/8)
#526 - It's Such a Beautiful Day (19/8) REWATCH #88
#527 - Adaptation. (19/8) REWATCH #89
#528 - Her (20/8) REWATCH #90
#529 - G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (20/8)
#530 - Cure (21/8)
#531 - Pretty in Pink (21/8)
#532 - Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief (22/8)
#533 - The Big Boss (22/8)
#534 - Universal Soldier (22/8)
#535 - Story of Ricky (23/8)
#536 - The Others (24/8)
#537 - The Prestige (24/8) REWATCH #91
#538 - Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (24/8) REWATCH #92
#539 - Juice (24/8)
#540 - Story of Ricky (25/8) REWATCH #92
#541 - Spider-Man 3 (25/8)
#542 - Romper Stomper (26/8) REWATCH #93
#543 - Lantana (26/8) REWATCH #94
#544 - Game of Death (26/8)
#545 - I Am A Fugitive From A Chain Gang (27/8)
#546 - Death Wish V: The Face of Death (28/8)
#547 - Candy (29/8)
#548 - House (29/8) REWATCH #95
#549 - Braindead (30/8) REWATCH #96
#550 - Godzilla [1954] (30/8)
#551 - The Warriors (31/8) REWATCH #97
#552 - Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence (31/8)
#553 - The Last Seduction (1/9)
#554 - Run Ronnie Run (2/9)
#555 - Disciples of the 36th Chamber (3/9)
#556 - Enter the Void (4/9)
#557 - Incident at Loch Ness (5/9)
#558 - Zack and Miri Make a Porno (6/9) REWATCH #98
#559 - Obvious Child (6/9)
#560 - Lost in Translation (6/9) REWATCH #99
#561 - Birdemic 2: The Resurrection (7/9)
#562 - The Guest (8/9)
#563 - Slow West (9/9)
#564 - Top Five (9/9)
#565 - The Elephant Man (9/9) REWATCH #100
#566 - Tangled (10/9)
#567 - Father of the Bride (10/9)
#568 - Tender Mercies (11/9)
#569 - The Broadway Melody (11/9)
#570 - Footlight Parade (12/9)
#571 - Stagecoach (12/9)
#572 - My Darling Clementine (12/9)
#573 - The Great Train Robbery (13/9)
#574 - The Story of the Kelly Gang (13/9)
#575 - The Invaders (13/9)
#576 - The Proposition (13/9) REWATCH #101
#577 - Django Unchained (14/9) REWATCH #102
#578 - Django (14/9)
#579 - There Will Be Blood (15/9) REWATCH #103
#580 - My Brilliant Career (15/9)
#581 - Grand Hotel (16/9)
#582 - The Kid with the Golden Arm (17/9)
#583 - Bowfinger (18/9)
#584 - Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (18/9) REWATCH #104
#585 - The Wild Bunch (18/9) REWATCH #105
#586 - Stardust (19/9)
#587 - The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (19/9) REWATCH #106
#588 - Taken 2 (19/9)
#589 - Moon (20/9) REWATCH #107
#590 - The Tracker (20/9)
#591 - The Happening (21/9)
#592 - Superbad (21/9) REWATCH #108
#593 - Taken 3 (22/9)
#594 - Birdman (23/9) REWATCH #109
#595 - The Man From U.N.C.L.E. (23/9)
#596 - The Quiet Man (24/9)
#597 - Wyrmwood (25/9)
#598 - The Homesman (25/9)
#599 - Mad Max 2 (25/9) REWATCH #110
#600 - The Avenging Eagle (26/9)
#601 - The Searchers (27/9) REWATCH #111
#602 - The Decline of Western Civilisation (27/9)
#603 - Sicario (28/9)
#604 - Garden State (29/9)
#605 - Short Term 12 (29/9)
#606 - Pitch Black (30/9)
#607 - Memories of Murder (30/9)
#608 - McCabe and Mrs. Miller (30/9) REWATCH #112
#609 - Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives (30/9)
#610 - The Martian (1/10)
#611 - Yojimbo (2/10) REWATCH #113
#612 - A Fistful of Dollars (2/10) REWATCH #114
#613 - The Avengers [1999] (3/10)
#614 - Rio Bravo (3/10) REWATCH #115
#615 - Apache (3/10)
#616 - Human Traffic (4/10) REWATCH #116
#617 - The Counselor (4/10)
#618 - Enemy (4/10)
#619 - Universal Soldier: Regeneration (5/10)
#620 - Universal Soldier: Day of Reckoning (5/10)
#621 - The Long Riders (5/10)
#622 - Good Morning, Vietnam (6/10)
#623 - The Man From Nowhere (6/10)
#624 - Macbeth [2015] (6/10)
#625 - World War Z (7/10)
#626 - Once Upon a Time in the West (7/10) REWATCH #117
#627 - Upstream Color (7/10)
#628 - The Devil's Rejects (8/10)
#629 - Beginners (9/10)
#630 - For a Few Dollars More (9/10) REWATCH #118
#631 - Legend [1985] (9/10)
#632 - Highlander: The Final Dimension (10/10)
#633 - Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (10/10) REWATCH #119
#634 - Red River (10/10) REWATCH #120
#635 - Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (10/10) REWATCH #121
#636 - Pineapple Express (11/10) REWATCH #122
#637 - Lockout (11/10)
#638 - Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (11/10) REWATCH #123
#639 - Black Mass (11/10)
#640 - Scream (12/10) REWATCH #124
#641 - Man of Tai Chi (12/10)
#642 - Breaker Morant (12/10)
#643 - The Secret World of Arrietty (13/10)
#644 - Baraka (13/10)
#645 - The Big Country (14/10)
#646 - The Chronicles of Riddick (15/10)
#647 - Cabin Fever (16/10)
#648 - The Last House on the Left [2009] (17/10)
#649 - Johnny Guitar (17/10)
#650 - Modern Times (17/10)
#651 - Star Wars (18/10) REPEAT #125
#652 - Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (18/10) REPEAT #126
#653 - Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (18/10) REPEAT #127
#654 - Riddick (19/10)
#655 - Highlander: The Source (20/10)
#656 - Back to the Future (21/10) REWATCH #128
#657 - Back to the Future Part II (21/10) REWATCH #129
#658 - The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (21/10) REWATCH #130
#659 - A.I. Artificial Intelligence (22/10)
#660 - At the Circus (23/10)
#661 - Seven Samurai (23/10) REWATCH #131
#662 - Warm Bodies (24/10)
#663 - A Few Good Men (24/10)
#664 - Sugar Hill (25/10)
#665 - Go West (26/10)
#666 - Bram Stoker's Dracula (26/10)
#667 - Primal Fear (26/10)
#668 - Cube (27/10) REWATCH #132
#669 - Invasion of the Body Snatchers [1978] (27/10} REWATCH #133
#670 - Incendies (27/10)
#671 - Batman Begins (28/10) REWATCH #134
#672 - The Dark Knight (28/10) REWATCH #135
#673 - The Dark Knight Rises (28/10) REWATCH #136
#674 - Return to the 36th Chamber (29/10)
#675 - Dead Man (30/10) REWATCH #137
#676 - El Topo (30/10) REWATCH #138
#677 - Child's Play (31/10)
#678 - Unforgiven (31/10) REWATCH #139
#679 - Jacob's Ladder (31/10) REWATCH #140
#680 - Dredd (31/10) REWATCH #141
#681 - Freaks (1/11) REWATCH #142
#682 - Masked Avengers (1/11)
#683 - The Addams Family (2/11)
#684 - Addams Family Values (3/11)
#685 - Attack the Block (4/11) REWATCH #143
#686 - Soldier (4/11)
#687 - Night of the Creeps (4/11)
#688 - The Blair Witch Project (5/11)
#689 - Evil Dead [2013] (6/11)
#690 - Death Proof (7/11) REWATCH #144
#691 - The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (7/11) REWATCH #145
#692 - Flags of Our Fathers (7/11)
#693 - The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (8/11) REWATCH #146
#694 - Bridge of Spies (9/11)
#695 - Top Secret! (10/11) REWATCH #147
#696 - Hachi: A Dog's Tale (10/11)
#697 - The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (11/11) REWATCH #148
#698 - Videodrome (11/11) REWATCH #149
#699 - Broken Flowers (12/11)
#700 - The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert McNamara (12/11) REWATCH #150
#701 - Ultraviolet (13/11)
#702 - Spectre (14/11)
#703 - Ulzana's Raid (15/11)
#704 - Broken Arrow [1950] (16/11)
#705 - Munich (17/11)
#706 - The 39 Steps (18/11)
#707 - The Last Boy Scout (19/11)
#708 - Kingdom of Heaven (20/11)
#709 - Empire of the Sun (21/11)
#710 - Glory (22/11)
#711 - Joe Kidd (23/11)
#712 - Shrek the Third (24/11)
#713 - Machete Kills (25/11)
#714 - Midnight Movies: From the Margin to the Mainstream (25/11) REWATCH #151
#715 - Bad News Bears [2005] (26/11)
#716 - Frantic (27/11)
#717 - The Cars That Ate Paris (28/11)
#718 - The World's End (28/11) REWATCH #152
#719 - Lethal Weapon (29/11) REWATCH #153
#720 - Thunderbolt and Lightfoot (30/11)
#721 - The Lobster (1/12)
#722 - The Big Store (2/12)
#723 - The King of Kong (3/12)
#724 - Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (4/12)
#725 - High Plains Drifter (5/12) REWATCH #154
#726 - Into the Wild (5/12)
#727 - Starred Up (6/12)
#728 - Locke (7/12)
#729 - Ben-Hur (7/12)
#730 - Warrior (8/12)
#731 - A Separation (8/12)
#732 - Source Code (9/12)
#733 - Super 8 (9/12)
#734 - The Fugitive (10/12) REWATCH #155
#735 - Observe and Report (11/12)
#736 - Hackers (12/12)
#737 - Calamity Jane (13/12)
#738 - Trading Places (14/12)
#739 - Turbo Kid (15/12)
#740 - Deathgasm (16/12)
#741 - Dope (16/12)
#742 - Bad Santa (17/12)
#743 - Kung Fury (17/12) REWATCH #156
#744 - Star Wars: The Force Awakens (18/12)
#745 - The Host [2006] (19/12)
#746 - Robin Hood [2010] (20/12)

[Zotis]

Well, I didn't actually make a movie a day thread. Just a thread to keep track of everything I watch so I don't forget about them. To me committing to watching a movie at least once per day sounds better than it actually is. I prefer having more freedom to do other things since I'm a pretty heavy gamer and I have other interests and hobbies like music and art. I hope it will be an awesome year though!

Hi, Iroquois, I don't think we've really interacted before. I like how you defined all your ratings. Not everyone has the same standards for ratings, so it's good to do that.

[Iroquois]

Well this is overwhelming... JacobKyon, Zotis, Swan and now you making a movie a day thread!

Something tells me this is gonna be an awesome year. :lol:

I've been meaning to do this for a few years now - I was originally inspired by TheUsualSuspect, who also started a similar thread a few years ago. I figured 2015 was the year to do it because I currently hav no major plans that would interfere with watching a movie a day. Like the concept of individual Top 100 threads, it's a really interesting challenge for people to do so of course a lot of people want to attempt it themselves.

Well, I didn't actually make a movie a day thread. Just a thread to keep track of everything I watch so I don't forget about them. To me committing to watching a movie at least once per day sounds better than it actually is. I prefer having more freedom to do other things since I'm a pretty heavy gamer and I have other interests and hobbies like music and art. I hope it will be an awesome year though!

Hi, Iroquois, I don't think we've really interacted before. I like how you defined all your ratings. Not everyone has the same standards for ratings, so it's good to do that.

I hear you on the whole rigidity kind of thing - eating your favourite food every day would get a little tiresome after a while, too. I do have several other non-film interests that this may drag my attention away from (and vice versa), but I think it'll be interesting to see if I am capable of pursuing such a goal, though I think setting aside around 90 minutes a day shouldn't be so hard in my situation. Also, yeah, I do like to define my rating system where possible. I do find the differences between rating systems to be rather interesting.

[Zotis]

Personally I don't know if I've ever rated a movie less than 2 stars. If they're that bad I can usually tell before hand, and I just avoid watching them. I also don't like using 5 stars. I reserve that for when I find movies that I actually think could contend as 'The Greatest Movie of All Time.' And I would never make that kind of a claim lightly. That way when I do come across a movie that blows me away I won't have to give it 11/10 or something like that.

We've all got our own reasons though.

Well, good luck and I hope you make it through the whole year!

[Iroquois]

Thanks for the encouragement!

Having a two-star rating as the lowest point on your scale makes sense. I almost never stop watching movies because I think they're bad - a sense of completionism generally makes me keep watching until the bitter end. The only time I remember ever walking out of a film was Enter the Void, which was physically disturbing more so than a terrible film. I've also found that capping all first-time ratings at 4 helps keep the ratings balanced and prevents me from overrating films unnecessarily. I figure the kind of film that truly deserves a 4.5 or a 5 will earn that kind of rating over the course of multiple viewings and the passage of time.

[Zotis]

I've also found that capping all first-time ratings at 4 helps keep the ratings balanced and prevents me from overrating films unnecessarily. I figure the kind of film that truly deserves a 4.5 or a 5 will earn that kind of rating over the course of multiple viewings and the passage of time.
That's an interesting idea. I gave a bunch of first time views 4.5/5 in 2014, and one movie 5 stars. When I re-watch them though, there is a chance their rating could change based on new insights, but it's a pretty small chance. I usually think pretty hard about it before finally giving the rating.

[honeykid]

I'm with Iro in that I don't almost never give 5 star ratings on a first watch, much as I don't have films in my 100 that I've not seen at least 5 times. I also rarely give a rating less than 1, unless I really hate it.

Good luck with it, Iro. Any chance of you updating it every day?

[cricket]

Good luck Iro!

[Iroquois]

#1 - Dead Poets Society
Peter Weir, 1989

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/76897000/jpg/_76897294_dead-poets-society.jpg

Dead Poets Society is about a 1950s boarding school where the new English teacher (Robin Williams) and his unorthodox approach to teaching poetry ends up inspiring a handful of students to form the titular society (technically, to reform it because Williams' character started it during his high school years, but whatever). The consequences are altenately uplifting and devastating.

I have somehow never managed to watch Dead Poets Society from start to finish. The last time I tried it, I watched it all the way up until the last 15-20 minutes when the DVD glitched so I gave up and never got back to finishing it until now. Even though I knew how it ended anyway, I never truly counted it as being 100% "watched". Obviously, I've gone and rectified that. Anyway, as for what I think...

I remember liking it quite a bit on my initial attempt years ago, but watching it now...not so much. Williams definitely gives a strong performance here, with his character getting just enough depth to not seem like some one-dimensional cool teacher archetype. The central cast of male students that make up the titular society - that's a bit more debatable. One character's subplot involves his romantic pursuit of a cheerleader, which does play out rather questionably to say the least (dude, she's passed out/asleep at some jock party and her football hero boyfriend is about ten feet away, do you really think your carpe diem attitude is going to justify stroking her hair and kissing her forehead?) The main subplot, revolving around another character being inspired to try acting despite a fear of disappointing his strict dad, is familiar enough that I have to wonder if knowing how it'd play out would either make it more tragic or just signal how lacking in originality the script felt. Ethan Hawke's turn as a quiet, nervous student (a far cry from the sort of roles he's best known for), does have its moments, especially the scene where Williams forces him to make up a poem in front of the whole classroom, which is honestly a great scene in spite of it being instantly recognisable as the typical "scene where the shy kid learns to express themselves".

By this point, Dead Poets Society has seeped into the cultural consciousness enough that it feels like a parody of itself at times. It's got a handful of choice moments (as trite as it may seem, that final scene really does leave an impression), is amply aided by Williams' remarkable rendition of a fairly basic character archetype and the acting by the main characters is decent enough to sell their admittedly all-too-familiar character arcs (except in the very shallow romantic subplot mentioned above, of course). Am I likely to invest another two hours in another viewing? Probably not. Do I reckon people should see it if they haven't already? Sure, why not.

3

[Iroquois]

I'm with Iro in that I don't almost never give 5 star ratings on a first watch, much as I don't have films in my 100 that I've not seen at least 5 times. I also rarely give a rating less than 1, unless I really hate it.

Good luck with it, Iro. Any chance of you updating it every day?

Where do you do your ratings, honeykid? I'm not sure I've actually seen you give anything a rating, hence why I'm asking.

As for updating it every day - well, I'll definitely try.

[hello101]

I always thought Dead Poets Society was overrated, Witness is the best Weir imo.

[Iroquois]

If I had to rank the Weir films I've seen...

Picning at Hanging Rock 4
Gallipoli 4
Fearless 3.5
Dead Poets Society 3
Master and Commander 2.5

The Truman Show is another one of those films I don't quite count myself as seeing since I never watched the whole thing from start to finish but I've seen enough to know what happens. I do want to see The Last Wave, Witness and The Mosquito Coast.

[Zotis]

I love Dead Poets Society. You make me sad.

[Captain Spaulding]

Great write-up, Iro! If you're going to give that kind of effort on a daily basis, this will easily be one of the best, most interesting threads to follow this year. :up:

Dead Poets Society is one of those movies that I respect more than I actually enjoy. It's well-made, well-acted, well-written, etc., but a movie revolving around prep boys and poetry has a limited amount of appeal to me.

[honeykid]

Where do you do your ratings, honeykid? I'm not sure I've actually seen you give anything a rating, hence why I'm asking.

As for updating it every day - well, I'll definitely try.
On the rare occasion that I rate them, I do it in the movie tab. I don't think I've rated a film for 3 or 4 months, though. I just haven't felt like it. JD gives me a nudge sometimes, but I don't like to just rate films. I want to say a little something, give a little something to it and I've just not felt like doing it lately.

[Iroquois]

#2 - The Naked Gun 33 1/3: The Final Insult
Peter Segal, 1994

https://outnow.ch/Media/Movies/Bilder/1994/NakedGun33.3/dvd-film.ws/11.jpg

The third and final installment in the Naked Gun trilogy concerns Lt. Frank Drebin (Leslie Nielsen), now retired from police work and trying to start a family with Jane (Priscilla Presley), being dragged back into the fray in order to uncover a plot by a mad bomber (Fred Ward).

I wanted to like this. The original Naked Gun is a minor favourite thanks to its merciless spoofing of detective movies aided in no small part by every performer playing almost every moment completely deadpan. The sequel, The Smell of Fear, took a major drop in quality but I didn't hate it. I understand that few sequels to hit comedies ever live even slightly up to the standards set by the original film. This, on the other hand...well, look at that screencap above. That's our intrepid yet foolhardy hero being so sickened by (spoiler alert) the supposedly humourous revelation that the villain's seductive girlfriend actually has a penis that he immediately runs off and vomits into a tuba - while the tuba is being played. That's a very big decline for a film series that wrought comedy gold from car chases involving learner drivers and ludicrous fight scenes involving cabals of anti-American world leaders. Hell, the only reason that moment stands out is because it's the grossly unforgettable type of unfunny instead of the blandly forgettable kind of unfunny that permeates the rest of the film.

Unlike the first two films, the film seems overly dependent on directly parodying specific movies - films such as The Untouchables, Jurassic Park and Thelma and Louise are ripped on to less than stellar effect, and that's without mentioning the various cracks at the film industry made during the film's third act, which takes place during Oscars night. The film barely raises any sincere chuckles - the closest I came was the show-stopping number where Frank has to slide through a bunch of male dancers' legs and ends up headbutting each one in the crotch as he does. The usual Zucker-style mix of surreal sight-gags and bizarre turns of phrase abounds but barely any of them hit the mark.

Lately, I have been wondering if I rated The Smell of Fear too harshly and have been contemplating revisiting it. This, on the other hand, is a film I don't exactly see myself re-watching any time soon, if ever. At its absolute best it's a shadow of its predecessors that relies too much on copying particular films rather than entire genres - it's that kind of narrow-minded approach to parody that's led to the genre being oversaturated by films whose titles tend to follow the "______ Movie" format - if we're lucky. At worst (and I'll be honest, it's closer to "at worst" than "at best"), it's a complete and utter disappointment, and much like a spoonful of Draino, it'll leave you hollow inside.

1

[Iroquois]

#3 - Clueless
Amy Heckerling, 1995

http://style.mtv.com//wp-content/uploads/style/2013/04/dionne-cher-clueless.jpg

Clueless is the the loosely-based-on-an-Austen-novel story of a Beverly Hills teenager navigating a variety of situations as part of her high school experience, often aiming to control and set up certain people for her own personal gain before numerous complications cause her to question her motivations.

This is apparently one of the key 1990s high-school movies and as such I was willing to give it a chance. All things considered, it's a fairly solid film. You can pick apart the various high-school stereotypes - the hopeless yet loveable burnout, the strict yet sympathetic teacher, the misfit who gets made over in the image of the popular kids, etc. - but they combine together in a way to tell a decent if familiar story. Protagonist Cher (Alicia Silverstone) makes for a sufficiently complex character beneath her "valley girl" exterior, while the various other characters get just enough development so that they don't come across as unsympathetic ditzes (though you could make a case for Jeremy Sisto's dickish popular boy being an antagonist, he doesn't really provide much of a conflict for the film as a whole). Actually, there's not all that much in the way of conflict in this movie; rather, it's a fairly straightforward coming-of-age kind of story for Cher as she learns the hard way that she can't control other people and also has a fairly predictable subplot unfold with her dickish yet likeable stepbrother (Paul Rudd).

While Clueless does serve as a worthy addition to the high-school sub-genre's canon, it ultimately feels like fluff. Pleasant fluff, yet still fluff. It's got a fair bit of sense to it and there are certain choice excerpts of dialogue, but as an overall cinematic experience it leaves a little something to be desired.

2.5

[seanc]

Clueless is one of my guilty pleasures, although I haven't partook in quite a few years. I think it is funny and a big reason I continued liking Paul Rudd and Brittany Murphy.

[honeykid]

Clueless is Jane Austen's Emma. You want depth? That's all Emma is and that's why it's so perfect as a high school movie. I love Clueless, but then, I quite like Amy Heckling's stuff. I liked Vamps, for crying out loud. :D

Also, that scene in Smell Of Fear only stands out, if it does, because it's parodying The Crying Game and the reaction many nice straight, 'I'm not at all gay and you mustn't even think it' men had when they found out they'd been fancying Jaye Davidson.

[Blastphamy]

I found Clueless's social system of high school to be way off, even for its time.

[Iroquois]

Also, that scene in Smell Of Fear only stands out, if it does, because it's parodying The Crying Game and the reaction many nice straight, 'I'm not at all gay and you mustn't even think it' men had when they found out they'd been fancying Jaye Davidson.

That would fit in with my comment about the film's overuse of film-specific gags but even knowing that doesn't make it any better.

I found Clueless's social system of high school to be way off, even for its time.

Maybe. I wasn't expecting it to be a particularly realistic depiction of high school, anyway.

[seanc]

Its going for a heightened reality, don't you think?

[Iroquois]

That would be a good way to put it.

[Blastphamy]

heightened reality?

[Iroquois]

heightened reality?

In the case of [i}Clueless[/i], it basically means exaggerating different aspects of the film for maximum effect. Case in point would be the fact that stuff like the slang and fashion were made up specifically for the film because rooting it in actual trends wouldn't work quite as well, thus making the film sort of timeless yet also very much of its time.

[TheUsualSuspect]

#3 - Clueless
Amy Heckerling, 1995

http://style.mtv.com//wp-content/uploads/style/2013/04/dionne-cher-clueless.jpg

Clueless is the the loosely-based-on-an-Austen-novel story of a Beverly Hills teenager navigating a variety of situations as part of her high school experience, often aiming to control and set up certain people for her own personal gain before numerous complications cause her to question her motivations.

This is apparently one of the key 1990s high-school movies and as such I was willing to give it a chance. All things considered, it's a fairly solid film. You can pick apart the various high-school stereotypes - the hopeless yet loveable burnout, the strict yet sympathetic teacher, the misfit who gets made over in the image of the popular kids, etc. - but they combine together in a way to tell a decent if familiar story. Protagonist Cher (Alicia Silverstone) makes for a sufficiently complex character beneath her "valley girl" exterior, while the various other characters get just enough development so that they don't come across as unsympathetic ditzes (though you could make a case for Jeremy Sisto's dickish popular boy being an antagonist, he doesn't really provide much of a conflict for the film as a whole). Actually, there's not all that much in the way of conflict in this movie; rather, it's a fairly straightforward coming-of-age kind of story for Cher as she learns the hard way that she can't control other people and also has a fairly predictable subplot unfold with her dickish yet likeable stepbrother (Paul Rudd).

While Clueless does serve as a worthy addition to the high-school sub-genre's canon, it ultimately feels like fluff. Pleasant fluff, yet still fluff. It's got a fair bit of sense to it and there are certain choice excerpts of dialogue, but as an overall cinematic experience it leaves a little something to be desired.

2.5

As If!!!!

I always thought Stacey Dash was gorgeous, still do. Her acting is terrible, but I'll put up with it.

Good luck man, it's an undertaking.

[seanc]

Right. So like you were talking about the social aspect of High School. What they basically did is take the tropes and cliques that we know in our culture and ramp it up about 5X. It works well for comedies because people basically become caricatures. I think it works well in the context of depicting teenagers as well because it may be how we remember the stoners or the preps. Even though in reality they were probably not ever as clearly one thing or the other as we think they were.

Basically I am saying I agree, this is not the High School experience I remember either. However, its not supposed to be. Make sense?

[Blastphamy]

Ah, so it creates memorable characters by overdoing them.

[honeykid]

You mentioned Highlander as a favourite, so I'm guessing you're au fait with overblown characters being memerable.

[seanc]

Ah, so it creates memorable characters by overdoing them.

Yeah, and like you I don't always like it. For me its a fine line to walk. I think it works best in comedies though.

[Blastphamy]

You mentioned Highlander as a favourite, so I'm guessing you're au fait with overblown characters being memerable.

Touche'

[honeykid]

:D

I wasn't really having a go, just that, as Sean said, sometimes it works for you and, when it doesn't, it's easy to pick at. If that's what you were doing.

Now I'm just questioning everything. :D

[Blastphamy]

*Adds honeykid to hit list*

[honeykid]

Looks like SC's got a new friend.

[Iroquois]

Take it outside, fellas.

[Blastphamy]

Barkeep, I'm not trying to start anything. I just want to have a beer, chat with my mates and have a fun time that will make me forget about my whore of a wife.

[JayDee]

I quite like Clueless but for 'Shakespeare goes to high school' I'd definitely plump for 10 Things I Hate About You which I've always kind of loved.

I only just watched Clueless for the first time in the last year or two so I don't have any nostalgia for it. What I do have some nostalgia for however is that spin-off sitcom that it spawned

[honeykid]

I quite like Clueless but for 'Shakespeare goes to high school' I'd definitely plump for 10 Things I Hate About You which I've always kind of loved.
An excellent suggestion. I hear O is very good, too.

[Iroquois]

#4 - A Christmas Story
Bob Clark, 1983

http://images3.static-bluray.com/reviews/714_5.jpg

A Christmas Story takes place during the lead-up to Christmas Eve sometime in the 1940s and centres on nine-year-old Ralphie (Peter Billingsley) as he tries anything he can in order to acquire his most desired Christmas present of all, a top-of-the-line BB gun. During the film, he also goes head-to-head with a variety of pre-adolescent obstacles such as parents, teachers, bullies, friends, even his favourite radio program.

Long story short, this was on TV about a week-and-a-half before Christmas and I DVRed it with the intention of watching it in the interim but thanks to complications I only just got around to watching it after New Year's Day. Even so, I did struggle to like this film. The main conflict involving Ralphie trying all he can to ensure he gets his prized gun is tempered by a number of loosely connected vignettes - I wouldn't necessarily mind this fragmented approach to telling the story if said vignettes were actually entertaining, but...most of them weren't. The gags haven't aged well (especially the notorious flagpole scene). The narration by an older and wiser Ralphie adds some gravitas to relatively mundane scenes (such as the scene where Ralphie frantically tries to decode a secret message that's broadcast on his favourite radio program, which I'll concede was a good gag) but doesn't do much else of note. There's also the fact that so many of the jokes involve small children making various cacophonous noises - laughing, screaming, whining, whatever - and that just grates on the eardrums too much to be amusing. It's the cinematic equivalent of sitting next to a baby on an airplane. Even the sharper jokes, such as Ralphie's parents arguing over an ugly lamp or the extremely disgruntled people working as part of the familiar "department store Santa" set-up, don't quite work either. That's without getting into the staff at a Chinese restaurant singing Christmas carols, either.

Now, of course I'm willing to admit that maybe this just isn't for me. The simple nature of a lot of the gags complete with the most basic undercurrent of cynicism in certain sequences seems perfectly designed to appeal to kids in Ralphie's age bracket and keep said viewers hooked through nostalgia value. Unfortunately, I'm two months away from turning 25 and this is the first time I've seen this movie - at this rate, it'll probably be the last as well. It had its moments (the "you'll shoot your eye out" running gag was handled well) but overall it's a very flat film (and I don't think watching it before Christmas instead of afterwards is going to make much of a difference).

1.5

[Citizen Rules]

You never had a BB gun have ya;)

[Iroquois]

Australia does have some pretty strict gun laws.

[Citizen Rules]

Ha! too funny.:)

I had a BB gun and that movies right, you can shoot your eye out, ouch.

I think those who like A Christmas Story is so in part to nostalgia as you say.

[gbgoodies]

I think I may be the only person who's never seen A Christmas Story, and has no desire to see it because of all the hype.

[Iroquois]

I think I may be the only person who's never seen A Christmas Story, and has no desire to see it because of all the hype.

Valid point - I guess in my case the hype got to the point where I had to see it.

[honeykid]

I think I may be the only person who's never seen A Christmas Story, and has no desire to see it because of all the hype.

I've never seen it or know the hype about it. :D

[Iroquois]

Apparently it's a really beloved cult classic that became a holiday favourite for more or less the same reason that It's A Wonderful Life - because TV played the hell out of it at Christmas-time. It almost sounds like thirty years of Stockholm Syndrome.

[gbgoodies]

Apparently it's a really beloved cult classic that became a holiday favourite for more or less the same reason that It's A Wonderful Life - because TV played the hell out of it at Christmas-time. It almost sounds like thirty years of Stockholm Syndrome.


I've seen It's A Wonderful Life many times, and I love it. Maybe the difference is that I saw It's A Wonderful Life before I heard all the hype about it, so I was able to judge it on the movie itself, not compare it to anything that I'd heard about it.

With A Christmas Story, I've seen a few scenes, and the commercials that air on TV every year, and it just looks like a movie about an annoying kid. There's nothing in the trailer that makes me think that I'll like the movie, and I can't understand what everyone else sees in it. I'll probably watch it someday just out of curiosity, but I don't have hopes for it.

[Iroquois]

With A Christmas Story, I've seen a few scenes, and the commercials that air on TV every year, and it just looks like a movie about an annoying kid. There's nothing in the trailer that makes me think that I'll like the movie, and I can't understand what everyone else sees in it. I'll probably watch it someday just out of curiosity, but I don't have hopes for it.

A Christmas Story isn't just about an annoying kid. It's about several annoying kids.

[gbgoodies]

A Christmas Story isn't just about an annoying kid. It's about several annoying kids.


That just makes it sound worse. :(

[cricket]

I first saw A Christmas Story at the movies when it was out. I was 11 then, which is probably the perfect age, and I liked it a lot. I don't think it's a great movie, but I think it's a great Christmas movie, and I still enjoy watching it at this time of year. I feel much the same about Christmas Vacation with Chevy Chase, but I think A Christmas Story is superior. It's too bad you didn't like it, but it's certainly only made it's mark because of Christmas.

[Iroquois]

#5 - Italian Spiderman
Dario Russo, 2008

http://i.imgur.com/y63uVfS.jpg

Italian Spiderman is an affectionate parody of old-school exploitation films that follows the titular superhero as he becomes embroiled in an adventure that involves a powerful meteorite and the suited-up luchadore villain who intends to use the meteorite for evil.

That GIF above has become an infamous reaction image in its own right, but its quality (or lack thereof) says a lot about what kind of film you're getting into when you watch Italian Spiderman. While technically a ten-episode web series edited together into a single video, the resulting compilation should qualify as a short film anyway and has its own IMDb entry listing it as such so I'm counting it. I watched this because I've recently started watching the spy-themed comedy Danger 5, so I figured I'd given Dario Russo's breakthrough hit a chance as well. Italian Spiderman is a lovingly-crafted homage to foreign '60s exploitation films that rip off popular Western characters and are very obviously shot on shoestring budgets. If you have any familiarity whatsoever with movies of that nature then you can easily spot all the various tropes being mocked here. Bad dubbing, dramatic zoom-in shots, visible puppet-strings - it's all here. You can't deny there's attention to "craftsmanship" here, but then there's the real question - is the humour actually funny?

Deliberately parodying works of entertainment that already qualified as "so-bad-it's-good" is a tough balancing act to get right. When you go to this much effort in order to make a deliberately bad movie, have you really just ended up making a bad movie? The more subtle the distinction between knowing mockery and actual incompetence, the less clever it seems. Quite the paradox, really. Italian Spiderman gets the vibe of the film right, but never seems to do anything worthwhile with it. Having the film be dubbed into Italian with the occasional snippet of gratuitous English may be true to the subject matter but there's nothing particularly funny about it - an overly hammy dub is usually funny, but here it just becomes tiresome and not even deliberately poor subtitles make up for that. I can't even imagine this film's dialogue being any funnier if it was dubbed into English instead, but at least it would make the film slightly easier to follow. The lead character is the kind of self-absorbed, amoral protagonist that exploitation films tend to feature that are generally terrible people from an objective standpoint, but even the gags designed to mock his unheroic nature don't work. The best example is when he punches a man and tells him to respect women only to end up punching a woman and telling her to make him coffee only seconds later. Heroes of other parody movies such as Austin Powers and Frank Drebin are called out on their glaring personality flaws and undergo at least some character development over the course of their movies, but that just doesn't happen with Italian Spiderman and it makes for some frustrating viewing.

Tying in with the (deliberately?) poor handling of Italian Spiderman as a character, the film's origin as a series of short videos makes the full version feel very fragmented and thus emphasises ludicrous action sequences over any decent character or narrative development (even within the context of a Z-grade parody). The film clocks in at just under forty minutes, but you quickly become very used to the deliberately awful filmmaking on display. Every noticeable use of green-screen, every glaringly fake animal puppet, every logical inconsistency, every excessively violent and bloody death...after a while it does become about as tedious as many actual exploitation movies. While I can sort of appreciate the effort (or lack thereof) that went into simulating the exact look and sound of bad old movies (right down to shooting the whole thing on 16mm), it doesn't matter if I don't get any laughs out of it. I'll at least concede that it's the work of a first-time filmmaker, but if the nicest thing I can say about the film is "Hey, at least it looks awful" then you probably haven't done too well. At least that GIF will live on in infamy.

2

[Iroquois]

#6 - Billy Madison
Tamra Davis, 1995

http://images4.static-bluray.com/reviews/4315_1.jpg

The immature drop-out son of a wealthy hotel tycoon ends up engaging in a wager that he can finish every possible grade of school within a certain period of time in order to prove that he is capable of running his father's business.

Billy Madison is another one of those films where I'd watched practically all of it but didn't count it because I hadn't watched it from start to finish. A peculiar distinction, but I stick by it. I also figure that, despite Sandler being considerably unfunny in the bulk of his cinematic outings (especially the recent ones), I should at least try to watch this one (as well as Happy Gilmore, but I'll get to that later). Given the presence of Sandler, I of course lowered my expectations suitably and the result...well, it wasn't too bad. Granted, Sandler as the titular man-child can be rather grating, especially during the early scenes where he's communicating almost exclusively in whiny gibberish, but as the film progresses the jokes actually improve. Swapping out the annoying kid-like sing-song voice for a petulant hamminess was the right decision on Sandler's part, especially the scene where he gets an eight-year-old classmate to call up their attractive teacher. Even without having seen the movie in full, I was already capable of quoting a variety of lines from the film and even in their original context they're still funny enough (such as Chris Farley's brief role as a bad-tempered bus driver or Steve Buscemi of all people as a former classmate of Sandler's). The "straight" characters play their relatively one-dimensional roles well enough and act as suitable foils to Sandler's zaniness. Despite the ridiculous nature of the high-concept, the writing on offer makes it seem plausible enough that you can just roll with it without much question.

So yeah, I'm not about to change my mind about the various other Sandler vehicles that annoyed me over the years, but I'll concede that Billy Madison is at least intermittently funny. Being on the lighter side of ninety minutes doesn't hurt either. Some jokes fall flat, sure, but I think the fact that I'll reference jokes from this about as frequently as I'll reference Anchorman or Fletch or even The Big Lebowski is a testament to a certain unspoken quality that the film possesses. Though I may give it what's technically a negative rating, it's still surprisingly solid.

2.5

[Iroquois]

#7 - Happy Gilmore
Dennis Dugan, 1996

http://slingshotsponsorship.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/happy-gilmore-hole.jpg

Another Adam Sandler picture, this time about a wannabe hockey player who discovers he has a talent for playing golf and enters into pro tournaments in order to raise the money to save his beloved grandma from a sadistic nursing home.

This has long been touted as the best Adam Sandler comedy and, once again, this is another movie that I've never quite seen all the way through (yeah, there's a good chance you'll be seeing quite a few movies I've never seen "all the way through" on this list). Coming so soon after the release of Billy Madison, it does feel like a slight improvement on that particular film. The same tropes are there - underdog narrative, blonde love interest whose initials are "V.V.", slick upper-class douchebag antagonist, etc. - but they're all used to slightly better effect in the context of a sports movie rather than the fairly implausible "back-to-school" premise. It also helps that Sandler drops Billy's annoying voice permanently, substituting in a truckload of rage issues that always result in something funny. You could easily make a list of the various sports underdog clichés that are at work here, but in the context of a comedy they become a bit more tolerable and amusing. Some of the gags are surprisingly clever ("I eat pieces of sh*t like you for breakfast", anyone?) and there's not nearly as much gross-out humour as you'd expect - instead there's a lot of humour milked from the contrast between blue-collar loudmouth Happy and the entire pro golfer community. All things considered, this is probably the best Adam Sandler vehicle I've seen yet (and yes, that does include Punch-Drunk Love, but I'm considering revisiting that just to make sure). Even if you usually can't stand Sandler you should be able to appreciate the familiar yet comfortable humour inherent in this comedic take on sports movies.

3

[cricket]

Happy Gilmore is my favorite Sandler comedy by far, and really just a fun movie in general. I'm glad you liked it!

As you said, Billy Madison isn't bad either.

[honeykid]

For a Sandler film without a certain lady, I think this is the best one I've seen and I remember it as the funniest one I've seen. I really didn't like Billy Madison very much, but as you said, this is pretty much the same thing, but done a lot better. Still think I was tiring of it after about an hour, though.

[Frightened Inmate No. 2]

i like early sandler, but even as a kid i don't remember thinking happy gilmore was any more than decent. billy madison was one of my favorites as a kid and i still really like it.

[Captain Spaulding]

Adam Sandler was my favorite actor during my teenage years. I still enjoy several of his earlier films, but Happy Gilmore is the cream of the crop. I especially love all the stuff with Carl Weathers and the gator. Not to mention the infamous fight with Bob Barker ("The price is wrong, b!tch" :laugh:) . I suck at golf and I have no interest in the sport, but the few times I've stepped up to a tee, I'm always tempted to take a Happy Gilmore-like swing.

I used to love Billy Madison, too, but it hasn't held up for me as well. The last time I re-visited it, I found it more obnoxious than funny.

[TheUsualSuspect]

I'll take this Sandler over the Sandler we currently have, where he only makes movies to go on vacation with friends. AND PEOPLE PAY HIM TO DO IT!!!!

[Iroquois]

#8 - Electric Boogaloo: The Wild, Untold Story of Cannon Films!
Mark Hartley, 2014

http://www.flickeringmyth.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Screen-Shot-2014-09-08-at-5.58.25-PM.png

"From the creators of Not Quite Hollywood comes a brand new high-stakes thrill-ride! Two men united by one dream seek to take the world by storm! Prepare yourself for a rollercoaster ride jam-packed with...VIOLENCE! SEX! MONEY! FAME! You've never seen a team quite like Golan and Globus in...ELECTRIC BOOGALOO!

In the 1970s, Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus wanted to make amazing movies like the ones they were seeing come out of Hollywood, so they produced enough hits in their native Israel to make the move to Hollywood and take over Cannon Films. During their time with Cannon, they managed to churn out countless movies of every conceivable style and genre (but not quality) until a series of large commercial failures drove the pair apart and led to the demise of Cannon Films. There are many actors, writers, directors, producers and executives who have something to say about these two and their company and a lot of it gets said here.

Stylistically, this is a pretty standard documentary. Hartley doesn't deviate too wildly from the same combination of talking heads and archival footage (with the occasional special effect) that worked wonders for him in Not Quite Hollywood. While that film was a bit nebulous in that it was about an entire country's cinematic output, having a more specific subject works just as well. On the other hand, it's a little hard to know just how well it depicts Golan, Globus and Cannon Films. The tone of the first third or so is set by the pair's getting their big break on a wave of sexploitation movies. This initially prompts eye-rolling as they produce The Wicked Lady, a stylish enough Regency-era period piece that gets filled with gratuitous nudity anyway; after that, it gets uncomfortable as they produce Death Wish 2, which leads into director Michael Winner trying to defend a graphic rape scene from that particular movie during an archived TV interview. This makes for a disturbing segue between their sexploitation films and their much more violent films. Marina Sirtis recounts some rather unnerving anecdotes during this sequence as well. The rest of the film moves onto their extremely campy action films, but there's this shadow that hangs over the rest of the film, leaving me wondering if there was a dark side to these goofy entrepreneurs and their employees.

Tonal misstep aside, it's an interesting subject. Though a fair bit of lip service is paid to both Golan and Globus as a team, Golan himself gradually becomes the greater presence as several people recount their experiences with him and imitate his thick accent. Between the tales and film footage, Golan comes across as a larger-than-life oddball who seems somewhat charming even with his lofty aspirations and clueless nature - like Tommy Wiseau only with ludicrous amounts of money. The movie also serves as a highlight reel for a lot of memorably terrible movies. There are the low-rent action movies such as the Death Wish sequels, Chuck Norris vehicles like Missing in Action and Invasion U.S.A., plus a lot of ill-advised ninja movies (including the notorious American Ninja series). There are bizarre left-field films like Lifeforce, Invaders from Mars, and of course both Breakin' movies. The film even takes the time to look at the surprisingly good movies that the studio produced such as Love Streams or Runaway Train. The turning point comes when the studio deviates from their low-budget success formula and tries to make major hit movies such as Superman IV and Over the Top, which is the beginning of the end for Golan and Globus' bizarre moviemaking joyride.

Electric Boogaloo concludes with the appropriately tragicomic story of how Golan and Globus, having had their falling out, race against one another to see who can release the first movie about the "Lambada" dance craze. Each one's drive to outdo the other ends up splitting the box office and making both films flop as a result - a fitting end to the story of two partners who accomplished weirdly impressive things together but lost what little spark they had when they were apart. The end titles then reveal that Golan and Globus, when approached to appear in this film, not only declined to do so but set about making their own documentary about Cannon Films that managed to get released first. It's quite the punchline to what comes across as a joke that got played on a lot of moviegoers during the 1980s - interviewees are just as likely to pan the pair and their movies as they are to defend them. Definitely worth watching if you have at least a passing interest in cinematic oddities and the people responsible, but unlike Not Quite Hollywood and its celebration of Ozploitation, this film seems a bit more balanced in regards to its subject matter and will just as easily show a seamy underbelly as the campy surface.

3.5

[Iroquois]

#9 - What We Do in the Shadows
Jemaine Clement and Taiki Waititi, 2014

http://www.sundance.org/images/filmguide/2014/13930-1.jpg

A mockumentary centring on four vampires who share a house in Wellington, New Zealand and their day-to-day (or is that night-to-night?) lives, which are complicated when one of their intended victims is turned into a vampire instead.

What's a better type of comedy - the one that's cleverly written but doesn't make you laugh out loud, or the one that's not too smart but still gets you chuckling? What We Do in the Shadows definitely falls into the former category - despite a simple yet ingenious premise and a sharp take on vampire lore, most of it is merely amusing. It runs through almost every trope associated with vampire fiction over the course of a quick eighty minutes, which is about how long the gag can last. Fortunately, it helps that the main trio of vampires (the fourth one, an 8,000-year-old Orlock-like creature called Peter, only pops up at crucial plot points) have enough odd-couple chemistry to keep the humour flowing. As befitting the mockumentary angle, the vampires go about talking about parts of their everyday lives - the struggle of not being able to look in mirrors, being unable to get into clubs because they need to be invited, and (in one memorably black sequence), the prim and proper Viago going the extra mile to make sure his victim has a nice last date before he feeds on her. The lead characters all get sufficient development and their own subplots - selfish "young" vampire Deacon has a thrall who is constantly doing favours for him in order to become a vampire herself, while Vladislav is an older vampire clearly based on Bram Stoker's Dracula who constantly grumbles about his old arch-nemesis "the Beast" in such a way that you know a confrontation is inevitable. Having the film establish a climax to work towards - in this case, the yearly gathering of supernatural creatures known as the "Unholy Masquerade" - is a good move to counter the relative aimlessness of the film's premise.

I generally liked this film, but it's clear around the hour mark or so that it's running out of steam and the climax not only feels a bit forced, but it involves shakycam to the point that it's hard to tell what's going on. It's a good concept and there's some serious talent on both sides of the camera - shakycam climax aside, the effects work on offer here is rather impressive and every actor is at the very least serviceable. The gags are clever enough, even though I didn't exactly laugh at them - not even the scene of Viago laying down towels in order to avoid getting a victim's blood on his antique couch only to end up accidentally hitting his victim's artery and getting blood everywhere. It's not a bad way to spend an hour and a bit but yeah, this is one of those films where calling it "clever" feels like a backhanded compliment more than anything else.

3

[honeykid]

I wasn't aware of Electric Boogaloo: The Wild, Untold Story of Cannon Films!, so thanks for that. :up: I look forward to seeing it. It's exactly the kind of thing I love (as I did Ozploitation and Machette Maidens). I quite like the sound of What We Do in the Shadows, too. It sounds a bit like something I wrong back in the 90's, without the mockumentary style.

[Iroquois]

Yeah, I hadn't heard of Electric Boogaloo until I saw it in a video store the other day and immediately decided that I had to see it. What few Cannon films I've seen have been pretty bad (but at least entertainingly bad, I think) and, at the very least, this movie made me shift Death Wish 3 a little higher up my to-watch list.

[honeykid]

Ah, Death Wish 3. It spawned one of my favourite games on my little ol' Spectrum.

Those Cannon films were quite a big part of my early teen years. I always used to like seeing that logo come on screen.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Never heard of it either. Now, I'm actively seeking it out.

[Captain Spaulding]

Never heard of What We Do in the Shadows, but it sounds fun. I think Jemaine Clement is hilarious, but I haven't seen him in anything in a while.

[Zotis]

I saw the trailer for What We Do in the Shadows, it looks funny. I might watch it someday, but I just as easily might not.

[Iroquois]

It's slightly better than I make it out to be.

[Iroquois]

#10 - The Ward
John Carpenter, 2010

http://twitchfilm.com/assets/2011/01/TheWardPoster.jpg

In 1960s Oregon, an amnesiac named Kristen (Amber Heard) is arrested after burning a house down and is sent to a psychiatric facility. Once there, she notices some suspicious activity and soon discovers that there is a malevolent force picking off the patients one by one.

Ah, John Carpenter. He's made at least a couple of my all-time favourite movies and I've generally liked most of his work but he's made his fair share of stinkers, especially over the course of the past thirty years. While I'll readily defend In the Mouth of Madness and Escape From L.A., he hasn't really made a good film since They Live. Sure, the "Cigarette Burns" episode of Masters of Horror showed he hadn't completely lost his touch (even if it was basically "In the Mouth of Madness but about movies instead of books"), but then he messed it up a bit with the weirdly off-kilter "Pro-Life" episode. For the longest time, it looked like his final contribution to cinema would be the mishmash of former glories that was Ghosts of Mars...then he made The Ward.

It's an interesting thing watching a movie you don't really expect to be good but still hold out a little hope for on the basis that you're watching one of your favourite directors, but it becomes clear from the moment that the credits aren't in Albertus typeface that, despite his name hanging over the title, this doesn't quite feel like a Carpenter movie. The central premise did have some potential - setting the film in an old mental institution with its capacity for sadistic staffers, nightmarish treatment methods and general detachment from reality was unsettling enough without the introduction of a supernatural threat. Of course, that does leave the film wide open to a certain number of clichés, up to and including the suspiciously calm psychiatrist (played by Jared Harris). It also doesn't help that the other patients in the ward subscribe to a number of basic mental patient stereotypes - the upbeat friendly one, the mean one, the cowardly one and the childlike one. Heard's protagonist doesn't seem to have much of a personality at all and no real goal other than to get out of the hospital and also find out what's going on. The horror is tried-and-true - plenty of jump scares, darkness, a few graphic death scenes, but some of it does get ridiculous, especially when...

Sarah, the group's mean girl, just finishes having a conversation with the others in the main room before walking past the nearby nurses' station and seeing the killer ghost, somehow managing to scream without alerting anyone else and runs off only to be captured and killed by the ghost.

Also, I think the ending is worth talking about so here come the spoilers again...

At first the reveal behind the ghost's nature is that it's a former patient named Alice who was murdered by the other patients in the ward and is taking its revenge on them. When Kristen "kills" the ghost and demands an explanation from Harris' character, he explains that her real name is Alice and that she developed multiple personality disorder as a means of coping with being kidnapped and molested. Each of the girls was a split personality and the whole film was taking place in Alice's mind, so their deaths were simply a metaphor for how Alice was slowly getting cured...until "Kristen" appeared and shook things up again. The film's very last scene involves a cured Alice getting ready to leave the ward - until Kristen jumps out of a mirror and the movie smashes to black.

I think the fact that I even have to question whether or not that ending makes sense of the rest of the film or just creates even more plot holes means it's probably going to invoke the latter, but whatever. The Ward is definitely not a classic and not even one of Carpenter's better movies, but I didn't hate it. Even though you can't teach an old dog like Carpenter many new horror tricks, this didn't feel like a complete waste of time and built up a decent enough atmosphere and featured some fairly disturbing death scenes. Unfortunately, the rest of it is still kind of a chore to get through, so it goes on the negative end of the scale. Hardly the last hurrah a director of his caliber deserves.

2

[Captain Spaulding]

Carpenter has made more movies that I hated than I loved, so I'm not a fan. I've yet to hear anything positive about The Ward, even from the biggest Carpenter apologists. I expected your rating to be even lower, to be honest. I haven't seen it, but I'm sure I will at some point.

[Zotis]

Hmm... the cover looks good, and Amber Heard... I can see why you'd watch it in the first place anyway.

I watched a random clip and I dunno... on the one hand the acting was pretty bad, and on the other hand I'm almost curious about what happens next after that clip... and before for that matter.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Ghosts of Mars is so bad that I LOVE IT.


As for The Ward? I believe this sums up my thoughts. (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=758683#post758683)

[Iroquois]

#11 - Cowboys and Aliens
Jon Favreau, 2011

http://thesignalexpress.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/cowboys-and-aliens-.jpg

A bunch of cowboys fight a bunch of aliens.

Okay, for real this time: in the Wild West, an amnesiac cowboy (Daniel Craig) wanders into a small town and stirs up some trouble with a cattle baron (Harrison Ford) just in time for a bunch of alien spaceships to abduct most of the townsfolk. Craig and Ford reluctantly join forces (along with a bunch of other mismatched characters) in order to find the aliens and take back what's theirs.

As if the title didn't give me enough of a hint, the fact that there are no less than eight screenwriters (three for the screen story based on the source comic book and another five that contributed to the screenplay) named in the opening credits should have been enough of a warning sign that I was in for one messy excuse for a blockbuster. I can't speak as to the quality of the source comic, but the movie that resulted...well, where do I begin? Characters are flat archetypes whose development is predictable at best and inconsistent at worst (the biggest offender being Ford, whose character manages to go from a corrupt landowner willing to physically torture employees over some dead cows to a sympathetic Civil War veteran who slowly bonds with the other characters - this development is more than a little jarring). Craig plays a real Man with No Name kind of character who slowly regains his memories (at one point getting them all back as a result of a Native American ritual, no less), but even so his backstory and character arc are awfully predictable and unsatisfactory. Even Olivia Wilde's turn as a mysterious woman who's drawn to Craig seems like she might get something interesting to do but what she does get is extremely illogical. Other characters are basically window dressing and you can easily pick what happens with a lot of them, if not all of them.

For a big-budget effects-laden blockbuster, it's pretty damn boring for the most part. As if unsurprising character developments aren't enough, the action just kind of...happens, with the only memorable parts being so because of how it's a bit too implausible and illogical (such as Craig's character riding a horse alongside an alien drone and being able to jump onto the drone from the horse, or the general poorness of the climatic battle). This stuff doesn't make much sense even within the context of the kind of movie that unapologetically calls itself Cowboys and Aliens. You'd think that having a name like that would mean that this film was at least a little tongue-in-cheek about its ludicrous premise, but no, it plays out as straight-faced and blandly as possible. As a result, it feels like a film that would end up on Mystery Science Theater 3000 but with the budget multipled by ten thousand. Then again, given the quality of this movie's other attributes I think the only thing that would make it significantly worse would be jokes that didn't work.

On the plus side...I guess the effects are alright sometimes. The climax does kind of play out like District 9 on a bigger yet strangely inferior scale. Also, there is a lot of blue and orange in this movie. I mean, a lot. Some of the photography looks alright - at least the stuff that's not too dark for you to see much, of course. Otherwise, yeah, this is a dud of the highest order. It has just enough intrigue to keep me invested in what's happening, which I concede is a strength, but that hardly makes up for the thin plotline, poorly developed characters and effects of dubious quality. It's a shame because the TimeSplitters games gave me ridiculously high hopes for how a "cowboys versus aliens" conflict would play out and that's what led me to check this out in the first place - unfortunately, this film is no place for fun and games.

1.5

[Zotis]

I was almost worried for a second there when I saw Cowboys and Aliens. I'm so glad you trashed it though. XP

You should watch Alien vs Ninja next. I have only seen a clip, but it's got that so bad it's good potential I think. I mean it looks a lot worse than Cowboys and Aliens.

I also saw some parts of Lake Placid because it was playing at work today. You might get a kick out of the wooden straight-faced performances by well known actors.

Did you actually get a kick out of Cowboys and Aliens at it's expense, or were you just tortured the entire time?

[Iroquois]

I was almost worried for a second there when I saw Cowboys and Aliens. I'm so glad you trashed it though. XP

You should watch Alien vs Ninja next. I have only seen a clip, but it's got that so bad it's good potential I think. I mean it looks a lot worse than Cowboys and Aliens.

I also saw some parts of Lake Placid because it was playing at work today. You might get a kick out of the wooden straight-faced performances by well known actors.

Did you actually get a kick out of Cowboys and Aliens at it's expense, or were you just tortured the entire time?


I might consider Alien vs Ninja but in all probability I won't go out of my way to watch it. I remember seeing chunks of Lake Placid back in the day - not enough to count as a full viewing - but it does have some potential, I supposed. I just watched Cowboys and Aliens because it was on TV at the gym and I needed something to occupy me while I used the treadmill. I don't think it was a torturous experience, just bland. 1.5 is sort of my go-to "bland" rating where a bad film isn't horrible enough to hate but I don't really get any enjoyment out of it either. It doesn't leave a lot of room for "getting a kick", I don't think.

[Zotis]

Well, I don't really blame you. I don't plan on watching Alien vs Ninja either. I don't really get a kick out of movies that are so bad they're good unless I'm watching them with at least one other person and we're making fun of the movie all along the way. It's really our jokes at the movie's expense that are usually funny, not so much the movie itself. At least that's how I felt about Lake Placid and most other bad movies I've seen.

[Captain Spaulding]

Before it came out, everyone I know was rolling their eyes over the title and trailer for Cowboys & Aliens, but I was actually really looking forward to it. I thought it had great potential to be a fun, exciting, over-the-top, action/adventure, summer blockbuster, but it was pretty disappointing. It took itself too seriously and didn't live up to the potential of its absurd premise. I don't hate it nowhere near as much as you do -- I'd give it 2.5 -- but it was definitely underwhelming and forgettable.

[Gideon58]

#1 - Dead Poets Society
Peter Weir, 1989

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/76897000/jpg/_76897294_dead-poets-society.jpg

Dead Poets Society is about a 1950s boarding school where the new English teacher (Robin Williams) and his unorthodox approach to teaching poetry ends up inspiring a handful of students to form the titular society (technically, to reform it because Williams' character started it during his high school years, but whatever). The consequences are altenately uplifting and devastating.

I have somehow never managed to watch Dead Poets Society from start to finish. The last time I tried it, I watched it all the way up until the last 15-20 minutes when the DVD glitched so I gave up and never got back to finishing it until now. Even though I knew how it ended anyway, I never truly counted it as being 100% "watched". Obviously, I've gone and rectified that. Anyway, as for what I think...

I remember liking it quite a bit on my initial attempt years ago, but watching it now...not so much. Williams definitely gives a strong performance here, with his character getting just enough depth to not seem like some one-dimensional cool teacher archetype. The central cast of male students that make up the titular society - that's a bit more debatable. One character's subplot involves his romantic pursuit of a cheerleader, which does play out rather questionably to say the least (dude, she's passed out/asleep at some jock party and her football hero boyfriend is about ten feet away, do you really think your carpe diem attitude is going to justify stroking her hair and kissing her forehead?) The main subplot, revolving around another character being inspired to try acting despite a fear of disappointing his strict dad, is familiar enough that I have to wonder if knowing how it'd play out would either make it more tragic or just signal how lacking in originality the script felt. Ethan Hawke's turn as a quiet, nervous student (a far cry from the sort of roles he's best known for), does have its moments, especially the scene where Williams forces him to make up a poem in front of the whole classroom, which is honestly a great scene in spite of it being instantly recognisable as the typical "scene where the shy kid learns to express themselves".

By this point, Dead Poets Society has seeped into the cultural consciousness enough that it feels like a parody of itself at times. It's got a handful of choice moments (as trite as it may seem, that final scene really does leave an impression), is amply aided by Williams' remarkable rendition of a fairly basic character archetype and the acting by the main characters is decent enough to sell their admittedly all-too-familiar character arcs (except in the very shallow romantic subplot mentioned above, of course). Am I likely to invest another two hours in another viewing? Probably not. Do I reckon people should see it if they haven't already? Sure, why not.

3
Maybe it's just me, but I never review films unless I have watched them from start to finish.

[Yoda]

He did. From the review:

Even though I knew how it ended anyway, I never truly counted it as being 100% "watched". Obviously, I've gone and rectified that.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Cowboys and Aliens is pretty terrible.

[nebbit]

More reviews needed :)

[Iroquois]

Sorry about the lack of reviews, my computer has been on the fritz for the last nine days. That, of course, just left me with more time to watch films - by my count, I currently have thirty films waiting to get reviewed, and it's going to take a while to catch up on them all.

[honeykid]

:cool:

[Iroquois]

#12 - Punch-Drunk Love
Paul Thomas Anderson, 2002

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/1morefilmblog/files/2012/08/punchdrunklove.jpg

Barry (Adam Sandler) is a socially awkward small business owner with rage issues who struggles to make a connection with other people - even resorting to phone sex lines just to have someone to talk to - before things are changed by his introduction to Lena (Emily Watson).

I remember seeing Punch-Drunk Love a good few years ago now and at the time I didn't think much of it. I was aware that it was supposed to be a more artistic film that Sandler's usual fare and I had already seen at least a couple of other PTA films so I knew what to expect from the director, but I remember just being left cold by most of the film. My recent viewings of Billy Madison and Happy Gilmore prompted me to rent this out during a recent visit to the video store to see if the passage of time and a second viewing would help it at all and...well, it didn't.

I'll concede that Sandler is good in his role. If Punch-Drunk Love is supposed to be a deconstruction of romantic comedies, then the character of Barry is definitely a deconstruction of Sandler's typically over-the-top protagonist. For the most part, he's a quiet and nervous character who is prone to the occasional bout of destructive behaviour, whether breaking windows or smashing up a public bathroom. A good chunk of the movie involves Sandler acting by himself, especially in phone conversations. As the movie progresses he even gets into the kind of full-throttle yelling that defined his more overtly comedic characters. Unfortunately, it's balanced out by the rest of the cast just being there and reacting to his behaviour. Emily Watson is normally a pretty good actress but here she tends to act as a rather patient and understanding foil to Barry's antics and not have much development in her own right. PTA regular Philip Seymour Hoffman serves as the film's antagonist, but he doesn't get much to do beyond a couple of shouting matches with Sandler. Luis Guzman is serviceable as Sandler's loyal offsider, while all the actresses who serve as Sandler's character's older sisters - well, I think we're supposed to dislike them all, so I guess they're doing a very good job of conveying that.

At least with a director who cares as much about his craft as PTA, this film is capable of showing some impressive imagery. There's a fair share of his usual long takes and carefully framed shots, which do look good. Even the sporadic uses of colourful distortions look good, though I question what they add to the film as a whole beyond some pretty visuals. I can't help but feel like the distinctive look of the film is undone by his usage of waltz-like music that (at least in 2015) feels like the sort of overdone quirky romantic kind of stuff that's been fairly discredited by this point. The development of both major plotlines doesn't do much of interest to me - leaving aside the fairly bland A-plot involving Barry and Lena, the B-plot's blackly comic story of Barry's innocuous calling of a phone sex line leading to his raising the ire of a group of violent con artists is slightly interesting but its execution leaves a fair bit to be desired. The whole B-plot just feels like a distraction more than anything. Given the film's fairly pedestrian attempts at quirk, such as the fact that Sandler's character's small business specialises in novelty plungers or his character's plot to buy lots of pudding so as to acquire a lot of frequent flyer miles, it feels about as inconsequential as anything else in this film.

So until I see Hard Eight or Inherent Vice, I'm more than ready to write this off as my least favourite PTA film by a considerable margin. Sandler is used to good effect, but it's at the expense of virtually every other actor in this film. Writer-director PTA cares enough to shoot this film with extreme clarity but the writing leaves a lot to be desired and makes the film a chore even when it barely reaches the 90-minute mark. Basically, I can see that there is something of worth about this film but I still struggle to actually like it.

2.5

[Iroquois]

#13 - Rambo: First Blood Part II
George P. Cosmastos, 1985

http://www.geeksofdoom.com/GoD/img/2014/07/rambo-first-blood-part-ii.jpg

After being arrested at the end of First Blood, John Rambo is recruited by Col. Trautman as part of a recon mission into Vietnam searching for P.O.W. camps but of course things go wrong very, very quickly.

I still find it rather weird that Sylvester Stallone was able to take not one but two of his most serious films and spin both of them into multi-film franchises that very quickly devolved into the sort of silliness that the source films worked so hard to avoid. First Blood was a decent enough little story about a Vietnam veteran acting out the only way he knew how against a violent, uncaring society - it definitely wasn't an action ride. Part II also attempts to deliver some sort of message due to its plot involving rescuing long-forgotten P.O.W.s, but that does get a little lost in this film that seems almost like a cinematic attempt to retroactively win the Vietnam War. Also, wasn't the "traumatised vet goes back to Vietnam to rescue long-forgotten P.O.W.s" plot already used in Chuck Norris' Missing in Action?

Stallone and his "distinctive" brand of charisma dominate the film and it's not like we're watching this film for the other actors. Richard Crenna still plays Trautman with the same air of reason that made the character good, but Steven Berkoff seems to be recycling the same vicious Russian military character he played in Octopussy, and he wasn't much good there either. Charles Napier is serviceable as the unreliable mission control, but Julia Nickson-Soul doesn't get much to do beyond serving as Stallone's contact and

his eventual (almost inevitable) love interest, which is handled really badly because she gets shot to death mere seconds after finally kissing him, which really does feel like something out of a bad parody.

The action, well, it's serviceable, I guess. There's a lot of explosions and a lot of bad guys get killed in a variety of ways, but none of it feels particularly engaging. Faceless goons getting mowed down with machine guns? Yawn. Sure, using arrows tipped with explosives is inventive, but I get tired of that quickly. Not even the fact that it's all so comically serious about everything serves to provide any unintentional comedy value. Even so, I can't hate it but it's very lacking in terms of enjoyment.

2

[Iroquois]

#14 - The Water Diviner
Russell Crowe, 2014

http://www.sbs.com.au/movies/sites/default/files/styles/full/public/The-Water-Diviner_704_2.jpg?itok=-sppKHOo

In the aftermath of World War I, an Australian farmer who lost his three sons during the Gallipoli campaign embarks on a journey to Turkey in order to recover their bodies.

Well, it's not a bad film, but it's not exactly special either. It's that kind of against-all-odds story that also finds time for its protagonist to go through a journey of self-discovery at the same time. Crowe acts and directs and he proves a serviceable lead who is able to emote reasonably well during his character's search for his dead sons. Even so, the show is stolen by Yılmaz Erdoğan, who plays the Turkish major that serves as a morally complex foil to Crowe and the other Australian characters in the film, especially since he not only has to help the Australians locate their dead but also wage an ongoing war against Greek insurgents. When he eventually joins forces with Crowe the film picks up, but until that point the film generally just plods along as Crowe faces off against soldiers and bureaucrats from both Australia and Turkey. There's also a subplot involving a Turkish war widow (Olga Kurylenko) that I'm not sure is better at helping the film or hindering it.

The Water Diviner has a fairly ambitious scope but it's set back by all-too-familiar narratives and developments that are only just good enough so that you don't mind them playing out as they do. I'm probably underselling it a little, but it does feel like there's a more interesting story happening on the sidelines with the Turkish major and the Greek insurgents rather than the simplistic heartwarming drama of an Australian widower trying to do right by his family.

2

[hello101]

Ouch, looks like you had a bad day of watching.

[Iroquois]

It gets better, I swear it.

[Iroquois]

#15 - A Beautiful Mind
Ron Howard, 2001

http://www.richardcrouse.ca//wp-content/uploads/2013/08/beautmind.jpg

Based on the true story of Nobel-winning mathematician John Nash, whose attempts at working on maths start getting derailed by a number of growing problems.

I knew next to nothing about A Beautiful Mind other than that it was a renowned Oscar winner that - surprise, surprise - was based on a true story about a troubled genius. Fortunately, I think the lowered expectations worked in the film's favour. After a fairly average first act that makes it seem like a fairly pedestrian period drama, the second act gets interesting when Nash (Russell Crowe, here playing up the nervy eccentricity that goes with being a socially awkward maths genius) is recruited by Ed Harris's shadowy G-man as part of a top-secret government project, and then

it turns out that Ed Harris - in addition to Nash's lifelong friend (Paul Bettany) - is a hallucination and that Nash is a paranoid schizophrenic who needs medication and electroshock.
That revelation, and the fallout that ensues, make for a film that's interesting but doesn't always stick the execution. There's the expected tension between Nash and his wife (Jennifer Connelly, quite reasonably earning an Oscar for her work here) and various ensuing struggles that do come across as legitimately disturbing at times. There's an intriguing premise at work here, but it gets dragged down by Howard's extremely conventional Oscar-bait approach to the subject matter. I don't hate it, but I do feel that the material doesn't quite reach its full potential.

2.5

[Iroquois]

#16 - JFK
Oliver Stone, 1991

http://kinetobob.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/moviejfk682125_height370_width560.jpg

In the wake of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, New Orleans D.A. Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner) launches his own investigation into the seemingly open-and-shut case.

JFK conspiracy theories always were kind of interesting and even though Stone's film emerges as a sort of docudrama that doesn't seem particularly concerned with its characters and their arcs so much as being an epic big-screen adaptation of Garrison's investigative report. There's a fairly basic crusade-for-justice kind of narrative where Garrison and his team are constantly threatened and bullied by all sorts of people for daring to even question the cover story and of course the investigation taking its toll on Garrison's home life, but they neither add to nor necessarily subtract from the film. What's interesting here is the vividly depicted search for the truth.

It's not surprising that this film won Oscars for both cinematography and editing. The footage in this film (the original stuff, obviously) veers between professional colour photography and grainy black-and-white at the drop of a hat as Stone and co. attempt to simulate various different types of camera. The same goes for the style, as there are carefully measured shots and also quick, jagged shots. The editing is also a star because despite there being a lot of frantic cuts between so many different types of images, it somehow doesn't feel like a pain to watch. Even when you're getting bombared with information, whether it's Garrison outlining his theory about the innocence of Lee Oswald (Gary Oldman) or a government informant (Donald Sutherland) delivering a load of exposition to Garrison, it's all paced in such a way that it stays interesting.

Though the fact that the film is more concerned with actual conspiracy theories rather than any sort of compelling or original narrative, it ultimately doesn't matter when it comes to JFK. A well-made film on all fronts with an excellent all-star cast to back it up, it's just a damn fine piece of work.

4

[Iroquois]

#17 - Death Wish
Michael Winner, 1974

http://deathwishfiles.com/Death%20Wish%2021.JPG

After a home invasion leaves his wife dead and his daughter catatonic, a middle-aged architect (Charles Bronson) acquires a gun and becomes a vigilante.

In my review for Rambo: First Blood Part II I was giving Sylvester Stallone guff for taking his successful serious films such as Rocky or First Blood and giving them sequel after sequel that turned the franchises into abysmal self-parody and tarnished the name of the original. In the case of Death Wish, getting ridiculous sequels is probably the best thing that could've happened to such a bland excuse for an action thriller. I understand that it's not meant to be out-and-out action, but as it stands it's actually a pretty terrible excuse for a movie.

The movie sets up Bronson with a safe white-collar job and a loving family, where his co-worker calls him out as a "bleeding heart liberal" for daring to suggest that, y'know, maybe the reason crime is so rampant is because of socio-economic factors causing more people to turn to crime as a last resort? Then, of course, a gang of cartoonishly deranged hoods attack his family and he is slowly pushed to violence (and I do mean slowly, it takes at least 40 minutes or so before he attacks anyone). From there the movie lapses into a basic pattern. Bronson kills someone. The police investigate and get slightly closer to catching him. Bronson has a scene where he doesn't kill someone. A funky (and occasionally sinister) Herbie Hancock soundtrack ensues. Repeat until the end.

The film attempts to be ambiguous about whether or not it glorifies Bronson's actions. Even leaving aside the fact that it managed to spawn four whole sequels, I'm not sure it does a particularly good job at it. I guess that's just a problem with the whole vigilante sub-genre. Leaving aside the morality question, this is still an awfully dull film when it's not veering way too close to garish exploitation.

1.5

[hello101]

I gave Death Wish the same rating, indeed a terrible film.

[Iroquois]

Oddly enough, I still want to watch the sequels because I figure they'll take the premise and do something halfway entertaining with it. Death Wish 3 in particular sounds like something I'd appreciate.

[hello101]

A part of me wants to as well, the original took itself too seriously and that's what lead to its downfall. The sequels seem stupid but in a fun kinda-way.

[TheUsualSuspect]

...back and to the left......back and to the left.

[Iroquois]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBz3PqA2Fmc

[Captain Spaulding]

After a brief hiatus, it's good to see that you're back and picking up where you left off with the excellent write-ups, Iro. A lot of these "movie a day" threads have popped up lately, but nobody is putting forth the consistent effort that you are. I'm really enjoying this thread. :up:

I'm disappointed that you didn't like Punch-Drunk Love or A Beautiful Mind more than you did. Personally, I think both movies are great.

I've never heard of The Water Diviner. At first I thought you were making a lame joke about Noah, but apparently The Water Diviner is something else entirely. As a fan of Russell Crowe, I'll keep an eye out for it.

I've always preferred the character of Rambo to Rocky. First Blood is one of my favorite movies, but I always pretend that he dies at the end, since that was the original ending and the proper ending. Like you mention in your write-up, Part II seems to forget everything that made First Blood such a standout film. However, as a big dumb action movie, Part II delivers, in my opinion. I certainly think it's better than the third entry in the series and at least on par with the 2008 film.

The gargantuan length of JFK puts me off a bit, but I'll watch it one of these days.

Ever since falling in love with Once Upon a Time in the West, I've wanted to explore more of Charles Bronson's roles since his Harmonica character was such an awesome bad ass. I've yet to watch any of the Death Wish movies, but your scathing write-up definitely throws cold water on any expectations I may have had.

[mark f]

Death Wish is the best of the DW movies , but 3 is livelier than II.

[honeykid]

Even when you're getting bombared with information, whether it's Garrison outlining his theory about the innocence of Lee Oswald (Gary Oldman) or a government informant (Donald Sutherland) delivering a load of exposition to Garrison, it's all paced in such a way that it stays interesting.
That's always been my favourite part of the whole film.

Definitely give Death Wish 3 a look. It's ridiculous in the way that only mid 80's Hollywood exploitation films could be.

[cricket]

I always loved Death Wish but it's been at least 20 years.

I completely agree with you on Punch Drunk Love, Rambo II, and A Beautiful Mind.

[hello101]

A Beautiful Mind seems to have a lukewarm consensus, everyone seems to like it, a select few seem to hate it and no one seems to love it. It didn't deserve to win whatever it won (I remember it won a big award or something).

[TheUsualSuspect]

A Beautiful Mind seems to have a lukewarm consensus, everyone seems to like it, a select few seem to hate it and no one seems to love it. It didn't deserve to win whatever it won (I remember it won a big award or something).

You have no idea what it won...but stand by the fact that it didn't deserve it? Odd.

[Iroquois]

#18 - Blow Out
Brian de Palma, 1981

http://filmint.nu/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/John-Travolta-_2.jpg

A jaded sound engineer (John Travolta) witnesses a car crash while recording noises one night and, upon realising it was staged, becomes embroiled in a political conspiracy along with the crash's sole survivor (Nancy Allen).

It'd be easy to write off Blow Out as a really lurid '80s rehash of The Conversation, but it more than holds its own. The sound design is naturally very good and the scenes involving Travolta's character doing his soundman job are interesting enough even without their direct contribution to the plot. The rest of the filmmaking is solid, with crisp photography emphasising a mix of neon and darkness while the editing of both sound and vision is strong. The plot itself is a fairly suspenseful affair for the most part, though it does seem to drag in parts. While Travolta's character has considerable depth with a traumatic past underneath his cool, cynical exterior, he's kind of cancelled out by Allen's naive airhead, though that's more a problem with the writing than with Allen's acting ability. John Lithgow's role as an especially sadistic enforcer manages to be sufficiently disturbing as well.

Blow Out is a solid little thriller that has enough interesting twists and turns to keep things turning and manages to compensate for some weak characterisation with all sorts of visual and, perhaps more importantly, audial flair. It may not be an all-time great, but it's definitely one of the better entries in de Palma's filmography.

3.5

[Iroquois]

#19 - Donnie Brasco
Mike Newell, 1997

http://www.heyuguys.com/images/2014/04/Donnie-Brasco.jpg

Centres on the titular mobster (Johnny Depp), who is secretly an undercover cop trying to work a case against a New York organised crime outfit in the 1970s.

At the end of the day, Donnie Brasco didn't do anything for me. Every "undercover" trope is on full display here and there's not really anything in the way of interesting variation on any of them. The job takes its strain on Depp's home life, he buddies up to a senior member (Al Pacino) who eventually trusts him more than anyone else, he constantly gets into situations where he has to prove he's not a cop (most memorably where the gang head to an authetic Japanese restaurant while his boots are wired), his superiors are dicks to him and there's the eventual implication that he's starting to favour being a crook over being a cop. Sure, it's well-made and the performances aren't bad, but it doesn't help that the movie just seems to go through the motions and doesn't feel like it does anything particularly worthwhile.

2

[Iroquois]

#20 - The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Niels Arden Oplev, 2009

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ae/Men_Who_Hate_Women.jpg

A disgraced journalist (Michael Nyqvist) is recruited to solve a 40-year-old missing persons case, eventually teaming up with a young hacker (Noomi Rapace) in the process.

This is the first time I'm actually seriously checking out the Millennium trilogy - I never read the books and the films were showing on TV once a week over the course of three weeks. The central mystery was interesting enough, though it's worth noting how the film takes its time getting around to it, instead working on developing Rapace's character, who serves as a more fascinating and layered individual than Nyqvist's fairly archetypal truth-chasing journo. The film is technically proficient and has an impressive feel to it thanks to its washed-out appearance and foreboding music. If there's one complaint it's that the film does feel a little long at times and it's ultimately a bit lacking in depth but it's still a gripping page-turner put onto the big screen in all its vivid, unsettling glory. I'll definitely be checking out the other two films the next chance I get.

4

[Iroquois]

#21 - Me and Orson Welles
Richard Linklater, 2010

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/12/3/1259840135110/Me-and-Orson-Welles-film--001.jpg

In 1937, a high school senior becomes involved with Orson Welles' attempt to stage a modern-day theatrical version of Julius Caesar.

Admittedly, Me and Orson Welles has a fairly basic coming-of-age kind of narrative (albeit compressed to the space of a week) to go with a film that is for the most part a comedy about that tried-and-true premise of a theatrical production suffering numerous setbacks. There's not much of the way of actual laughter, but there's a certain charm to the film (as with just about every other Linklater film I've seen) that overcomes the lack of broad amusement.

The main reason anyone should at least consider watching this film is for Christian McKay's turn as Orson Welles. McKay naturally dominates the film with an uncanny impression of Welles, managing to portray him as a multi-faceted man that generally projects the sort of smug eloquence the world associates with Welles but who also tries (and often fails) to hide a much more temperamental side, especially when it comes to glaring foibles such as his rampant infidelity or perfectionist tendencies. Zac Efron, here still making a shift away from being known as the guy from High School Musical, gets a role that seems rooted in self-deprecation (his part in the play calls for singing, of course) and he proves himself a serviceable performer. Claire Danes serves as little more than his love interest, but she works well with what she's given. Quite fittingly, there's also a good ensemble at work outside the core trio.

Linklater is a filmmaker who doesn't really have a distinctive visual style and it works well here, as if the whole film is bending to the awesome will of Orson Welles even in fictional form. Of course, the plot and characterisation of anyone who isn't Welles leaves something to be desired (though the subplot involving Efron's character befriending Zoe Kazan's aspiring writer is fairly decent) and it builds up to an ending that did take me by surprise, but overall it's a fairly charming little piece of work.

3

[mark f]

#19 - Donnie Brasco.y
At the end of the day, Donnie Brasco didn't do anything for me.
Well, Al Pacino is awesome.

[Iroquois]

He holds his own well enough, but he doesn't have all that much to work with.

[Captain Spaulding]

Outside of some of the stylistic flourishes, I wasn't a big fan of Blow Out. Decent, but disappointing after reading so much high praise from members of the forum. I've yet to fall in love with any of De Palma's movies.

I thought Donnie Brasco was very good. Just seeing Depp and Pacino share the screen was enough for me.

Have you seen Fincher's version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo?

Me and Orson Welles was surprisingly good. Despite Linklater's impressive track record, I think people tend to skip over it just because it stars Zac Efron.

[Iroquois]

I have not seen the Fincher version - I'll get to it after finishing the other films in the original trilogy.

[honeykid]

Disappointing at the lack of love for Donnie Brasco. It's on my 100 so I obviously love it, but I think it's damn near perfect at what it does and I love what it does. I disagree with you about the performances and the writing, too. The chemistry between Pacino and Depp is fantastic, whilst being both natural and believable as their relationship grows. Obvously all the cliches are there, as you point out, but I feel the film just uses them as the structure, as it's supposed to, and adds to it, decorates that structure, much like a climbing plant follows a trellis.

I'm the complete opposite with Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. This does feel like decent, but not great or even good Nordic Noir. I'd seriously put almost any episode of the first two series of Wallander, they're all feature length, against this. Maybe it's because it wasn't new to me when I saw it (I've seen a little of this stuff before) or, maybe, it's just that TV gives me what I want in a way that cinema doesn't anymore (though as I said, the Wallander episodes are all feature length) but I was amased at the praise this'd gotten when I eventually saw it.

I'd like to see the Fincher version, just to see how it differs and what the Hollywood factor adds/takes from it. I didn't get that feeling/atmosphere I often get from Nordic crime drama from GWTDT, so maybe the Hollywood version will give it something extra? Didn't happen with Insomnia, but who knows?

Me And Orson Welles is something I've wanted to see when it came out.

[Iroquois]

#22 - Rambo III
Peter MacDonald, 1988

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/b/b5/Rambo_III_-_screenshot.jpg

When Col. Trautman is captured by the Soviets during a mission into Afghanistan, it's up to Rambo to find his way in and save the day.

Well, considering how I wasn't particular entertained by First Blood Part II, there was even less chance of Rambo III being a success but I still held out. Aside from the near-identical plotline - Rambo has to infiltrate enemy territory to rescue someone, fails on his first attempt but ultimately succeeds - there's not much to endear one to this movie. Having Rambo team up with the Muhajideen (complete with scenes of him slowly bonding with his newfound allies - including a scrappy young kid to boot - before they are inevitably ambushed) seems rather quaint these days. The main villain is more or less interchangeable with the villain from the last film (he might actually have less depth that Berkoff's scenery-chewing colonel - here he's just a sadistic thug without even Berkoff's smattering of off-kilter charisma). It was interesting to see Trautman become a more active part of the narrative rather than just being Rambo's voice of reason or mission control - it's a shame he spends the bulk of the movie being imprisoned and tortured because when he does team up with Rambo to do some fighting it's actually not bad. Unfortunately, it's not enough to save this from being another semi-forgettable action movie.

1.5

[Iroquois]

#23 - Blossoms and Blood
Paul Thomas Anderson, 2002

A short film made during production of Punch-Drunk Love about its lead characters, Barry (Adam Sandler) and Lena (Emily Watson).

I may have had my misgivings about Punch-Drunk Love itself, but the idea that it had a matching short film on the 2-DVD edition made me wonder if seeing this might actually expand on it in some important way. Unfortunately, the resulting twelve minutes basically functions as a much more abridged and abstracted recap of the source film - it cuts out the bulk of the characters and plots simply to focus on Barry and Lena. Some scenes are basically alternate takes of scenes that were already in the original film, while others come across as deleted scenes. Even if you actually liked Punch-Drunk Love you'd be hard-pressed to think there's anything about this film that either added to the source film or made it stand out on its own merits. I'm not even sure why it exists.

1.5

[Iroquois]

#24 - Rambo
Sylvester Stallone, 2008

http://www.leffatykki.com/static/content/image/8a538f26f9100150faeb934a577c8761.jpg

A group of American missionaries hire Rambo to take them into war-torn Burma so they can administer humanitarian aid to the villagers there, but it's a Rambo movie so of course things go wrong very quickly.

After resurrecting Rocky Balboa with the imaginatively titled Rocky Balboa, Stallone obviously thought that bringing back his second-most-famous character would be just as great a success and so he did with Rambo (boy, those sequel titles, I tell you what). Even with the absence of Col. Trautman due to Richard Crenna's passing, the narrative is pretty much the same as it was in the last couple of films. At least with this film Stallone seems to realise how thin the Rambo sequel formula is and the resulting film doesn't even clock 90 minutes - while it ensures against bloat, it does mean that Stallone indulges a lot of 21st-century filmmaking's less tolerable aspects such as choppy editing and documentary-like shakycam. The decision to incorporate CGI blood and gore over practical effects is a double-edged sword because while it may look and feel less authentic than practical effects it does make for some ludicrously violent visuals. Too bad Stallone likes to play everything incredibly straight so being amused by this is a challenge. Characterisations are also pretty thin - Rambo is still wrestling with the same questioning of his own nature that was bothering him in Rambo III underneath his laconic exterior. The missionaries come across as clueless idealists who predictably get a harsh lesson in reality, while the villains are one-dimensional stereotypes who exist only to cause mayhem and violence for no real reason. At least the last couple of films gave us lead villains with some halfway-decent characterisation. There's also the group of mercenaries that appear halfway through the film that also cover the spectrum of soldier archetypes - amoral jerkass, sensitive new meat, etc.

Rambo has a few good moments scattered throughout its brief running time, but it's still a pretty weak film when all is said and done. I think the fact that I managed to watch every single Rambo movie even after my misgivings about the second one means there is at least something worthwhile about each of these movies but not enough to make me give any of them a positive score. At this rate, I'm still going to end up seeing Rambo V.

2

[Zotis]

I plan on never watching any Rocky or Rambo movies.

[Iroquois]

Rocky and First Blood are both solid and worth watching at least once, but the sequels are of very inconsistent quality.

[Iroquois]

#25 - Every Which Way But Loose
James Fargo, 1978

http://s3.amazonaws.com/auteurs_production/images/film/every-which-way-but-loose/w448/every-which-way-but-loose.jpg

A trucker (Clint Eastwood) falls for a country singer (Sondra Locke). When she leaves town, he embarks on a road trip in order to win her back.

Better known as "that movie with Clint Eastwood and the orangutang", this is a decidedly mediocre excuse for a comedy, even one that doesn't aim particularly high. The performances are generally serviceable, though the members of the biker gang that Eastwood antagonises are too irritating to even be entertaining when they get screwed over by Eastwood. Though Eastwood does a good job of sounding laid-back and deadpan, the show is stolen by Ruth Gordon as the cantankerous mother of his best friend (Geoffrey Lewis) and, of course, Clyde the orangutang. Clyde is as good a reason as any to watch this movie, performing antics such as flipping people off or drinking beers. Aside from that, the jokes aren't much chop. It's a very basic road-trip comedy that does last way longer than it needs to settles into a pattern of having Clyde do something funny or having one of Eastwood's many enemies try to get revenge on him - and, of course, Eastwood getting into fights.

One thing that did stand out to me about the film was the reveal that

Sondra Locke's character actually doesn't care about Eastwood's character and is shocked to discover he's gone through all this trouble just to follow her. I thought that was a good twist and actually worked better in the context of this film than a sappy reunion would've worked. It also makes sense how it plays into Eastwood throwing the final fight of the movie.
For the most part, though, Every Which Way But Loose is a very underwhelming bit of slapstick. Having an orangutang does it make it stand out, but that (and the stuff covered in the spoiler space) are the only things that make it really stand out.

2

[Iroquois]

#26 - Any Which Way You Can
Buddy Van Horn, 1980

http://www.themoviescene.co.uk/reviews/_img/2033-3.jpg

Following on from Every Which Way But Loose, Philo wants to give up street-fighting but he is soon roped into a Mafia-organised fight against a particularly dangerous fighter.

The sad thing about watching sequels like Any Which Way You Can is that you can see ideas at work that would have improved the original film but are instead left to flounder in a sequel of generally lesser quality. There are some good concepts at work here - the fact that the Mob constantly try to coerce Eastwood into fighting their champion despite said champion being an extremely affable guy who ends up befriending Eastwood - but they're buried under way too many attempts to lifelessly recycle gags from Every Which Way But Loose. The annoying biker gang I mentioned earlier is back with even more of a vengeance, there's more gags about getting Clyde laid (complete with jokes about tranquilising a female ape that sound an awful lot like date-rape jokes), plus they bring back Sondra Locke's character despite the reasons I mentioned in my last review. Having the film climax in a massive fist-fight across an entire small town was decent enough but it feels like too little, too late, especially in a film that's even longer than its already-overlong predecessor.

1.5

[Iroquois]

#27 - Holy Flying Circus
Owen Harris, 2011

http://hillbillyfilms.com/hillbilly/wp-content/gallery/productions/holy-flying-circus-5th-july-2011-429.jpg

A loosely-based-on-a-true-story dramedy about legendary British comedy troupe Monty Python as they have to deal with the outcry against their controversial Biblical comedy. Life of Brian.

Biopics about comedians can be tricky - trying to depict the same comic brilliance that made them legends in the first place is already difficult, while trying to balance it with the actual drama of their personal lives can make for a tonally unbalanced piece of work. Right from the outset, Holy Flying Circus claims to be "largely made up" and instead tries to throw in a load of Pythonesque jokes while throwing in the occasional actual event.

Though it's about the group as a whole, the film wisely decides to make Michael Palin and John Cleese the main characters. "Nicest man in the world" Palin is legitimately conflicted over the impact the film is having on everyone (including himself), while Cleese is an insensitive bastard who thinks the group has every right to offend everyone. At one point, the film acknowledges that yes, the film's version of Cleese is basically one big Basil Fawlty impression. The other Pythons are more or less background characters with one running gag each - Eric Idle is a greedy sellout, Terry Gilliam is a dopey American, Terry Jones has a speech impediment (and in true Python style, Palin's in-show wife is played by the same actor as Jones) while Graham Chapman is a constantly-smoking snarker. Despite the limits placed on their characters in the narrative, the actors all do tremendous impressions - during the first post-credits scene I initially thought they were the actual Pythons (not going to lie, the film's version of Idle is scarily identical to the real thing). Other characters in the film, from TV executives to outraged Christian groups (led by Mark Heap, better known as Brian from Spaced), are serviceable for the most part.

Unfortunately, for a film that tries to simulate Python's style of humour (including fake commercials and cut-out animations), the jokes tend to fall rather flat an awful lot of the time. There are lots of call-backs to existing Python jokes, especially to jokes from Life of Brian, but repeating them with some slight variation isn't enough to make them work a second time. Even when the Pythons' knack for making extremely metafictional humour is taken to the extreme several times it's not as clever as it thinks (not even when it points out that it knows that it's not as clever as it thinks). There's also the matter of the narrative itself - it's a pretty standard story about the right to free speech and the responsibility that comes with challenging the status quo and all that good stuff. Palin makes for a good protagonist, at least, as his reputation for being the "nicest man in the world" is frequently challenged by obstructive anti-Python individuals and institutions and makes for decent enough drama and at least one memorable revenge fantasy. I give the film credit for getting some amazingly accurate portrayals of the Pythons out of its actors, but the film as a whole, both as a comedy and a drama, does leave a fair bit to be desired. Still worth a shot if you like Monty Python, but be wary about your expectations.

Addendum: it's a minor thing, but I thought it was a nice touch how...

the trio of Christian protestors led by Heap's character, who have been complaining about Life of Brian for the whole film, gradually have a change of heart that completes when they see the bishop trash the film on TV. Also, the minor detail of how the Pythons are at a pub and everyone has a beer except for Chapman.

2.5

[honeykid]

Wow. You're just pissing your time away atm aren't you? :D

[Captain Spaulding]

Even as a Clint Eastwood fan, I've found it nearly impossible to muster up any desire to watch Every Which Way But Loose or its sequel.

Stallone rips a dude's throat out with his bare hands in Rambo. That alone made it worth watching. It's my second favorite of the series, although none of them compare to First Blood, which is a top 50 favorite for me.

I've never watched a single Monty Python film, so I doubt Holy Flying Circus would appeal to me.

[honeykid]

I've never watched a single Monty Python film, so I doubt Holy Flying Circus would appeal to me.
I think that'd help.

[Iroquois]

Wow. You're just pissing your time away atm aren't you? :D

Relax, I'll get to some good movies sooner or later.

[Iroquois]

#28 - Evil Dead II
Sam Raimi, 1987

http://cdn2.denofgeek.us/sites/denofgeekus/files/brucecampbell.jpg

After accidentally summoning evil spirits to a cabin in the woods, Ash (Bruce Campbell) has to survive not one but two nights at the mercy of pure evil.

I was feeling tired and didn't want to watch another movie all the way through, but then this started playing on TV. "Just until the first ad break," I said to myself. But no, I watched the whole thing. As with just about every one of my all-time favourites, I've lost count of how many times I've watched Evil Dead II - for some reason, I'm thinking at least fifteen. It helps that, due to the film's low-budget aesthetic, every time I spot a new continuity error (Ash's chainsaw changes hands in one shot, you can see the camera crew's shadow in another, etc.) it just adds to the charm rather than become a distraction. It's also an extremely taut piece of work - even the slow, quiet bits feel like scaling a rollercoaster rather than filler. Campbell is of course a master at work here as he spends the bulk of this movie acting on his own and delivering one of the best B-grade horror performances of all-time - the other cast members may be archetypes but they work exceedingly well. Even the two hick characters are oddly charming in spite of them being extremely annoying. The photography is quick and intense without being needlessly disorienting, the effects work dances on the fine line between excellent and horrible but is always entertaining. Also, it does really well at balancing the humour with the horror - even after having seen it so many times before (and this time was with the lights on) I still got a little jump out of it. Then there's that absolutely brilliant ending. All in all, still a major favourite.

5

[Iroquois]

#29 - Amores Perros
Alejandro González Iñárritu, 2000

http://mobilite.mobi/wp-content/uploads/amores-perros-photos-6.jpg

Three interlocking stories - one about a lovestruck young man getting involved in dogfighting, one about a model and her recovery from a brutal accident, and one about an impoverished hitman looking for redemption.

I haven't seen any of Iñárritu's other films, so I figured I should at least try to watch his acclaimed feature-length debut before I got around to watching Birdman. It takes the "multiple interconnected narratives" approach and, though it doesn't do anything especially novel with it - the film still focuses on one storyline at a time with infrequent overlaps or cut-aways - it helps that the stories are fascinating. The story about the dogfighter takes a familiar romantic premise - his plan is to win money on dogfights so as to run away with his brother's girlfriend - and sucks all the romance out of it and then some, playing it depressingly straight but still generating enough pathos that you still care about whether or not he will get away with it. That's without mentioning the foregone conclusion of the opening scene where he is frantically transporting his injured dog to hospital before getting into a car crash. The second story - about a supermodel who gets a broken leg from said car crash - is a decidedly less hectic story but still enough to engage as the model, has to contend with a variety of mundane but horrifying problems such as recovering from her injuries, losing her dog in her apartment's crawlspace and the tensions that this causes with her married boyfriend. It's far less violent than the dogfighter story but the idea of a pet howling for help it can't get will definitely rattle some people. The third story takes another familiar premise - a homeless contract killer wants to make things up with his estranged family and ends up taking one last job as a result - and manages to wring some new life out of it, ultimately making it the most fascinating story of the three.

Stylistically, the film tends towards gritty camerawork that alternates between frantic edits and smooth movements. The music covers a variety of genres appropriate to the story - there's a lot of hip-hop beats at work here, especially in the dogfight story, but also there's some nice atmospheric work (especially the last song in the film - I mean, damn). The acting is great and every story's lead gets at least one scene that's simply amazing to witness. As far as imitators of the violent multi-narrative formula laid down by Pulp Fiction go, it's definitely one of the best.

4

[Iroquois]

#30 - Splendor in the Grass
Elia Kazan, 1961

http://torontofilmsociety.org/files/2014/06/Splendor-in-the-Grass.jpg

A melodrama set in 1928 Kansas revolving around a young woman (Natalie Wood) and the issues that spring from her tumultuous relationship with a local tycoon's son (Warren Beatty).

It's interesting how "melodramatic" has come to be something of a pejorative term used to dismiss anything that comes across as excessively emotional or passionate as if having overwhelming emotional outbursts was an inherently bad thing. I've watched other films in the melodrama genre - both original works like All That Heaven Allows or affectionate homages like Far From Heaven - and I reckon that, for all the negativity that can get associated with the term, there's some good quality to be found in this particular sub-genre. Splendor in the Grass promised its fair share of the same, but the end result left quite a bit to be desired.

The film does have its strengths. Natalie Wood turns in a good performance as a young woman whose various inner conflicts are reflected by her air of barely-maintained restraint that still gives way to the occasional piercing cry of the feelings she tries to control. Warren Beatty makes his cinematic debut as her primary love interest, who is also under pressure from a number of influences both personal and societal (his amiable yet demanding father, his high school football team, the high society that he's trapped in because of his father's wealth). There's an obvious theme of sexual repression running through this film from minute one and various characters' reactions to it, whether submitting to it non-violently like Wood does or loudly rejecting it as several supporting characters do (such as Barbara Loden as Beatty's flapper sister, whose arrival in town does serve as a catalyst for some serious tension).

In terms of narrative, however, the film does falter a bit. Sure, I did note with some amusement how the film is set in 1928 and the characters go on about how the stock market is at an all-time high, but the central plot...even understanding how the social mores of the time were damaging the lead characters' relationship and were subtly oppressing various characters, it still didn't make for especially engaging drama. It didn't help that, unlike Douglas Sirk, Elia Kazan doesn't demonstrate much visual flair to add emphasis to the characters' emotional states. The music is also pretty much par for the course in that regard. These aren't the worst actors and lines but they still feel underweight and the length of the film doesn't do it any favours.

2.5

[Iroquois]

#31 - A Band Called Death
Jeff Howlett and Mark Christopher Covino, 2012

http://drafthousefilms.com/_uploads/films/29223/deathfamouspic__medium.jpg

A documentary chronicling the peculiar journey of Death, an obscure proto-punk outfit consisting of three of the four Hackney brothers - David on guitar, Bobby on bass and vocals, and Dannis on drums. The film covers Death's history from the start of their short-lived career through their dissolution and David's death before their revival in the Internet age.

It's quite fitting that much of the mythology surrounding Death is rooted in its sole deceased member and creative driving force, guitarist David Hackney. Taking inspiration from a Baptist upbringing and the tragic death of his minister father, David's unconventionally positive attitude towards death causes all sorts of bizarre conflicts for the band, most notably with his refusal to change the band's controversial name for fear of compromising his artistic vision. Bobby and Dannis, along with a cavalcade of friends and relatives, serve to make it so it seems like the documentary is primarily about David and the various sides to him - they will crack jokes about how ridiculous they thought the name Death was at first but soon end up tearfully recounting the devastation of David's passing minutes later. The spiritual level gets played up a fair bit, especially when David's prediction that "the world will come looking for [Death's master tapes]" ultimately comes true. David is definitely a fascinating figure but given how much of the interviews consist of people talking about him and him alone, one can get a little tired of hearing about him, especially when people start to unknowingly repeat one another.

If anything, I'd say the biggest problem I have with A Band Called Death is the repetition. I do understand that the band's lack of recorded material justifies it (and on its own, it's some good music), but you should definitely be prepared to hear the same snippets of the same handful of songs played over and over again. The same goes for the limited amount of photographs from the era that the film covers. The directors can add whatever stylistic effects they want to the photos, but it doesn't change the fact that they use the same handful of photos repeatedly. Another interesting thing about going in blind is that they managed to cover the whole rise and fall of Death pretty quickly - after they talk about David's death, I wondered how they could possibly fill out the rest of the running time. Of course, the third part of the film goes into their rediscovery thanks to record collectors (most notably Jello Biafra from the Dead Kennedys, who is one of many celebrities who pop into the film to sing the praises of Death, including Alice Cooper, Henry Rollins and, for some reason, Elijah Wood and Kid Rock) prizing their records as amazing obscurities and increasing interest enough for Death to re-release their music and even reform (with a new guitarist and posters of David adoring the stage, no less). It's a fairly happy ending to the story of Death - even with David gone (and watching his surviving brothers choke up while trying to talk about his death is a bit hard to watch), the band lives on and will continue to do so.

A Band Called Death is a solid documentary and the subject matter is interesting, but I find the repetitive depiction of the subject matter a bit tiresome. The Hackney brothers make for likeable subjects and I understand why they and other interviewees would want to talk about David moreso than anything else, but it can wear a bit thin at times and leave you wondering just how much of this is necessary. Hearing the same handful of songs and seeing the same handful of photos used repeatedly is also another one of those filmmaking choices that makes sense in context but still has its problems. Aside from that, it's a warm and touching documentary about some brothers with a dream who were way ahead of their time and are at least getting their due recognition late rather than never.

3

[Iroquois]

#32 - Troll 2
Claudio Fragasso, 1990

https://bristolbadfilmclub.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/trolls.jpg

A family goes on holiday to a country town, but it's actually populated by vegetarian goblins and the family's son is the only one who is aware of the danger.

Troll 2 has rightfully earned its reputation as one of the best worst movies ever made. Part of what makes it work, in my opinion, is that it does have a legitimately unsettling premise but it's just really badly handled. The concept of vegetarian goblins who have to transform humans into plants before eating them has the potential for some seriously disturbing body horror - despite this film's woeful execution of this concept, a scene such as Joshua's feverish nightmare of turning into a plant still has at least some effect even though it does just look like someone's just glued tree branches to his fingers while pouring green food colouring on his face. The fact that the goblins' dietary habits are the screenwriter's attempt at mocking self-righteous vegetarians makes it so much better - what better way to guarantee an entry into the bad movie hall of fame than to act like your schlocky no-budget horror movie is trying to deliver a message? It definitely worked for Birdemic.

As far as the acting goes, the fact that it was American actors directed by Italians off a roughly translated script means there are plenty of off-kilter dialogue moments - fortunately the bulk of the actors are either stilted enough or over-the-top enough to suit those lines. To the film's credit, I don't find Joshua annoying. A freckle-faced kid with a high-pitched voice who always looks like he's in constant anguish should be irritating as hell, but here I really do feel bad for the kid. The most memorable character is easily the film's main antagonist, a scenery-chewing witch who seems like she's playing every single Helena Bonham Carter role at once (wait, why is the leader of the goblins not actually a goblin? It's like Labyrinth or something.) The drawling father, the constantly-dazed mother, the gang of horny teenage boys, the grandpa ghost...like any cult classic worth its salt, there are a host of memorable characters (the movie's most memorable line does come from one of the teenage boys, after all).

On a technical level, the film is obviously awful. The effects are generally really bad and ruin some admittedly decent ideas in the process. I even watched this in the company of a friend who works in makeup and special effects - her running commentary on this was rather informative, to say the least. The music is heavily rooted in the '80s and is cheesy as hell, but at least it's the enjoyable kind of cheese. There are also plenty of ludicrous developments and gaps in the logic that it's probably better not to question, such as how the ghost of Joshua's grandpa can start manifesting physically and handing out Molotov cocktails or how "the power of goodness" can save the day. Even simple things such as asking why the goblins would expect humans to drink expired milk (especially when a goblin-in-disguise tries to sell it to a human despite it sitting out on a bench instead of in a fridge...and succeeds) are just baffling. If anything, the baffling nature of just about every aspect of this film is what makes it a true "classic". I don't even know how to rate it. It's a 0.5 in terms of quality, but a 5 in terms of enjoyment, so I guess I can just split the difference and give it 3. Normally that kind of rating goes to movies that I merely think are alright but nothing special. Troll 2 is definitely not alright, but it is most definitely special.

3

[hello101]

I've never heard of any of these movies (except Evil Dead 2).

[Iroquois]

The more you know.

[Iroquois]

#33 - Saturday Night Fever
John Badham, 1977

http://www.themoviethemesong.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Saturday-Night-Fever-Movie-Theme-Song-1.jpg

Chronicles the day-to-day misadventures of 19-year-old Tony Manero (John Travolta) who works in a dead-end job by day and goes clubbing by night.

It would have been interesting to go into this film with expectations based purely on its place in pop culture and thinking it was going to be a campy song-and-dance kind of film about how awesome disco was, but no, I was well aware that it was a lot darker than its reputation suggested (if nothing else, the MA rating on the case would've tipped me off). An interesting slice of social realism rooted in a working-class Italian Catholic background made for an interesting choice, as Tony Manero only really cares about dancing because it's the one thing about his life that he actually likes. Other than him, most of the cast don't get much definition - he's got a few friends but the only one with any real characterisation is the one who's nervous about a shotgun wedding, while the rest are shallow and unsympathetic. The film has a recognisable conflict in that Tony finds himself in the midst of a love triangle between a sad, doe-eyed young woman hanging off him all the time and the worldly, challenging upper-class woman who treats him coldly at first but soon warms up to him. That's pretty standard stuff even before he joins up with the latter as part of a dance contest (even though the former asked him to do the same thing), but even that plays out like a sub-plot that doesn't feel of major significance. The various plotlines are just interesting enough to keep one's attention as the film goes through developments that are somewhat predictable now, and thinking of this film as character-driven is a shame because a lot of them aren't that good. Travolta's got some decent chops and he gets a chance to show them off here - I can definitely understand why he got nominated for a Best Actor Oscar here, though that could just as easily be because of his dance moves. Other performers vary in terms of ability or interesting characterisation, but not by much.

While the film does end up being more of a gritty drama than expected, it still finds plenty (and I do mean plenty) of time to actually show off all the dancing that Tony and his friends do night after night. At least half the value of the film is seeing Travolta and co. pull some impressive moves to some very catchy hit songs. It's not hard to see why that became the part that people celebrated and not the actual plot. The lurid cinematography also makes these sequences stand out. I'm not sure if they're good enough to guarantee the film's place as a classic but it's definitely got some quality, even though some scenes do come across as a little off-putting, such as

the scene where the sad-eyed woman I mentioned earlier, in an ill-advised attempt to make Tony jealous, ends up attempting to hook up with one of Tony's friends but ends up being sexually assaulted by more than one of Tony's friends for her trouble while Tony...does nothing about it? What? At least he seems to have bailed on them by the end of the film, but even so...I don't know, that bit just came out of nowhere and seemed to distract from one character's possibly-deliberate fall to his death at the end of the film happening shortly afterwards.

3

[Zotis]

I was never interested in Saturday Night Fever before, but you've peeked my curiosity. Good write ups. Troll 2 sounds hilarious.

[Iroquois]

It is. I highly recommend seeing it with an appreciative audience.

[Zotis]

Actually Amores Perros and A Band Called Death look even more interesting. It is crazy how the internet has brought so many obscure things out of the woodworks. I love it so much. Damn, I think I was born at exactly the right time.

[Iroquois]

I already knew about Death before I saw the film and ...For the Whole World to See is definitely a good album. That album is only about 26 minutes long - it's lean and mean, unlike the film which struggles to fill out 90 minutes.

[Iroquois]

#34 - The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn
Steven Spielberg, 2011

http://www.animationmagazine.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/the-adventures-of-tintin-movie-4.jpg

Based on the acclaimed comic book series about the titular journalist, this time as he finds himself in the middle of a conspiracy involving a long-lost ship.

This had been on my to-see list ever since I first heard about it but I've only just gotten around to watching it. Between the books and the short-lived animated series based on said books, Tintin was a fondly remembered part of my childhood and that was enough to get me to watch the film. It definitely appeals to that childlike yearning for adventure that's tinged with just enough danger to be thrilling but not enough to be truly discomforting. The semi-realistic animation style is leaps and bounds ahead of the pen-and-ink style from the TV series and, though it might look a little ridiculous at times, I do have to marvel at the technical accomplishment. I did wonder multiple times how the film would've gone over as a proper live-action film, but I guess finding a live-action Snowy that does half the stuff this one does would be difficult.

The plot is a pretty basic adventure romp complete with a great odd couple in the intrepid yet chipper Tintin and his companion, the perpetually intoxicated Captain Haddock. There's no ancillary romance sub-plot to weigh down the proceedings and the comic relief (exemplified by Simon Pegg and Nick Frost as bumbling detectives Thomson and Thompson) plays into the main plot in interesting ways. It's interesting how, with the exception of Andy Serkis as Haddock, the recurring characters sound almost identical to the voices from the animated series (that isn't a complaint, by the way, just an interesting observation). I guess if there's one thing about this that's a bit too goofy even within the context of a family-friendly cartoon adventure, it's

the scenes where Haddock is gradually able to recall his ancestor's experiences
but it's still somewhat acceptable. I also have to give credit to one action sequence towards the end of the film that covers an entire downhill chase in what is supposed to be one continuous shot, and damn if that part isn't worth watching on its own. It's certainly a fun enough film that I hope it follows up on its sequel hook at some point.


3.5

[cricket]

I saw Every Which Way but Loose at the movies as a boy, and for a short time, it was my favorite movie. I still love it. Any Which Way You Can isn't as good, but I love that too.

I also saw Saturday Night Fever at the movies when it was out. I just recently took it out of my top 10, but it could find it's way back there. I love it.

I loved Evil Dead II when I saw it at the movies. Now, I just like it.

Adventures of Tintin was the very last cut from my animation list.

I saw Splendor in the Grass recently and thought it was a pretty good movie, but I thought it could've and should've been so much more.

[TheUsualSuspect]

The animation in TinTin is stunning and it's a fun adventure for sure...but I couldn't help but feel "meh" about it all.

[Iroquois]

#35 - The Secret in their Eyes
Juan Jose Campanella, 2009

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Admin/BkFill/Default_image_group/2010/8/11/1281536730857/The-Secret-in-Their-Eyes--006.jpg

When a young woman is raped and murdered in 1970s Buenos Aires, it falls to one investigator to try to bring the perpetrator to justice but his quest for justice hits a number of devastating complications that still plague him decades after the case goes cold.

All in all, a pretty deserving recipient of the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar. The "cold case" premise has become something of a staple in modern crime fiction, but here it's put to interesting use. The alternating between the present day and the 1970s is handled well thanks to the interaction between Ben (Ricardo Darin) and Irene (Soledad Villamil), whose relationship is complicated by a variety of factors both in the past and present. That relationship is a major part of the film and of course the characterisation is what becomes more important than the mystery at the core of the narrative, especially when

the case involving the murdered woman is actually solved about halfway through the film but that doesn't actually mean justice has been done.
I think it's a testament to the film's quality that any attempt to explain its story beyond the familiar premise would spoil it severely and really, the less you know about this film when going in, the better. It's a shame, because there are some great moments - a worthy highlight for cinema fans would be the lengthy one-shot that starts with a helicopter shot into a football stadium before following the lead detectives into the bowels of the stadium as they chase down a perp. Even without that there's some slick photography with a great emphasis on strong colours that makes virtually every shot in this film a strong one. Though I do have some minor misgivings about the film, for the most part it's a lot stronger than my rating might suggest and it is definitely worth at least one viewing for anyone who likes crime investigation stories, but it goes beyond a regular whodunit without a problem.

3.5

[Iroquois]

#36 - The Song Remains the Same
Joe Massot and Peter Clifton, 1976

http://stickyshoereview.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/The-Song-Remains-the-Same-led-zeppelin_03.jpg

A film about legendary rock band Led Zeppelin that intersperses footage of their performances at Madison Square Garden with various "fantasy" sequences and behind-the-scenes incidents.

Led Zeppelin used to be one of my favourite bands but my opinion of the band has dropped considerably over the years. It's gotten to the point where watching their live DVDs feels like less of an appreciation of their physical presence and more an act of bitter completionism (but then again, what else would you call watching at least one movie a day?) Between this film and their 2003 career-spanning DVD, I figure this is the last I need to deal with their work. Let's see where bitter completionism gets me.

For starters, it's too damn long. Two hours and twenty minutes? I get that Zep is very fond of doing extended live performances of their music but I think the fact that they had to insert "fantasy" sequences into the film during said live performances can easily be interpreted as a sign of how little faith the band had in their musical material alone holding an audience's interest. It doesn't help that the fantasy material isn't especially interesting either. John Bonham pretends to be both a gangster and a racecar driver, while John Paul Jones pretends to be an old-fashioned organist who encounters vicious horsemen (but wait, one of them is him), and then there's Robert Plant trying to be some sort of valiant knight. I don't even remember Jimmy Page doing anything on the same level as the others, and I guess it's probably better that I don't. Otherwise, this film is intercut with fairly simple recordings of their live performances and the occasional interjection of a behind-the-scenes quarrel, whether it's manager Peter Grant chewing out stadium staff over bootleg merchandise or even newspaper stories about the band getting robbed. Anything that doesn't directly involve the band performing (or even giving interviews, and even then there aren't any interviews save for a brief clip of Plant backstage) just feels like a blatant attempt to pad the film out.

It probably doesn't help that I managed to hear the soundtrack of the film before watching it and ultimately thought little of it. The visuals on offer are occasionally impressive, but good luck getting me to think that watching this band for the same length of time as the running time for Goodfellas will be remotely satisfactory. They can include as many fantasy sequences as they want, but it won't distract from the lukewarm music on offer here.

2

[Zotis]

I added The Secret in Their Eyes to my to-watch list. Sounds pretty awesome. I only skimmed your review though, I like going into movies as blind as possible once I'm peaked.

[Iroquois]

#37 - A Hard Day's Night
Richard Lester, 1964

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/stills/132232-153f967980de94944d71e4e70399728b/Film_711w_HardDaysNight_original.jpg

A fictitious story about a day in the life (heh) of the Beatles (who play themselves) as they spend their time running from fans, performing music and getting into shenanigans.

I don't much go in for the Beatles' output prior to Rubber Soul but it's solid enough early-'60s rock-pop. Making a film about popular musician (especially one based in fiction) does come across as a rather cynical exercise in exploiting their fanbase, but at least here the end product is a decent enough little comedy. The loose monochromatic photography gives the film a proper documentarian feel and really accentuates the band's youthful vivacity. The music, well, I can take or leave it, but the accompanying visuals (the band doing an impromptu performance in the cargo section of a train car or fooling around in an open field to the tune of "Can't Buy Me Love") don't do much for me. The plot, such as there is one, is helped by the Beatles playing themselves as charmingly cheeky young fellas who are constantly mocking the uptight squares that they encounter. The show is stolen by Wilfrid Brambell as Paul McCartney's crotchety grandfather, whose own antics serve as an amusing catalyst for new plotlines (most notably during the last third of the film where he manages to talk Ringo Starr into running off right before the band's gig). There's enough humour here to be constantly amusing and it's a thankfully lean film, but I guess at the end of the day it's just an alright piece of work despite it coming across as an attempt to capitalise on the band's success.

3

[Iroquois]

#38 - Star Trek: The Motion Picture
Robert Wise, 1979

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gb1-5gHDdpk/UZFd_hicrSI/AAAAAAAADXE/ZmXz_BbL_RQ/s1600/star-trek-TMP-2.jpg

When a strange and destructive entity starts making its way towards Earth, it's up to Kirk and the crew to take control of the Enterprise and deal with it.

The voice of Simon Pegg's character in Spaced echoes in my head: "Sure as day follows night, sure as eggs is eggs, sure as every odd-numbered Star Trek movie is sh*t." I'm sure I'll think of that every time I end up watching an odd-numbered Trek film, but even so I thought I'd try to give this one the benefit of the doubt anyway. The resulting film has an interesting premise, but the problem definitely lies in its execution.

For one thing, it's too damn slow. I can understand taking the 2001 route and taking the time to show off all the shiny effects (and they are good effects for the most part) but it somehow manages to come across as tedious, even with that awesome new theme song playing behind it. It's taken to absurd levels with the scene where the Enterprise goes through a wormhole and everything happens in slow-motion - even the dialogue. There's the usual re-introduction of the main cast and a couple of plot-relevant supporting parts, but having the antagonist be a nebulous ball of light doesn't make for that good a conflict, though the reveal of its true nature is a good one. It's technically well-made for the most part and the Star Trek charm is there, but there's just too much wrong with it to genuinely like (the plot doesn't really make the most of its potential, either). I definitely would not recommend this to people unfamiliar with the franchise.

2.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

I have never seen a single Star Trek film from the original crew.

[honeykid]

You're missing nothing. Even the even numbered ones are crap. Well, the ones i've seen anyway.

[The Gunslinger45]

Saw Star Trek The Motionless Picture once when I was a kid. Even in my younger and less discerning days of movie watching I knew this movie was dull as hell and never needed to be seen again. Especially when number 2 was Wrath of Khan. Which is AWESOME!

[Iroquois]

#39 - Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
Leonard Nimoy, 1986

http://moarpowah.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Star-Trek-IV-Still-1.jpg

After deducing that the only creature capable of communicating with a destructive alien being is the now-extinct humpback whale, the crew of the Enterprise travel back in time to 1980s San Francisco in order to find a whale and save the world.

Reading that brief plot synopsis should be enough to make you double-guess watching this film. Time travel? Whales? What? It doesn't help that I'm generally weary of films where characters travel through time and they have to spend a good chunk of the film's running time getting used to the strange society of the past or future. Even though the film seems to be tongue-in-cheek about its far-fetched premise, that's not a guarantee that it'll be endearing as a result. Also, there's the fact that I watched this back-to-back with The Motion Picture and thus the whole "destructive entity is heading for Earth" premise does seem to indicate a lack of originality. Despite my misgivings, The Voyage Home manages to prove a surprisingly solid (if not particularly amazing) piece of work.

Having the franchise jump into comedy after the one-two punch of The Wrath of Khan and The Search for Spock does make some sense, even if some of the more illogical developments don't always gel with the light-hearted vibe of the film. The core cast frequently breaks the Prime Directive (Scotty divulges futuristic technology to a glass manufacturer, Bones sees a woman on dialysis and grows her kidney back, etc.) and there are some instances where it's clear the film might be trying to pad out the action (such as Chekov getting himself captured aboard a nuclear "wessel") but it's still entertaining enough for the most part as Kirk and co. struggle with concepts like money, punk rockers and, of course, whales. The Voyage Home is a harmless piece of fluff that isn't a peak for the series but certainly doesn't plumb the depths either.

3

[Iroquois]

#40 - Amadeus
Milos Forman, 1984

http://evanerichards.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Amadeus236-580x250.png

The tale of Antonio Salieri (F. Murray Abraham) and his incredibly complicated relationship with Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (Tom Hulce) as the latter's appearance in Vienna starts to cause problems for the former.

It was about time I went and watched another classic, this time the appropriately grandiose and opulent film about a famously brilliant composer and his passionate but less talented rival. The framing story involving an elderly Salieri recounting the film to a priest as if it were a confession, and in many ways it is. Abraham rightfully earns an Oscar for his work as Salieri, who is an incredibly complex protagonist that struggles to keep his faith when he sees how God has apparently given the gift of musical genius to an irreverent, giggling pest like Mozart. It's a testament to the film's brilliance that, while he does come across as annoying a fair bit of the time, Hulce's Mozart is also a compelling character whose chipper flamboyance hides a heavily flawed and insecure human whose astonishing musical abilities can be just as much of a curse as a blessing. Over the course of three hours you will go from thinking he is an irritating upstart to being actively invested in his well-being, even as his continued existence keeps providing problems for Salieri. Though the complex rivalry between these two men is the heart and soul of the film, there is still a strong ensemble orbiting these two giants in the form of court officials, the Emperor and Mozart's one true love.

On a technical level, the film is astounding. There's all the lavish quality you'd expect from an ambitious period epic - ornate set decoration, elaborate costumes, smooth cinematography and so forth. It goes without saying that the score is brilliant, too. Though the extended edition clocks in at about 200 minutes in length, you barely feel it as the film traces Mozart's rise and fall through the eyes of Salieri, complete with excellent commentary from the older Salieri as he reflects on his past. It's always interesting when I see a film that makes me want to challenge my rule about doing first-time ratings out of four boxes rather than five. While I don't quite feel like breaking this habit, Amadeus is the kind of exquisitely-crafted cinema that I should be spending more of my time watching.

4

[Iroquois]

#41 - Birdman (or the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
Alejandro González Iñárritu, 2014

http://www.flickeringmyth.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Birdman.jpg

Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton) is a washed-up actor that's best known for playing the titular superhero but he intends to turn things around by mounting a stage adaptation of a Raymond Carver story. Naturally, the production is complicated by unruly actors, unfortunate malfunctions and, oh yeah, the voice inside his head and his growing telekinetic powers.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the best Darren Aronofsky film ever made.

But seriously, Birdman is a stupefyingly good piece of work. Even leaving aside the amazing cinematography and editing on offer (and the near-seamless brilliance of the continuous takes should definitely be enough of a draw on its own), what you're left with is an impressively dark comedy about fame, integrity and, of course, what we talk about when we talk about love. Keaton is the powerful heart of an ensemble drama, playing Riggan with gusto as he deals with a problem a minute - there's the usual "troubled production" tropes at work, plus his damaged relationships with his loved ones and the unnervingly schizophrenic interactions he has with his foul-mouthed alter ego, a personification of his career-making superhero performance. Even the revelation that Riggan has psychic powers feels strangely organic within the context of this otherwise hyper-realistic film. It's a truly powerhouse performance that is peppered with stand-out moments that would definitely come across as spoilers (such as his story about his abusive father, for instance).

Despite Keaton obviously dominating the film, there's a strong ensemble at work behind him. Edward Norton almost steals the show as a talented yet irksome actor whose insistence on being true to his craft results in moments that are either touching or unsettling (or sometimes both). Emma Stone, playing Riggan's daughter/assistant, gets the most impressive role I've seen her perform yet, even getting one amazingly passionate and uninterrupted monologue in at one point. Her chemistry with Norton is also surprisingly strong, which is a shame considering that

the film doesn't really offer much of a resolution for either her character or Norton's or the both of them together - the resolution that we get for her is tied into the film's ending which makes it more about Keaton than Stone so I'm not sure how effective it really is.
Other actors get their moments that, while they don't have that much significance to Riggan's arc, are still impressive. Despite Iñárritu's reputation for juggling multiple characters and narratives, the arcs for the supporting cast here either play into Riggan's main arc or they just fizzle out anticlimatically. It's a minor flaw in the context of the film as a whole, but consideringly how well-executed the rest of the film is, this minor flaw does come across as a lot more severe.

For the most part, Birdman is still an engaging cinematic experience. Emmanuel Lubezki once again proves himself a masterful cinematographer, effortlessly capturing the manic goings-on between actors and director. That drum-heavy score also deserves its own mention for being technically proficient and also perfectly suitable to the rest of the film. I don't think it's worthy of Best Picture but it is a very good character study nonetheless.

4

[Iroquois]

#42 - Troll
John Carl Buechler, 1986

http://www.themarysue.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/troll-movie-cropped.jpg

A family moves into an apartment building that is slowly being taken over by a malevolent troll and the only one who seems to notice is the family's son.

The reason that Troll 2 is named Troll 2 despite the fact that it has no actual trolls in it is because the powers that be decided that it would be a good marketing ploy to make it a "sequel" to this film. Seeing this film definitely illustrated just how many parallels (both played straight and subverted) existed between the films. A nuclear family moves to a new place, the son is the only one to suspect anything is wrong, a short and hideous monster is causing chaos and picking off all the different side characters using twisted magic, there's an older character who serves as a guide for the young hero, etc. It would be easy to spend the whole review comparing the two films, but of more importance is the question as to whether or not Troll is actually an enjoyable (if not necessarily good) piece of cinema.

While Troll 2 rightfully earns it reputation as one of the best worst movies ever, Troll just comes across as downright awful without providing any unintentional comical respite. Even at the incredibly lean running time of 79 minutes, it drags hard. The tone of the film occupies a no-man's-land between the slightly silly safe-for-kids scariness of an episode of Goosebumps and various unsettling types of adult horror, so you're never quite sure whether or not you're supposed to be scared or amused so eventually you just settle on mildly disgusted boredom. The troll's various ways of disposing of the building's tenants range from the stupefyingly goofy (a pre-Seinfeld Julia Louis-Dreyfus is transformed into a near-naked, constantly giggling forest nymph) to the sickeningly ridiculous (Sonny Bono's mustachioed swinger is slowly transformed into a cocoon-like plant in a manner that is way too disturbing for a film that feels like it's aimed at children). The whole film just turns into a chance to showcase the various puppet effects that a Charles Band production would obviously feature (this was the same producer that gave us the Puppet Master franchise, after all). They even launch into some kind of cacophonous sing-along that, once again, I am not sure is supposed to be either unnerving or enjoyable. Even the "good" puppets look just plain wrong (case in point - the smiling mushroom that belongs to the good witch). The titular troll even looks like a really bad rough draft of Leprechaun, which is really saying something.

What really makes this film a depressing affair is that there is the occasional moment that doesn't come across as completely tone-deaf. Having the troll (in disguise as the hero's kid sister) befriend a terminally-ill little person and then use his normally destructive powers to "heal" said little person was admittedly an interesting touch (even if the execution involved even more horribly uncanny puppets). Unfortunately, such moments are still overshadowed by a film that is dull, tonally inconsistent, better at being disturbing than being frightening, lacking in decent writing, and full of just as many ridiculous factors as its much more infamous successor but without the humour to go along with it. Troll 2 might be the best worst movie, but Troll is definitely a contender for the worst worst movie.

Also, I made it all the way through this review without mentioning that the hero and his dad are both called Harry Potter. So there.

0.5

[Iroquois]

#43 - Quantum of Solace
Marc Forster, 2008

http://www.the007dossier.com/007Dossier/james-bond-wallpaper/quantum-of-solace/quantum-of-solace-06.jpg

Following on from the events of Casino Royale, a vengeful Bond (Daniel Craig) is driven to investigate the terrorist conspiracy responsible for killing his previous love interest, which leads him to focus on a wealthy philanthropist (Mathieu Amalric).

Over the past few years, I've come to realise that, when all is said and done, James Bond is actually a pretty terrible character. Realising that Bond films were actually good examples of an archaic power fantasy for straight white males where they could get away with mass murder while bedding and forgetting innumerable women has made me re-examine the whole series and now the franchise has shifted strictly into guilty pleasure territory for me (the films I still like, anyway - with over twenty official films there's definitely bound to be some stinkers in there). I did appreciate how the Dalton films (and, to a lesser extent, GoldenEye) tried to rehabilitate Bond's image and that is why I consider Dalton my favourite Bond actor (and reckon Brosnan got hard done by with the films he appeared in). In rebooting the series with Craig, the producers were willing to try to rebuild Bond from the ground up. Even though Casino Royale was ultimately prone to a lot of the usual Bond movie flaws in trying to establish his back-story, it was ultimately an enjoyable piece of work and a welcome addition to the Bond series. It generated so much goodwill that there was no doubt the next film would be even better, right?

Wrong.

This is the second time I've seen Quantum of Solace and the first since it came out in cinemas. I have long considered it the worst official Bond film (it's still not quite as bad as the unofficial 1960s version of Casino Royale), but I figured I should at least try to give it a second chance to see if the passage of time would help me mellow out about it. Unfortunately, following it up with the technically decent Skyfall has only served to make Quantum's flaws stand out even more.

I think Quantum's worst crime is that it makes Bond boring. Other bad Bond movies may have been bad, but they at least had some campy enjoyment like a fifty-something Roger Moore going to space or fighting Christopher Walken on top of the Golden Gate bridge. Here, the dedication to playing things completely straight serves to shoot Bond in the foot. Even picking apart the similarities to older Bond films gets tiresome. Bond goes rogue in order to avenge someone he cares about (Licence to Kill), teams up with a woman who wants her own revenge (For Your Eyes Only/The Spy Who Loved Me), while the main villain pretends to be an environmentally conscious good guy (Diamonds are Forever/Die Another Day), etc. I know that a franchise that lasts as long as Bond will tend to recycle concepts but without any interesting variations on the formula it just becomes stale and lifeless. Stale and lifeless is a pretty good way to describe just about every performance in this film. Craig plays Bond as a blandly determined stoic, Olga Kurylenko is his vengeful female off-sider who doesn't do much either, while Amalric lacks any definition that would make him stand out as a Bond villain (even in a bad way).

It also doesn't help that the plot holes and gaps in logic also stick out pretty badly even in the context of a Bond film. Early in the film, a mole has the chance to shoot Bond and M but instead shoots an extra and leads Bond on a merry chase through tunnels and across rooftops (thus wasting years of undercover work for no good reason - and the chase is boring to boot). When MI6 decides to arrest Bond, they decide that the wisest course of action is to send a single inexperienced female agent after an agent that they know is a relentless womaniser. Even the climatic showdown in a secret bunker surrounded by unstable solar cells seems like a poor excuse for the film to follow through on making all its major action setpieces revolve around the four elements (there's a plane chase in the air, a boat chase on water, a foot chase on the ground and...fire everywhere? Whatever). It doesn't help that the film is shot through with as bland an approach to making action exciting as any modern blockbuster. The camera shakes just enough to make you give up on caring about what it's trying to show you, while the rapid cutting only serves to make things even less worthy of your comprehension. No wonder they decided to get Roger Deakins of all people to shoot Skyfall. Also, despite there being an elemental motif to the action, that kind of cleverness doesn't make the action any more engaging.

Quantum of Solace may not exemplify every single bad factor about James Bond films (at least Craig's Bond isn't physically abusive towards women like the pre-Dalton actors had a tendency to be) but it showcases enough of Bond's bad qualities and combines them with some of the worst qualities of modern action cinema. A jagged, near-incomprehensible mess of a film that has absolutely nothing to offer an audience, even one who appreciates James Bond. The fact that the upcoming Bond film will also involve a secret organisation (by the way, it's weird how the super-secret Quantum organisation gets more or less forgotten about around the halfway mark of the film so Bond can instead chase a single villain, but hey, we'll add that to the pile of problems with this film) makes me hope it won't be a retread of this nonsense, but if the series can produce an absolute clunker like this once, there's always the possibility it will happen again.

0.5

[Iroquois]

#44 - The Bat
Crane Wilbur, 1959

https://theyearofhalloween.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/1959-the-bat-starring-vincent-price.jpg

A crime novelist and her servant take a holiday in a remote mansion around the same time that the titular serial killer is on the loose and the local physician (Vincent Price) is very interested in finding a hidden treasure that is located inside the mansion.

A while ago, I picked up a $2 DVD that contained three separate Vincent Price vehicles on it - House on Haunted Hill, Shock and this. I liked House on Haunted Hill as an amusing piece of '50s schlock, so I was hoping the other two films would also deliver. Even discounting the fact that the DVD had scanned in such a way so that the left-hand side of the frame (about a third of the whole picture) was cut out, what I was left with a fairly disappointing prototype for the typical episode of Scooby-Doo. There's some conjecture about who the Bat is (and Price is naturally a prime suspect) while death ensues as a bunch of characters, both good and not-so-good, band together trying to figure out the mystery while trying to stay alive.

It's just interesting enough that I care enough to find out how it turns out, but otherwise it's a woefully mediocre B-movie. Price puts out his trademark slimy charisma but the fact that he is reduced to a secondary part means it's ultimately kind of wasted as other less impressive actors fill the screen. At least its 80-minute running time means it's over quickly. It's not completely terrible but it just sort of exists and doesn't do much for me one way or the other. It's not comically bad but it doesn't have enough charm to overcome its B-movie trappings. Oh, well.

1.5

[mark f]

The last two (before The Bat) are really the same quality? That's rhetorical. :)

[Iroquois]

#45 - Stay Hungry
Bob Rafelson, 1976

http://thisdistractedglobe.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/Stay%20Hungry%201976%20Arnold%20Schwarzenegger%20pic%202.jpg

A directionless rich kid (Jeff Bridges) is sent to acquire a small gym as part of a real estate deal but instead befriends the local characters and becomes conflicted over whether to side with the other wealthy hustlers or with his down-to-earth new friends.

I have in my possession a six-DVD pack containing a number of Arnold Schwarzenegger films. Five of them are standard action-packed vehicles like Commando, Predator and The Terminator...and then there's this. Directed by the same guy who did Five Easy Pieces, it features Schwarzenegger in a supporting role as - surprise, surprise - an Austrian bodybuilder who aspires to become Mr. Universe. While I have to respect the fact that whoever put together this DVD pack would do something as unorthodox as including such a film on this DVD (surely leaving a lot of action fans baffled in the process), it doesn't guarantee that the resulting film is any good.

For starters, there's the fact that you can easily guess how Bridges' character's arc will turn out. His tense relationship with his so-called friends boils over as he befriends Schwarzenegger and begins a tumultuous relationship with Sally Field's gymnast. There's the usual complications as he is torn between unlikeable rich people and his simple but likeable new friends. Field's character, on the other hand, doesn't get much to do outside of her relationship with Bridges' character. Schwarzenegger gets some bizarre developments - we are introduced to him as he exercises while wearing a mask and hooded cape, then we see him playing bluegrass on a violin on a couple of other occasions. It's a bizarre side to Schwarzenegger that is only emphasised by the fact that his underdog narrative is still overshadowed by Bridges' dilemma.

Stay Hungry is a chore to sit through. Even the sight of Schwarzenegger pretending to play violin isn't enough to generate the slightest amusement despite the film supposedly being a dramedy. It doesn't help that, after an hour or so of this sort of tiresome "rich kid rediscovers himself with help of poor people" narrative, there's an irrelevant and unsettling scene involving a couple of gym staff mistreating some sex workers and eventually

Schwarzenegger's corrupt and coked-up manager, after having already gone to work on the sex workers, attempts to rape Sally Field's character
and this plays out against the climatic bodybuilding contest that ultimately devolves into a bunch of musclebound men in Speedos running around in the streets that is clearly being played for laughs. The tonal inconsistency is enough to give you emotional whiplash a few times over and makes me really question this film's intentions. It's not funny, it's not engaging - if anything, the only thing I take away from this film is a very problematic treatment of its female characters in the face of a very uninteresting storyline. I can't believe this came from the same director who made Five Easy Pieces. What a mess.

1

[Iroquois]

The last two (before The Bat) are really the same quality? That's rhetorical. :)

EDIT: Never mind, I clearly misunderstood this post when I wrote my original response. Anyway, I thought I'd established that these are subjective ratings and that my rating system allows for me to find a big-budget blockbuster just as capable of being boring and irritating as a piece of low-budget fantasy schlock.

[Iroquois]

#46 - Shakespeare in Love
John Madden, 1998

http://d12vb6dvkz909q.cloudfront.net/uploads/galleries/17765/shakespeare-in-love-1.jpg

In Elizabethan England, a young William Shakespeare is struggling with writer's block when he makes the acquaintance of a young noblewoman masquerading as an actor and they begin a secret love affair that ends up inspiring the creation of Romeo and Juliet.

Another one of those films that I've never quite managed to see all the way through, I figured I should at least finish it for the sake of completionism. On a technical scale it's pretty solid, with some excellent recreations of Elizabethan fashions and architecture that definitely deserve to be counted among the film's better chievements. Unfortunately, I could debate whether or not the writing's any good.

I understand that, for the most part, Shakespeare in Love is a bit of a comedy despite its more obviously Oscar-baiting dramatic moments. Given the premise, there are plenty of jokes that reference Shakespeare and the characters tend to be comical exaggerations a fair bit of the time. Unfortunately, a lot of these minor references tend to come across as too clever for their own good and aren't especially amusing. Performances range in quality, too. Despite my suspicions, Gwyneth Paltrow proves herself at least somewhat deserving of her Oscar win as she manages to recite Shakespeare, pretend to be a man and generally tick a lot of Oscar boxes. Judi Dench, on the other hand, feels more like a sympathy vote given her relative lack of screen time and the fact that she doesn't do anything especially out of her range (a disdainful matriarch-like woman? You don't say). The male characters tend to be serviceable (even established actors like Geoffrey Rush and Tom Wilkinson are solid more so than actually amazing), though I do find myself wondering what Ben Affleck of all people is doing in this film. I do reckon it was interesting to see quintessential nice guy actor Colin Firth play an absolute cad, though.

Despite its corny-sounding premise, Shakespeare in Love has at least enough quality in terms of both technique and narrative that I can appreciate it on some level. Sure, the two main plotlines involving a star-crossed love triangle and a troubled theatrical production are both all too familiar, but I didn't hate the way that both played out. Though I don't think the film was especially enjoyable or remarkable, I reckon it's not bad as far as Best Picture winners go.

2.5

[Iroquois]

#47 - The Bourne Supremacy
Paul Greengrass, 2004

http://www.martialartsactionmovies.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Matt-Damon-in-Bourne-SUpremacy.jpg

After the events of The Bourne Identity. Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) is living a peaceful existence until events force him to come out of hiding and start chasing the truth about his real identity.

I can't even remember how long it's been since I saw The Bourne Identity. It was definitely before The Bourne Legacy came out, that much I know for certain. Despite that, I have only just gotten around to watching the films that came out in the interim. The Bourne Supremacy promised an improvement on the success of the original film, but what I got was definitely not an improvement.

First of all, the catalyst for Bourne going after the shadowy organisation that holds the key to his past is a Russian assassin (Karl Urban) killing his girlfriend (Franka Potente) with a bullet meant for him. Not going to lie, I'm getting really tired of what's rapidly becoming known as the "women in refrigerators" trope where a female character is killed off or otherwise attacked simply to provide the male hero with vengeful motivations and thus a narrative. Even if you leave aside the unfortunate implications of having to damage a woman to provide motivation, using it still comes across as lazy. Despite the supposedly high-energy thrills on offer throughout the rest of the film, none of it seems to hold my interest. There's the usual duplicitious conspirators, the occasional fight or chase, there's Bourne managing to track down leads, etc. Even having him gradually recall some troubling memories doesn't do much to create intrigue (but at least it does something).

I'm not sure if this is the film that popularised the extremely intense methods of filming action movies with the shaky cameras and frequent cuts, but they're definitely here and they definitely look rough. The music is all loud and furious but just feels like white noise against the haphazard imagery. Quieter moments don't do much to hold my interest either. Knowing that this is the middle film in a trilogy only served to make it feel even more like 100 minutes of filler, but if I'd seen it back when it came out there's a good chance I might have come to the same conclusion anyway. There's just enough quality on display here that I don't quite feel like dismissing it outright, but even so it's still a horribly underwhelming film.

2

[Iroquois]

#48 - The Bourne Ultimatum
Paul Greengrass, 2007

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/08/02/movies/03bourne-600.jpg

Following on from the events of The Bourne Supremacy, Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) is still trying to uncover the truth by any means necessary.

Even after being extremely unimpressed by The Bourne Supremacy, I still had some high expectations for this film, which was supposedly the best in the series (or at least it was good enough to end up on the IMDb Top 250 - while I know the Top 250 is not to be trusted, I figured that should be enough to at least encourage me to give it a shot). Unfortunately it's possible that raising my expectations meant I still wouldn't get a decent film-watching experience out of the whole thing, but whatever, let's see how it goes.

So yeah, it's basically the same plot as the last couple of movies. Bourne is traveling all over the place trying to figure out his identity and his history, frequently getting into pursuits and battles along the way. Much like its predecessor, there's a very jagged feel to much of the action as cameras jitter and edits happen faster than you can blink. The same goes for the scenes that don't have action but are still no less intense. It helps that there's slightly more of a plot to this one, at least. Still not enough to truly endear me to this series but I'll take what I can get. The odds of me watching any of these films again is minimal, though I figure this one's gotten enough acclaim that I will probably try again at some later date. It definitely won't be soon, though.

2

[Iroquois]

#49 - Two Hands
Gregor Jordan, 1999

http://imageserver.moviepilot.com/20-forgotten-gems-of-the-90-s-5455d23a-00cb-455c-bfcf-fa94487f8dc7.jpeg

A young bouncer (Heath Ledger) has to run an errand for a local crime boss (Bryan Brown) but when it goes wrong, he has to try to come up with $10,000 in order to get said crime boss off his back.

Figures that I'd commemorate Australia Day by watching an Australian film - too bad it happens to be a film that I ended up putting very high on my "worst movies" list a few years back. Per my self-imposed challenge to re-watch any film on the list if another user requested that I do so (and they did, of course), I saw that it would be appearing on TV recently so of course I recorded it and proceeded to re-watch it. Now that I've given this film two viewings, let's see how well it handles...

I get that Tarantino's films revolutionised contemporary cinema to the point where every filmmaker and their mum was trying to copy his style, but Two Hands is probably the first instance of a film that feels like it's trying to copy a film that was already trying to copy Tarantino. I originally gave this film guff for being a not-too-original knockoff of Guy Ritchie's Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (it doesn't help that the plot of both films boils down to "black comedy about a complete nobody who gets in debt to a crime boss"), but a second viewing has not unveiled any further depth. Even Ledger's retroactive status as an Oscar-winning actor does little to salvage his flat performance as a sensitive young man who gets in with Brown's extremely ocker kingpin because...why not? Also his romantic sub-plot with Rose Byrne's photography-loving country girl - again, it ends up being a question of "why not"? What kind of good movie doesn't have a romantic sub-plot? Hell, the whole question that hangs over this film is "Why not?" How else do you explain the incredibly lazy plot device that is Ledger's character having an undead brother digging himself out of hell who serves to deliver some seriously redundant voice-overs and pop up at random points? The subtle-as-a-flying-brick opening monologue about the yin-yang, complete with his frequent but ultimately ineffective appearances at crucial moments, just serve to make him even less of a helpful spirit than the grandpa from Troll 2, and if Troll 2 does something better than your film then your film has a serious problem.

What makes the "undead brother" sub-plot really stand out is that, for all its badness and redundancy, it is the closest this film gets to offering something remotely interesting. Otherwise, it's an extremely pedestrian affair. Guy attracts the wrath of a serious criminal and tries to make things right with disastrous consequences. So what? Not even his climatic plan to carry out a bank heist with some appropriately foolish cohorts manages to engage, no matter how badly things go wrong. Various sub-plots coincide in order to make everything nice and tidy. That random pair of street urchins towards the start? Of course they end up playing a major part in the storyline. Ultimately, this is a very poor attempt to copy the major trends in late-1990s low-budget/high-reward filmmaking and its sheer ineptitude in virtually every regard still serves to undermine it even now. The fact that it's intended to be a black comedy only serves to ruin what little charm it might have had and as a result it is still one of the biggest wastes of time I've ever had to sit through - and now I've had to sit through it twice.

0.5

[Iroquois]

#50 - American Sniper
Clint Eastwood, 2014

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/modal_800/2014/10/american_sniper_still.jpg

Chronicles the military career of Chris Kyle (Bradley Cooper), a sniper with the Navy SEALs, as he enlists and goes on four separate tours of Iraq during the War on Terror.

Even if I were to completely disregard Chris Kyle's more disagreeable real-life actions, it still wouldn't make American Sniper a film I felt any real appreciation towards. Sure, it's got some tense moments but I figure those are part and parcel of any sufficiently competent film set during wartime and there's got to be more to a film than just tension in a vacuum. Cooper's performance is decent enough but ultimately hampered by his guttural Texan accent, which can be a little incomprehensible at times. His work at conveying post-traumatic stress disorder is okay, but his scenes being an active soldier who's frequently wracked with guilt leaves something to be desired, especially when he has to make tough life-or-death decisions. Sienna Miller's initial appearance as the tough-talking Taya makes a good impression but she is soon reduced to being another one of those wives who worries about her husband's obsession with his incredibly dangerous professional life. This is another character trope that I recognise has to exist so as to provide some sort of balance to the more directly engaging action of the main plot, but scenes involving this particular type of character generally feel obligatory instead of necessary. Other characters in the film lack sufficient definition, whether it's the other members of Kyle's company or any insurgent antagonists that get the slightest bit of development. There's the "Butcher" character who gets to bring us the film's most disturbing act of violence but is otherwise a bad caricature, while Kyle's rival sniper Mustafa has enough hints towards being an interesting character (such as winning an Olympic gold medal for shooting before joining the insurgents) but is ultimately left to play an unspeaking, emotionless killer and nothing else. That's without mentioning that one family of non-violent Iraqis who serve as a reminder that not every single Iraqi is a violent militant.

Aside from the characterisation or lack thereof, the film isn't particularly impressive on a technical level. Given Eastwood's age and career length, I guess expecting him to try something radically different would be a big ask, but it does draw a lot of attention to his very safe manner of depicting the military conflict on display here. It doesn't help that various tiresome wartime tropes are in play - there is at least one character who talks about marrying his girl back home before getting shot. It's such a familiar plot device that I don't even consider it to be a spoiler anymore. Even an attempt to shake things up by having the climatic conflict take place in the path of a sandstorm backfires by making the visuals hard to follow as a result. The scenes of Kyle trying to adapt to life back home don't add all that much to the film:

The film's denouement follows Kyle after he has finally completed his service and is now spending his time trying to help with rehabilitating other veterans. The continued length of this sequence can really fatigue an audience, no matter how relevant it ultimately ends up being to the film's true ending where one of the veterans Kyle tries to help ultimately ends up killing him off-screen.

American Sniper has shades of being a decent film, but it's let down not just by the real Kyle's reputation but also by being a fairly cut-and-dry wartime biopic that serves to encourage some unfortunate attitudes with its double-edged celebration of American militarism. Though the film takes its time to showcase the ill effects that being a soldier ultimately has on on Kyle, those scenes do get lost in the shuffle of showcasing Kyle's impressive sniping ability. Having nearly every character (Iraqi and American alike) except for Kyle get reduced to basic archetypes doesn't help it become a good story either, nor does the reliance on worn-out developments. A tense moment here and there does little to benefit the film as a whole. Attempting to shrug off the jingoistic nature of a lot of this film's scenes is a challenge. It's got enough quality on offer that I don't hate it outright, but that doesn't mean I like it.

1.5

[Iroquois]

#51 - Play Misty for Me
Clint Eastwood, 1971

http://www.escapetv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/play_misty_for_me_2_eastwood.jpg

A late-night radio DJ (Eastwood) has a one-night stand with one of his fans (Jessica Walter) but soon comes to regret it as she becomes more and more unstable.

It figures that, while trying to decide on my next film to watch after American Sniper, I settle on Eastwood's very first directorial effort. At its heart a pretty simple little potboiler, it is definitely an engaging watch but frequently struggles to maintain its momentum even across the course of 100 minutes. Eastwood showcases his usual laconic yet charismatic demeanour even though he's not being a badass, but as far as acting goes the film definitely belongs to Walter. I mainly know her as sardonic matriarch Lucille Bluth from Arrested Development, but here she manages to give a surprisingly convincing performance as Evelyn, who starts off as a fairly naive young woman but eventually covers a considerable range of emotions and personalities to fit in with her role as a delusional stalker. The rest of the acting varies - offsiders such as Eastwood's co-worker or cleaning lady make the most of their minor roles, while his main love interest is ultimately rather flat in terms of ability.

The premise, while initially interesting, does have trouble staying engaging for the length of a feature flm. The main plot doesn't take up all that much of the film, while some of the twists and turns are more than a little predictable for a sufficiently experienced viewer. Eastwood pads it out with various sequences that have some appeal to him, such as an entertaining but not particularly plot-relevant detour into the Monterey Jazz Festival or a slightly graphic sex scene involving his character. Though he is a fairly competent first-time director, the film does have its share of technical flaws, the most noticeable of which have to do with the editing. The choppy cutting makes some sense when used as part of the film's more violent moments, but it becomes extremely distracting during the film's quieter moments. At one point, Eastwood's character begins saying a line while walking along a busy street yet the scene cuts to him finishing the line while standing on an empty beach. Even establishing shots of crashing waves have noticeable cuts in them. At least the soundtrack full of smooth jazz is a plus in this film's favour.

Play Misty for Me is fairly decent as far as debuts go, especially in the early 1970s, but it's debatable as to whether or not it's aged all that well. Walter makes for a decent enough antagonist, but she's anchored to an all-too-familiar suspense narrative. There are definitely flaws, but for the most part it stays intermittently interesting. Eastwood would definitely go on to make better films, but that doesn't necessarily mean this is a bad one.

2.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

And people say I watch bad films....

You seem to be on a roll here with what *you* deem, terrible movies.

[Iroquois]

Like you wouldn't believe.

[Iroquois]

#52 - Sin City: A Dame to Kill For
Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller, 2014

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/2014/03/sin_a.jpg

Another anthology based on stories from the noir-style comic book series set in the titular city.

When the first Sin City came out back in 2005, I liked it enough to jam it straight into my Top 100 that same year. Rodriguez was one of my favourite directors at the time and the heavily stylised filmmaking on offer here naturally appelaed to my adolescent sensibilities. The lurid, pulpy world of the film felt like it could have sprung forth at least one more reasonably entertaining instalment, but as the years went by my interest in both a new Sin City film and Rodriguez's output in general waned severely until I finally only got around to watching A Dame to Kill For because someone else had rented it out. Now, almost a decade after watching the first one, it'll be interesting to see how this latest instalment holds up.

Despite focusing on three separate storylines like the first film did, A Dame to Kill For doesn't approach them one at a time but instead goes with the unorthodox pattern of introducing two separate storylines, both involving the corrupt senator (Powers Boothe) from the first film - Joseph Gordon-Levitt appears as a supernaturally lucky gambler who wants to beat Boothe at poker while Jessica Alba returns as Nancy the stripper who, after playing the victm in the first film, intends to get revenge on Boothe for all the trouble he's caused. After the first half of both those plotlines play out, the film delves into its main plot about Dwight (Clive Owen's character from the first film, here being played by Josh Brolin) and his being roped into a fairly standard femme fatale narrative courtesy of an old fame (Eva Green). The lack of balance between the stories only serves to undo the film as a whole, as the resolutions to the two sub-plots do feel like anticlimatic epilogues more so than satisfying resolutions.

With such a long-awaited sequel to a major hit, it can be hard to recapture the magic that made the original so great (or at least just fun). There are some parts of the film that feel like transparent attempts to remind viewers what they enjoyed about the first film, such as the return of Marv (Mickey Rourke), who gets the prologue to himself and proceeds to float in and out of all the "main" storylines regardless of how well he fits in with them. Likewise, the slick mostly-monochrome style still looks as good as it ever did - unfortunately, the action itself doesn't feel especially enthralling. It doesn't help that the storylines aren't much chop - having the Dwight storyline occupy at least half the film only serves to show how thin it really is, especially when the Nancy storyline seems like it could have had some serious potential. After a while, the constant maiming and murdering (especially when it involves Marv - we get it, he can effortlessly take down just about every character that tries to fight him) becomes too monotonous to distract from the paper-thin pulp stereotypes.

2

[TheUsualSuspect]

I've heard nothing but bad things for this one, which is a shame because I love the original.


Will still give it a chance though.

[honeykid]

I'm always slightly surprised that people are suprised they didn't care much for Sin City 2. How was it ever going to work? That said, I feel the same way about most sequels. :D But I stand by it.

[Iroquois]

#53 - Coffy
Jack Hill, 1973

http://media.ifccenter.com/images/films/coffy_592x299.jpg

After her kid sister gets addicted to drugs, a nurse decides to take justice into her own hands and dismantle the local drug trade from within.

So far most of the blaxploitation films I've seen haven't done much for me - the only real exception being Dolemite and that was because it was genuinely so-bad-it's-good. Coffy ended up being a lot more promising. It's a pretty bare-bones revenge narrative that takes a while to get going (though it does open with Pam Grier's titular character seducing then murdering both a dealer and an addict, letting you know just what kind of movie you're in for). As befitting the genre, there's a considerable amount of violence and sexual content (occasionally both, as seen in one instance there's a scene where Coffy gets into a fight with a handful of call-girls that naturally results in almost everyone involved getting their tops pulled off). There's some decent enough twists and turns over the course of the film, and it's still pretty sad that some of the points made by the film (such as how the drug trade is deliberately designed to destabilise black communities) still come across as relevant, if not prescient. Throughout it all, Grier makes for a great protagonist - she's tough and resilient, but that doesn't mean she doesn't show a surprising range of emotions over the course of Coffy's journey. The supporting cast are all solid, especially the incredibly hammy white villains. An appropriately funky soundtrack also helps to overcome some slightly ridiculous effects work, but otherwise this is a taut film right up until its final minutes.

3.5

[honeykid]

As you know, I love Coffy, so I'm pleased to see you enjoyed it.

[Iroquois]

#54 - Lemmy
Greg Olliver and Wes Orshorski, 2010

http://media.coveringmedia.com/media/images/movies/2011/01/09/lemmy_02.jpg

A documentary about Ian "Lemmy" Kilmister, the frontman of legendary hard rock group Motörhead.

As far as music documentaries go, Lemmy is not a particular in-depth one. It seems to mainly consist of its directors following Lemmy around with cameras as he goes about his day-to-day business complete with interviews covering all the usual subjects - origins, music career, influences, and so forth. Pretty standard, really. There are some more interesting questions aimed at Lemmy - such as how the notoriously hard-partying Lemmy has managed to survive this long, to say nothing of his fondness for World War II memorabilia leading to accusations of Nazism - but Lemmy's responses are a bit too concise. In addition to the documenting of Lemmy's life, whether at home in his cluttered Los Angeles apartment or during his life as part of Motörhead, there is also a cavalcade of famous talking heads ready to sing Lemmy's praises, though they don't offer much in the way of insight.

The superficial nature of the film does make sense given Lemmy and Motörhead's uncomplicated approach to making music - the band has gone for almost 40 years on the basis of a very simple but effective brand of hard rock, and nobody in the film is complaining about it. Unfortunately, it doesn't mean the film drags for a considerable amount of time. Sequences such as Lemmy getting to drive a tank (and fire its cannon, no less) or making a guest appearance during a Metallica concert are entertaining enough, but the film feels very loose and amateur-ish. Not even the considerable charisma of its central subject guarantees that the film will be a great one - as it is, the result is ultimately rather average.

2

[Iroquois]

#55 - Ghostbusters
Ivan Reitman, 1984

https://flavorwire.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/ghostbusters2.jpg

A trio of disgraced professors who specialise in studying paranormal activity decide to use their expertise to open up their own ghost-catching service.

With the recent news of there being a Ghostbusters reboot, I figured it was good a time as any to revisit the original films. I used to like them, but even back in the day I didn't think they were that great and repeated viewings have not been kind to them. I know that Ghostbusters is a surprisingly sacred cow when it comes to movies and, if I'm going to actually go against the grain and say I don't actually like it, then I'd better be prepared to offer some very, very good reasons.

First, the concessions. The premise is great and has excellent potential both in terms of comedy and soft sci-fi but for the most part the actual film never really reaches that potential. The special effects are still solid thirty years onwards - the film's infamous climax is certainly a testament to that. Hell, there's even at least one or two decent songs on the soundtrack that haven't been played to death like the theme song has been.

Unfortunately, I just struggle to find it funny. A lot of the comedic draw for this film supposedly comes from Bill Murray as the incredibly sarcastic Venkman, who serves as a more relatable foil to the comically serious Spengler (Harold Ramis) or the intelligent yet bumbling Stantz (Dan Aykroyd). Despite this being constantly celebrated as one of his best roles, this is probably the most irritating character I've ever seen him play (and I've seen Garfield). He's supposed to be charming and cocky, but more often than not he just comes across as an obnoxious creeper, especially with his persistent lecherous advances towards prospective client Dana (Sigourney Weaver). The other characters aren't much better - Ramis and Aykroyd seem to exist mainly as po-faced exposition machines for Murray to react against, Weaver is a beleagured victim who ends up being possessed, Rick Moranis serves as an awkward and talkative loser who drags down an already flatlining film and the addition of Ernie Hudson as Winston, the fourth and most down-to-earth Ghostbuster, doesn't pay off as much as it should.

The jokes don't do anything for me either. Whether it's the goonish physical comedy involving the team's encounters with ghosts or the rapid-fire verbal wordplay, nothing about this film even makes me chuckle anymore. Not even the very well-timed crack Murray makes at an obstructive bureaucrat works (and, if you haven't already started writing me a message telling me why I'm wrong about everything, then you can probably tell which one I mean). At the very least, the story had some potential but the execution just leaves me cold. A lot of people are acting like the Ghostbusters reboot will ruin the franchise, but I don't think it can get much worse than this.

2

[Iroquois]

#56 - The King's Speech
Tom Hooper, 2010

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01830/speech_1830638b.jpg

In the 1930s, Prince Albert is suffering from a severe speech impediment and has to employ the services of an unconventional therapist in order to overcome it.

As awards season ramps up I'm finding myself catching up on various Best Picture Oscar winners that I haven't seen. Unfortunately, the last few I've seen tend to settle into the safe, predictable types of Oscar winner that, while not necessarily bad films, do tend to feel very middle-of-the-road when all is said and done. The King's Speech regrettably falls into this category, but that doesn't mean it's not without a certain charm. Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush have great chemistry even as they go through some very familiar motions as the reluctant student gradually opens up and befriends his troubled but optimistic mentor. There's a collection of solid character actors to fill out the rest of the film, and the production design is great (though I question some of the cinematography choices - what's with Hooper's tendency to frame close-ups so they're noticeably off-centre? I noticed it in Les Misérables and even now I still can't decide whether or not it works as a stylistic choice). So yeah, it's decent enough Oscar bait that hits all the right notes but damned if I'm ever going to watch it a second time.

2.5

[Iroquois]

#57 - Ghostbusters II
Ivan Reitman, 1989

http://moderndistraction.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Ghostbusters-2-01-4.jpg

After their actions in the first film are denounced as an elaborate hoax, the Ghostbusters are forced to team up in the face of yet another dangerous threat.

Whoo, boy, well, if you've already seen the review I gave to this film's extremely beloved predecessor then you can probably tell I'm not going to give this much of a shot. I think there needs to be some sort of shorthand term for sequels that have good ideas that would've been great in the context of their source films but they just end up being disappointingly executed in a sequel of generally lesser quality. The whole concept of the "mood slime", nebulous and inconsistent though it was, seemed like it could've been a bit more interesting than the fairly basic combination of haunted architecture and arbiter of doom kind of deal that the first film had. If nothing else, at least they got the visual of the Statue of Liberty stomping through the streets of New York as a result.

Beyond that, it's business as usual. The recurring characters haven't had much of a personality change in the intervening years. It's pretty telling how the main villain has more screen time than the villain from the first movie but still struggles to be a tenth as interesting, even with the assistance of a brainwashed thrall that talks in a supposedly amusing European accent. The Ghostbusters get back on the street, bust some ghosts then eventually face a major challenge thanks to the main villain. In short, it's a bust.

1.5

[Iroquois]

#58 - Foxy Brown
Jack Hill, 1974

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/4ffe237be4b0fd8ca199a67d/t/500d2d72e4b0d820d6a5410d/1343040884264/Foxy-Brown+still+2.jpg

After her undercover cop boyfriend is murdered by a local crime syndicate, a woman decides to infiltrate the group's operation and take revenge.

If that sounds a bit too familiar to the plot of Coffy, I imagine that it's by design. Originally set up to be a direct sequel to Coffy, it ultimately ended up being a standalone film.Seeing as I watched both films relatively close together, I figured it would be tolerable, but it also makes it hard to tolerate the film's flaws. Foxy Brown is a little slow to get started on its plot - in an exploitation film that doesn't even reach 90 minutes, the fact that it takes at least 30 minutes before the plot is truly kicked off by the murder of Foxy's boyfriend is a strike against the film. Even so, after that point it throws in enough good parts to maintain one's attention. Grier plays Foxy with the exact same level of self-assurance that made Coffy a good character, while the supporting cast get in enough memorable moments. The fact that the lead villain in this film ends up being a white woman who is jealous of Foxy for daring to draw her enforcer boyfriend's eye is a well-done touch, for instance. Granted, it follows a familiar narrative and does go to some dark places as part of its third act, but it all resolves itself in a satisfactory manner. Not great by any means but even so, it's still solid enough.

3

[Iroquois]

#59 - Mean Girls
Mark Waters, 2004

http://images3.static-bluray.com/reviews/1210_5.jpg

A homeschooled teenager is enrolled in public school for the first time and is soon overwhelmed by the chaos of high-school life, especially when she becomes involved with the school's most popular students.

If you've been following my reviews then you might be wondering what the kind of person who would seriously trash Ghostbusters would make of a relatively recent high school comedy starring the lowest-hanging fruit on the celebrity-mocking tree and being predominantly focused on how teenage girls would relate to each other. It'd be a righteous piece of hatred, yeah? Well, if you've been expecting something like that then I have one little word for you...

...psych.

Because at the end of the day, I actually do like Mean Girls. Sure, it took a while to grow on me, but then again, so did The Big Lebowski. Lindsay Lohan makes a decent enough protagonist whose journey you are relatively invested in, but what really makes this film is the eccentric cast of characters that populate the school. Everyone from the titular girls through the bitter misfits and the beleagured teachers to the various bit parts that recur at just the right moments throughout the film is well-cast and more often than not get in at least one good line. The script, though it is ultimately hampered by a combination of sentimentality and the need to keep things down to a PG-13 rating, is actually pretty tight and very quotable. The direction is competent enough, as are the music choices, but that is almost besides the point in a movie like this. I know this isn't the best movie or anything, but it supports its fairly simple narrative with some well-written characters and dialogue and it's a testament to the quality of that work that I actually do feel like defending this supposedly saccharine piece of fluff.

4

[hello101]

Jackie Brown next?

[Iroquois]

Nah, I re-watched Jackie Brown at some point last year. I rate it a 4 - it's good, but I think I can go a while before re-watching it again.

[hello101]

I rate it the same. I like Mean Girls as well.

[Iroquois]

#60 - Kill Bill: Vol. 2
Quentin Tarantino, 2004

http://images.amcnetworks.com/ifc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/kill-bill-vol-2-facts.jpg

The second part of the duology about the legendary assassin "The Bride" taking revenge against her former teammates and their leader, the titular Bill.

I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've watched Vol. 2 in about a decade (on a related note, I watched Vol. 1 last year - it was still solid) but I've since learned to think of this as a superior film to its predecessor. Sure, that film had the infamous confrontation with O-Ren and the Crazy 88, thus resulting in all sorts of bloody carnage. Vol. 2 can get a bit of a bad rap in the wake of that, but I don't think it's that warranted. It helps that the genres that get homages this time around are old-school kung-fu films and spaghetti Westerns. Bringing back the legendary Gordon Liu to play the ridiculously strict kung-fu master Pai Mei was a touch that I've learned to appreciate a lot more after familiarising myself with the Shaw Brothers' output.

Of course, the film still feels fairly padded. There are plenty of scenes that, while I can understand their relevance to the film as a whole (the opening scene depicting the lead-up to the chapel massacre, for instance), still feel like a bit of a chore to watch and don't quite have the right level of Tarantino's charm to them. Others, such as the scene where Budd visits his workplace, feel extremely irrelevant. It helps that, for all the padding, the best parts of this film manage to be really good. Whether it's the frantic fight between the Bride and Elle Driver inside a cramped trailer or Bill's Superman monologue (which is definitely a contender for the best Tarantino monologue ever written), the film definitely feels like a good one. I definitely consider this in the top half of Tarantino's filmography.

3.5

[Iroquois]

#61 - City of God
Fernando Meirelles and Katia Lund, 2002

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/1/13/City_of_god.JPG

Centres on the criminal history of the titular Brazilian slum, from the bandits of the 1960s through to the drug trade of the 1970s and 1980s, as seen through the eyes of a pair of young boys - one is an amateur photographer on the edge of the underworld while the other is at the very heart of it.

Another film that ended up on my first Top 100 but I have somehow managed to not re-watch for about a decade - and even then this re-watch was of a version being shown on free-to-air television that cut out some of the most graphic acts of violence (most notably, the infamous "hand or foot" scene gets cut). Fortunately, the film remains strong in spite of that. The vivid and grainy cinematography combines with documentarian editing to craft a fast-paced depiction of the narrative that balances a variety of characters with their own distinct sub-plots that all explore various themes (Li'l Ze's childlike viciousness, Knockout Ned's well-intentioned venture into crime, Bene's attempt to leave the life, Rocket's being caught up in the life due to fate and circumstance, etc.), all played by amateurs to successfully enhance the film's realistic vibe. In spite of its strengths, I ultimately don't think City of God is that amazing a piece of cinema. I remember it fondly, but re-watching it now makes me think it's merely a great film that covers a lot of the usual crime tropes but aids them through the vibrant and colourful depiction of uncompromisingly harsh events. It's definitely worth watching if you haven't seen it before, though. At the very least, I think I owe it to myself to actually acquire a copy of my own.

4

[honeykid]

I've had Mean Girls on dvd for almost 10 years now.... Still not watched it. :D I've always thought that vol 2 was the better of the Kill Bill halves, mainly because it sounds and feels much more like a Tarantino film to me. Or, it did when I saw them. I've not seen them since they were released. The script is much better in the second half, IMO but, like you, I felt as if it was padded out. Vol 1 was the first time I wished someone had sat Tarantino down in the editing room and made him release one film while I was watching the film. It took a couple of viewings of Jackie Brown before it felt indulgent to me but Kill Bill has always been Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now.

I've not seen The King's Speech, though I have had that for a few years, too, but I've always thought it'd be like a good BBC drama. As with The Imitation Game, I've never understood why anyone would want to go to the cinema to see it when, I'm sure, it'd work just as well on tv.

[Iroquois]

#62 - The Blob
Chuck Russell, 1988

http://static.skynetblogs.be/media/32278/the_blob_1988_pic02.jpg

A small town is upset by the arrival of a strange entity that consumes every living thing in its path.

The '80s did seem like the ideal time to remake horror movies from the '50s - the effects had improved significantly enough and the passage of time had weeded out the less interesting premises in the process while the shifting of cinematic norms allowed for greater expressions. Unfortunately, The Blob doesn't end up on the same level as something like The Thing or even The Fly, but it's not without its moments. The effects work for the titular blob is impressive enough, mixing animation with practical effects with good results; the former are entertaining in a cheesy way but the latter are genuinely impressive. Unfortunately, it's anchored to a very by-the-numbers monster movie plot. Familiar characters abound - there's the rebellious kid from the wrong side of the tracks who secretly has a heart of gold, the clean-cut girl next door, law enforcement figures that are either perfectly understanding or frustratingly obstructive, a scientist who knows the secrets of the monster, etc. The actors all turn in decent enough performances for this kind of movie, in any case. It doesn't offer much in the way of serious scares, though - you're kind of aware that you're watching a film with an ultimately silly premise, but the filmmakers don't seem quite that aware, no matter what kind of jokes they make (such as having the blob infiltrate a movie theatre full of people watching...a generic slasher movie). Not particularly essential, even if the effects work is good.

2.5

[Iroquois]

#63 - Death Wish 3
Michael Winner, 1985

http://filmjunk.com/images/weblog/2012/11/deathwish3.jpg

After coming back to New York to find his friend murdered by a local street gang, an old man resolves to start defending himself and his newfound neighbours against the incredibly vicious locals.

I already gave the original Death Wish some serious guff for being an incredibly dull take on the vigilante sub-genre, but I still felt like watching the sequels because they managed to play up the vigilante angle and result in films that were apparently of low quality but also of high entertainment value (a view backed up by Mark Hartley's Electric Boogaloo, which featured the Death Wish sequels as part of its off-kilter reverence for Cannon Films). Death Wish 3 is supposedly the "best" of these sequels because it goes into some weird territory that grants it a cult status all its own, so naturally I had to see it.

There is plenty of ridiculous stuff on offer here. By this point, Charles Bronson is in his mid-sixties yet here he is still capable of fighting off an army street thugs who are at least half his age (as well as have a trite romantic sub-plot with a public defender who is also half his age). The street gang, distinguished by red-and-black paint on their foreheads, come across as being so cartoonish that they make the gangs from The Warriors look down-to-earth. The gang leader is noteworthy for having what I guess would be considered a reverse mohawk where his head is shaved right down the middle. Despite guns not being allowed in New York, Bronson is able to get a gun (and, eventually, a rocket launcher) mailed to him from out of town without any consequence. They even go into unnecessary detail explaining that one victim of the gang didn't get murdered by the gang but died because of a broken arm. The background score is composed by Jimmy Page. Yes, the same Jimmy Page who wrote some of the most beloved guitar anthems ever ended up producing a horribly generic synthesiser score for this film because of reasons I can't begin to comprehend on my own. The list goes on, really.

Unfortunately, despite this film developing a considerable so-bad-it's-good reputation, the end result isn't all that entertaining. I still tend to side-eye these kind of films that go a little too far in trying to titillate audiences by having instances of gratuitous nudity occur during scenes involving rape or sexual assault. The film also takes a long time building up to any kind of truly entertaining action - at least half the film is Bronson puttering around meeting new characters. Even when he does get around to fighting or killing people it's still not too impressive - he shoots them or he stabs them or he quite simply just punches them. It ultimately takes the film's climax, where the neighbourhood becomes wrapped in a war between the gang, the cops and the residents, for the film to live up to its ludicrously violent potential. Until then, be content with having Bronson do things like mourn his dead friend or make new friends in between performing the kind of violence that's not exactly novel for '80s action movies. Also, having the gang be nasty. Still worth a shot if you're into bad action movies, though.

2.5

[honeykid]

As I've said before, I'm grateful for this film for, if nothing else, meaning that I had a Deathwish 3 game for my Spectrum. :D

[Iroquois]

#64 - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
John Ford, 1962

https://youmayclap.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/waneandstewart.jpg

An ageing senator gives a journalist an account of his most famous deed - the killing of a notorious outlaw.

From what I've seen, John Ford is a solid Western director and I'd already appreciated the work John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart did in The Shootist. Unfortunately, I did read enough about the film to know about the film's big twist, namely that

it is actually Wayne's character that shoots Liberty Valance, not Stewart's character.
In the text I was reading, that event was presented in such a way that I thought it was a foregone conclusion, but no, it's supposed to be a surprise. Even leaving that aside, this is a serviceable but not amazing Western that has enough shades of revisionism to make it interesting. Stewart and Wayne still play to their strengths - the former has his usual mix of good-hearted candor and marble-mouthed nerviness, while the latter peppers his trademark drawl and swagger with just enough cynicism to make it tolerable. There's a collection of good character actors on hand - Edmond O'Brien is either amusing or irritating as the local paper writer and town drunk, while Vera Miles does well as the token female character who is more or less limited to being a foil/love interest for both Stewart and Wayne. The stand-out of the bunch is the inimitable Lee Marvin as the titular outlaw, conveying enough menace to overcome his rather archetypal Western villain.

It's a good premise and all, but I find the execution fairly lacking. It does sort of run out of steam after its climatic reveal, which is a shame because a lot of its dramatic weight comes with the fallout of such an action. The film is generally solid but I guess it feels a bit by-the-numbers when it's not being an interesting take on Western mythology.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

#55 - Ghostbusters
Ivan Reitman, 1984

Unfortunately, I just struggle to find it funny.

The jokes don't do anything for me either. Whether it's the goonish physical comedy involving the team's encounters with ghosts or the rapid-fire verbal wordplay, nothing about this film even makes me chuckle anymore.

rating_2


"Shh, Listen.....do you smell something?"




Gets me every time.

[Iroquois]

I don't even remember that one.

[honeykid]

It's when Venkler first goes to Dana's apartment. There's a little tinkle on the piano after he says "Shh, listen"

[Iroquois]

Ah.

[Iroquois]

#65 - Stalag 17
Billy Wilder, 1952

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Hc0k3GFomlU/T1sXPYtj5PI/AAAAAAAAGQo/fF8BaRwASwY/s1600/Stalag-17-10.jpg

In a German P.O.W. camp during World War II, the inmates of one of the barracks suspect that one of their number is an informant working for the Germans.

If there's one part of Stalag 17 that I reckon doesn't work, it's some of the comedic elements - chiefly, the odd-couple duo of the wise-cracking Shapiro and his dopey pal Animal, especially as they get into the sort of antics that wouldn't seem out of place on Hogan's Heroes (such as one scene where they pretend to be painting a road as an excuse to sneak into a part of the camp designated for female prisoners, to say nothing of a scene where Animal mistakes Shapiro for Betty Grable). Not even having an extremely affable supervising sergeant named Schulz for the prisoners to bounce off against helps much. The concept of making a film about P.O.W.s even remotely comedic, even in 1952, was a bold move no matter what and, though it doesn't always pay off, doesn't make this a bad film by any means. The "whodunit" plot guarantees there's at least some tension, especially when the main suspect, William Holden's duplicitous black marketeer, is so obviously guilty that you just know it's a matter of time before it's revealed to be anyone else. Being based on a play means there's bound to be a tight plot going on (distracting comic elements notwithstanding) and it helps that the ensemble on display can carry the material brilliantly. Though it does resolve itself in a fairly predictable manner, it is still a very well-done film and definitely recommended.

4

[honeykid]

I think I'd give it at least a box less, but the comedic bits really hurt my enjoyment of the film. I'd do the same with The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, too, as that's usually the score I give decent/competant films which I've not enjoyed. Which should also let you know how much I dislike Kubrick. :D

[Iroquois]

Yeah, well, I guess the comedic moments are ignorable enough for the most part that I can enjoy the rest, but cutting them out would definitely result in a leaner and better film. I guess if you were making a World War II movie in the 1950s you had to have at least some levity to stop it being too harsh for audiences.

[Iroquois]

#66 - Blow
Ted Demme, 2001

http://static3.therichestimages.com/cdn/864/567/90/cw/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/blow-2001-08-g.jpg

Based on the true story of George Jung, who becomes one of the biggest cocaine dealers in history during the 1970s.

It does seem like a bit of a cop-out from a critical standpoint to base one's negative assessment of a work on how derivative it is of older and better pieces, but Blow really is that kind of film. I don't even have to specify exactly which true-crime biopic I'm thinking of, do I? Well, you can ask me later if you're not sure, anyway. In the meantime, Blow is sporadically interesting but it's considerably flawed. At its best, it's way too familiar and at its worst it's kind of a mess. Johnny Depp may recycle a lot of his usual acting quirks in playing the drugged-up Jung, whose motivations at least manage to avoid being reprehensible; he becomes a drug lord out of the desire to be a wealthy provider as well as a responsible family man like his impoverished father (Ray Liotta) and there is some small tragedy in just how many friends and family members he loses over the course of the film as his drug empire fluctuates. Unfortunately, the fact that the bulk of the characters fade in and out of the film without much in the way of development is a strike against the film, no matter how true to the story it might have been. It doesn't help that out of the few characters that stick around for the whole film, most of them aren't well-developed anyway. Penelope Cruz initially seems like she would have been a good foil to Depp's craziness but here she becomes too cartoonishly unsympathetic to be a remotely good character. Liotta is decent enough as Jung's disapproving yet understanding father, but having Rachel Griffiths play his extremely disappointed and double-crossing mother doesn't work, especially since Griffiths is clearly around the same age as Depp (I did the research and apparently she's even younger than he is). Even having notorious kingpin Pablo Escobar (Cliff Curtis) pop up briefly does little to make an impression.

Aside from that, it's business as usual. Jung builds himself up from nothing with lofty goals and can-do attitude, then goes through the highs and lows of being extremely involved in an international drug trade, before losing everything, then gaining some of it back, then losing it all again. A slight variation that seems promising, but ultimately fails to deliver. The slickness of the filmmaking does little to make this film pass by any quicker and the fact that Jung is humanised much more than the average crime-story protagonist doesn't make much of a positive difference to an extremely generic film - if anything, it might actually hinder the film.

1.5

[honeykid]

I guess if you were making a World War II movie in the 1950s you had to have at least some levity to stop it being too harsh for audiences.

I think that's probably a modern way of lookiing at it. It's what we'd think now, but I don't think it's how it was then. Not here, anyway. Those people had lived through it, they didn't need protecting from the harsh realities of war. Though there are certainly differences between the UK and US when it comes to their war films of the 50's.

[Daniel M]

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is one of my favourite Western's and I'd give it a popcorn more probably. I agree that I don't think the 'twist' is meant to be a surprise. I thought the whole thing was very well directed, and I enjoyed the conflict of personalities and politics between two fascinating characters.

I agree that Blow wasn't that good, although I don't think I disliked it as much as you. It just seemed boring and I lost my interest by about halfway, there didn't seem to be anything there, a reason for me to watch it.

Great reviews by the way, I need to start commenting more on what I've seen :)

[Iroquois]

#67 - The Rum Diary
Bruce Robinson, 2011

http://www.thebigbrownchair.com/wpcat2tag-importer.0.5/2012/08/The-rum-diary.jpg

In 1960 Puerto Rico, a journalist arrives to work on a newspaper but soon gets caught up in a number of dangerous situations during his tenure.s

For a long time, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas has been one of my favourite books and Withnail and I has been one of my favourite films, so when Bruce Robinson was put on to direct a film adaptation of Hunter S. Thompson's The Rum Diary, I was at once intrigued yet skeptical. It's hard not to think of Withnail and I as a directorial fluke, but then there was also the fact that they were bringing back Johnny Depp to play Thompson's fictitious alter-ego despite the fact that Thompson would have been in his early-twenties during the events of The Rum Diary while Depp is at least twice as old as that in this film. I still figured I should give it the benefit of the doubt.

The resulting film is ultimately rather flat. There are the odd concessions that feel like attempts to appease HST fans who came here expecting something similar to Fear and Loathing..., whether it's the inclusion of a swarthy Latino sidekick (Michael Rispoli) or a very brief hallucinogenic sequence that's not even freakish enough to be good and just comes across as a very unwelcome distraction. Aside from that, the narrative's too thin to be worthwhile. Depp's Thompson analogue is supposed to be a younger version that hasn't quite become the eccentric wild-man that people remember him as, but this has the effect of making him seem like he's sleepwalking through the role. Other roles aren't much better - his blandly free-spirited love interest (Amber Heard) and the smooth-talking businessman (Aaron Eckhart) help to make up a very boring love triangle that adds little to the main plot about some questionable land dealings on the part of Eckhart's character. Out of all the performers, Giovanni Ribisi is the one that stands out as a deranged reporter, but even so he's just the best of a bad situation in this context. Not even Richard Jenkins' turn as Depp's cynical boss manages to work well given the material.

Leaving aside the problems with acting and characterisation, this is still a pretty weak film. As much as I may like Withnail and I, I know that it's definitely not because of Robinson's direction - the same lack of a distinctive style defines The Rum Diary but without a decent script to build off it just exposes Robinson's extremely workmanlike directing abilities. Even if he did write the adaptation of Thompson's novel himself, the clever prose one could associate with him is almost completely absent. It might be worth watching once if you're a fan of Thompson's writing, but as a standalone film it leaves a lot to be desired.

2

[Iroquois]

#68 - Predestination
Peter Spierig and Michael Spierig, 2014

http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2014/08/27/1227038/827804-f6bdb876-2cb9-11e4-b8c6-b83ae0004ecc.jpg

An agent for an organisation that uses time travel to correct past catastrophes is sent back to stop a terrorist but is instead side-tracked by an author he meets while undercover.

The Spierig brothers are a pair that I haven't quite got a strong opinion about. Undead may have been a star-making debut feature for the brothers, but for the most part I thought it was a pretty unremarkable attempt to make a low-budget zombie film that couldn't even be salvaged by the pair's attempt to fashion an Ash-like zombie-killing badass. Daybreakers was a fairly clever dystopian twist on the incredibly worn-out sub-genre of vampire horror, even if the end result was incredibly far from perfect. Predestination marks the duo's progression away from horror into full sci-fi, here invoking a rather familiar premise involving

Usually when a reviewer says that they don't want to divulge too many details about the plot of a film, it's so as to prevent the premature revelation of surprising developments in terms of both plot and characterisation. I also wish to refrain from doing that, at least not without spoiler tags, because of a completely different reason. Instead, I'll emphasis what this film does get right. For one thing, it looks very good. The award-winning cinematography on display is definitely a highlight and helps to stylishly convey a variety of different settings, whether it's spotless laboratories or grimy bars. Ethan Hawke is a generally decent actor and does his best as the somewhat generic protagonist, but one would argue that that's kind of the point. The real star of the show ends up being relative newcomer Sarah Snook, who gets a far more challenging and complicated role that once again would invoke spoilers if it involved going into details, but she disappears into the character so well that it was tough to recognise her at first.

Now, I'm going to put up spoiler tags and, while they don't actually spoil any events from the film, they involve discussing a certain implication on the part of the film that is virtually a spoiler so under the cut it goes...

The main problem with Predestination, at least to me, is that it is waaaaay too predictable. Sure, there are various surprises that come about during the extended sequence where Snook's character explains their back-story, but these surprises only serve to set up one increasingly predictable second half in the process. I know that any time-travel film is going to have its fair share of logic gaps or mind-bending moments, but this film is fairly lacking in both and as a result its big twists manage the rather impressive paradox of being both farfetched yet easily foreseeable.

That rather significant problem aside, Predestination manages to be a decent enough little movie. It's definitely carried by Snook, who has enough talent and range to complete one very difficult character arc - too bad it's tied to a plot that starts off with some innovation but runs out of steam halfway through.

2.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

It's when Venkler first goes to Dana's apartment. There's a little tinkle on the piano after he says "Shh, listen"


You're BOTH wrong and his name is Venkman, come on people!!! You are mixing his name with Spengler, played by the late Ramis.


It's in the beginning in the library. Ray says just before they meet the librarian ghost.




As for Predestination. As predictable as it was (and it was) it is still fresh in my mind. It's something new and I don't recall ever seeing something as twisted as it. You're bang on with Snook though.

[honeykid]

It's in the beginning in the library. Ray says just before they meet the librarian ghost

Man, I could've sworn it was in the apartment, but now you've said it I can picture it in the library with the pile of books. :facepalm:

[Iroquois]

#69 - The Wind Rises
Hayao Miyazaki, 2013

http://movieboozer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/the-wind-rises-main-review.png

Loosely based on the true story of Jiro Horikoshi, a Japanese aeronauticaly engineer working to design planes in the aftermath of World War I.

Given that this is supposedly going to be Miyazaki's final film (not like he hasn't said that before, but this time it seems very believable), it makes sense that it focuses on a subject that Miyazaki has incorporated into many of his films: flying. Rather than create yet another fantastic realm full of imaginative visuals and magical creatures, Miyazaki opts instead to tell a down-to-earth story based in fact. Of course, he still gets the chance to provide his trademark fantasy elements through dream sequences (that may or may not be an actual shared consciousness, but the film is appropriately vague on this) where protagonist Jiro gets to meet one of his idols and see all sorts of amazing sights as a result. In addition to Jiro's aeronautical endeavours, he also courts heiress Naoko, in a sub-plot that definitely adds some much-needed heart to the A-plot, which can get a little bogged down in some fairly dry sequences about airplane design.

The realistic biopic angle that The Wind Rises takes can come across as a bit of a drag in ways that not even the various dream sequences can compensate for, but it's a small complaint as the animation is as fluid and striking as ever. As Miyazaki is wont to do, there is a dark undercurrent to what is superficially an inspiring story of following one's dreams. The post-World War I setting means there are references to the inevitability of World War II, while the romance sub-plot isn't exactly sunshine and rainbows either. Miyazaki's films never take severe dips in quality, though, and The Wind Rises is as good a final film as he could make.

3.5

[hello101]

A better film that has wind in the title is "When The Wind Blows". :cool:

Honeykid will back me up.

[Iroquois]

#70 - 10 Things I Hate About You
Gil Junger, 1999

http://adamnoteve.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/10-things-i-hate-about-you.png

A modern high-school interpretation of Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew where a pair of sisters - one popular, one not - are only allowed to date if the unpopular one starts dating first, so some male students cook up a plan to set the unpopular one up with a date.

10 Things I Hate About You is an enjoyable enough little piece of late-90s fluff. Some clever writing here and there (such as that first classroom scene that establishes Julia Stiles' firmly antiestablishment character and Daryl Mitchell's understandably acerbic teacher, which is probably the best moment in the whole film) helps to balance out some rather awkward gags (such as one character's obsession with Shakespeare, which seems really heavy-handed considering this film's source material). The performances are decent enough - Heath Ledger's break-out role as the local bad boy who is brought in to "tame the shrew" isn't all that amazing (reminds me too much of his equally stoic and unimpressive turn in Two Hands), but the rest of the cast is decent enough. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is charming enough as the film's adorkable protagonist, Stiles is pretty good as the frosty riot-grrl and so is David Krumholtz as Gordon-Levitt's fast-talking offsider. Allison Janney is also here for a short amount of time that almost justifies her name being in the opening credits.

Otherwise, this is actually a fairly by-the-numbers rom-com. It's got some good jokes, some not-so-good ones, is shot fairly competently and has the kind of soundtrack that captures the late-1990s alt-rock sound so well that it's physically painfull. It's not an amazing film by any measure, but it was worth watching once.

2.5

[seanc]

I remember being unimpressed with 10 Things, but that is about all I remember. Some people's love for it has always made me think I should give it another shot. Your review makes me think I don't want to revisit that experience.

[Iroquois]

That's only fair. It's got some good moments, but it's of very inconsistent quality and if you weren't impressed by it originally I really am not sure if a second viewing will make much of a difference. Maybe lowered expectations are the key?

[Iroquois]

#71 - Million Dollar Baby
Clint Eastwood, 2004

http://actfourscreenplays.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/million-dollar-baby.jpg

A cynical boxing trainer (Eastwood) ends up taking on a female pupil (Hilary Swank) much to his own consternation.

I saw this one survey that suggested that audiences were more likely to enjoy a piece of narrative fiction if they had it spoiled for them. Keeping that in mind along with the fact that I knew about this particular film's shocking swerve at the end of its second act, I wonder if that assertion holds all that much weight. I guess without its third act Million Dollar Baby would come across as a film that takes a few too many cues from a certain other Best Picture winner about a coarse but good-hearted boxer rising above their desperate circumstances with the help of an old, strict mentor. It is helped by the inclusion of Morgan Freeman as one of the gym's staff and one of Eastwood's former pupils, whose sage-like narration ultimately doesn't add all that much with its emphasis on maxims about the nature of fighting, but it's better than nothing, I suppose. His back-story is also fairly interesting, even if it does involve him relating it to Swank's character. I guess Eastwood knows just how much people like to hear Freeman talk.

Swank's character is one I go back and forth on. She's clearly gone to some effort to learn how to box convincingly, which only draws some attention to her outside-the-ring acting - it's decent enough in the film's third act, but for the first three-quarters of the film it's a fairly standard idealistic trailer-trash performance. Eastwood, well, he's Eastwood - a grouchy bastard with a heart of gold (and, of course, some personal issues that play into the film's plot and his motivations). The whole first act involving Swank trying to convince Eastwood to train her takes a bit too long - we know you've got to have at least some resistance on his part and it allows us to build the characters, but the characters don't have that much depth to need this long a film. The boxing sequences are well-shot and, despite the sudden turn the film takes during the last half-hour, it doesn't succumb to Oscar-bait nonsense as much as you'd think. It's solid enough and I may revisit it, but as of right now I think it's merely alright.

2.5

[Iroquois]

#72 - Drunken Master II
Lau Kar-leung and Jackie Chan, 1994

http://filmsack.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/chan-drunken-master.jpg

Wong Fei-Hung once again gets into some ridiculous mischief as the result of an unintentional mix-up and must question his reliance on drunken boxing as a result.

The original Drunken Master is probably the best of Jackie Chan's early films, which basically means it's one of his best films full stop. Taking well-known folk hero Wong Fei-Hung and making him into a cartoonish fool who was still somehow a capable fighter was a risky choice but it definitely paid off for him. Drunken Master II came out about fifteen years later and just before Chan really broke into Hollywood. It's as good a connection between his classic output and his Hollywood output as possible, especially given its emphasis on a bigger narrative than its predecessor.

Unlike the original and its bare-bones "learning kung-fu" storyline, this film opts to tell a bigger story as Fei-Hung gets embroiled in a conspiracy involving the smuggling of ancient artifacts, along with contending with his strict father (Ti Lung) trying to stop him from performing drunken boxing out of the understandable concern that it will ruin him. Of course, this being a Jackie Chan film the plot only exists to provide a variety of fights and stunts that demonstrate Chan's ability to both give and take a lot of physical harm, and of course, they are good. Chan does drunken boxing, which of course involves several gags involving him needing to get drunk enough to do some, plus his attempts to cover up his various mistakes so that his father doesn't find out. It's definitely not of the same quality as its predecessor and runs a little longer than it should but it's an entertaining enough entry into Chan's filmography.

3

[Iroquois]

#73 - Annie Hall
Woody Allen, 1977

https://thebestpictureproject.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/anniehall1.jpg

The story of a neurotic comedian and his on-and-off relationship with the titular character.

This film already comes with some serious baggage - being a Best Picture winner, the fact that I've already seen it once and thought it was merely alright but not as great as I'd been led to believe, and then there were the recent allegations of child abuse against him. The latter makes Allen's quip about politicians having less ethics than child molesters really stick out like one very sore and infected thumb. Even if I were going to try to separate the art from the artist (and, when the movie involves Allen playing a main character that's really similar to himself, that's going to be a little difficult) the fact of the matter is that I actually don't like Annie Hall, so of course I'm going to have to try and defend my opinion here.

I concede that it's got some pretty inventive ideas - the film takes some surreal detours involving animated sequences, breaking the fourth wall, present-day versions of characters walking through their own flashbacks, bringing in actual celebrities to criticise people talking about them and so forth. That only draws attention to the fact that the plot at the centre of the film is rather weak. Even without knowing that the romance between Alvy and Annie was originally supposed to be a sub-plot in an epic murder mystery, the whole thing feels sort of empty. Maybe this got some praise for being a modern take on old screwball comedies, but here the whole thing feels just as inconsequential as any of Alvy's breaks from reality. I don't see much reason to even care about these characters, whether they're sticking together or breaking up or whatever. Alvy is a rare example of a constantly snarking character who I actually don't find remotely charming, no matter how many one-liners he fires off - his nervous disposition isn't endearing in the slightest. I do wonder how much of Annie's characterisation can be explained away by the idea that Alvy is an unreliable narrator who does seem like the kind of guy who would embellish certain facts, but I'm not sure what's Oscar-worthy about it. Keaton is a good actress, but this character...not so much. Singing torch songs and being able to keep up with Allen's rapid-fire delivery are alright achievements, but that doesn't feel all that impressive. The rest of the cast is a peppering of odd-ball characters that do stick out but don't provide much of a contribution.

Problem is, the jokes don't work for me. I'd say that the best joke in the film comes from Christopher Walken (in a small role as Annie's brother) telling Alvy about his car-crashing fantasies, but for the most part it's all really flat. It's Allen's film, of course, so a lot of the film is him offering endless comments about every-frickin'-thing, and that can (and does) get tiresome. There's a good barb here or there but most of them don't work. Aside from Walken (and, occasionally, Alvy's best friend) he doesn't get much weirdness to react disdainfully towards. The film clocks in at about ninety minutes and even then it doesn't so much end as fizzle out, though it's not like I was even hoping for a happy ending or anything for these people. Ultimately, whatever charm that Annie Hall has doesn't have any effect on me. The humour's been done better before and since, so I credit it with being influential, but beyond that I don't credit it much at all.

2

[Iroquois]

#74 - My Left Foot
Jim Sheridan, 1989

http://www.fact.co.uk/media/6173390/still-of-daniel-day-lewis-in-my-left-foot.jpeg

Based on the true story of Christy Brown, a man born with severe cerebral palsy who is only capable of moving his left foot, as he grows up in an impoverished Irish neighbourhood.

On the one hand, I could be cynical about how much the entertainment industry's ruling bodies like to reward actors and actresses who play people with serious disabilities or mental problems. On the other hand, I like Daniel Day-Lewis's other movies and am willing to bet he of all people can pull it off. He really is the main draw about this film as he exercises an impressive amount of discipline in order to play Christy (as is the kid who plays his younger self). He pulls off a range of emotions quite convincingly in the process as his character encounters all sorts of highlights and hardships. The surrounding cast is also solid - Brenda Fricker rightfully earns her own Oscar as Christy's patient and loving mother, while Fiona Shaw shows some polite restraint as his physical therapist and Ray McAnally serves as a grumpy but understanding father.

The grainy low-budget nature of the film's cinematography does betray its humble origins, but it seems suitable considering the subject matter. The plot does follow a familiar narrative as Christy is initially challenged and ridiculed by his condition but overcomes it in a number of ways that can be funny, heartwarming or just plain sad. It's not exactly a great film when all is said and done but its overcomes its now-clichéd premise with surprising effect.

3

[Iroquois]

#75 - The English Patient
Anthony Minghella, 1996

http://91.207.61.14/m/uploads/v_p_images/1996/01/1864_14_screenshot.png

In the final days of World War II, a badly burned amnesiac pilot is tended to by a nurse in an abandoned cathedral.

So this ended up being the exact type of lengthy period piece that had some impressive art direction and cinematography but is ultimately undone by a fairly stock melodrama complete with revelatory flashbacks and characters whose motivations run the gamut from revenge to selflessness to survivor's guilt. Is it a good or a bad thing when I struggle to think of anything worthwhile to say about this film? The performances are decent enough, it's technically well-made but the story is kind of flat and unmemorable. Shame about that. We'll see if I ever give it another shot.

2

[Iroquois]

#76 - Kramer vs. Kramer
Robert Benton, 1979

https://screenqueens.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/4.jpg

When his wife suddenly walks out on him one night, a high-profile executive must learn to care for his young son.

It's a little hard to forget how this was the film that won Best Picture over Apocalypse Now, but I figured I'd give it the benefit of the doubt. Kramer vs. Kramer is a decent enough little drama about the effects of divorce on a household. It helps that the couple in question are played by actors as talented as Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep, even though the latter is out for the picture for about half the film's length. The film's second act, which shows Hoffman slowly learning to bond with his young son, drags a fair bit with its vignettes that are alternately comical and dramatic (with the latter being much more effective than the former). The film picks up in the third act as Streep returns and sues Hoffman for custody, resulting in some fairly tense courtroom scenes that are actually fairly effective at showcasing the talent of both its leads. Though it's fairly inconsistent with a less than impressive second act, Kramer vs. Kramer was definitely a bit better than I expected, but I daresay that one viewing is all that I really need.

2.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Ever since you revealed your "Worst Films" list, I feel you seem to rate films a bit harder than anyone else.

I found the film to be highly relatable and truthful and I'm not even a child of divorce. Little scenes in the film rang so true to me that I thought this had to be lifted from the writers personal life.

As you've mentioned Streep and Hoffman are terrific, but the story doesn't need to be lifted by them, they simply inhabit the well written characters.

I came away hating her and my wife was in tears at the end, until the last few minutes.

I'm not that much of a fan of Apocalypse Now, but the version I saw was the Redux, so I owe it a second viewing. With that being said, I have no problem with this winning best picture that year.

[Iroquois]

I did say it was good in parts, but also it wasn't so good in other parts - the lead performances are good, the rest of the film...not so much. That whole third act was surprisingly good.

As for my ratings, well, I do tend to make my first-time ratings out of 4 instead of 5 so I guess that's only contributed to me doing supposedly lower ratings over the years. It's gotten to the point that I don't really think of 2.5 as that bad a rating - like I gave Annie Hall a 2 and I gave it a fairly scathing review but a lot of 2.5s tend to be films that have a significant number of good points but the overall product isn't that great. I don't know, I'm weird like that.

[Iroquois]

#77 - Gandhi
Richard Attenborough, 1982

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/pictures/2009/10/14/1255537057634/Scene-from-Gandhi-1982-001.jpg

Chronicles the life of Mohandas Gandhi, from his beginnings as a lawyer in 19th-century South Africa through to his becoming an influential figure in the liberation of India from the British Empire.

You ever wonder if it's possible to get tired of good movies? Powering through this many Best Picture winners in so short a time might be leaving me a little fatigued by the looks of things. It gets to the point that I approach each new film with a little skepticism. Gandhi had some of that, because I was aware that Gandhi, despite his reputation as an influential pacifist and leader, still had his fair share of extremely unfortunate flaws and those were at the back of my mind for this film's considerable running time. The film even begins with a disclaimer that admits that the film is an abridged account dedicated to conveying the spirit of the man rather than the man himself, and in that regard, it does work.

As befitting a story spanning several decades and multiple countries, the technical skill on display is competent and the scenes it captures are memorable. Ben Kingsley delivers an effective performance, even if it is hampered slightly by all-too-familiar biopic tropes. There's a good supporting cast that largely serve as either foils or obstacles to Gandhi's journey. There are also some striking setpieces on display. With a supposedly glowing review like this, you might wonder why I'm giving it the rating I'm giving it. Well, maybe it's because I'm not sure it really needed to be a whole three hours and that certain plot devices draw unnecessary attention to themselves - such as the inclusion of white American journalists played by name actors like Martin Sheen and Candice Bergen seem a little distracting and studio-mandated - but hell, it's a good enough movie and I'll definitely return to it at some point.

3

[honeykid]

I don't know/can't remember, but he'd been talking about making Gandhi since the 60's and had asked Candice Bergen to be in the film back then. That being the case, it wouldn't surprise me if Sheen (and others) had been offered roles in it in past meetings with them/when working with them.

[Iroquois]

#78 - Prizzi's Honor
John Huston, 1985

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_eg04Zz3CERw/TGCucFBbVaI/AAAAAAAAEns/GO2q_gJs9CU/s1600/vlcsnap-00001.png

A Mafia hitman falls in love with a woman who is also an assassin, which naturally complicates things for his organisation.

Wow, I really did not like this movie. The premise had the potential, but the execution was really terrible. The idea of it being a black comedy is understandable, but the resulting film is over two hours long and, while the jokes I noticed are sort of clever they're not nearly clever enough to justify not getting any laughs. The plot plays off a bunch of twists and turns thanks to the conflicting loyalties at play, but they aren't engaging thanks to the terrible characterisation on offer resulting in me ultimately not caring who comes out on top. This might be the worst Jack Nicholson performance I've seen yet as he delivers every line in a slow, mumbly Brooklyn accent completely lacking in any kind of spark. How a man who had won two acting Oscars by this point manages to come across as a mush-mouthed amateur is beyond me. Kathleen Turner and Anjelica Huston - as Nicholson's contract killer love interest and Mob princess ex respectively - at least seem to be trying, but it's not hard to seem good compared to Nicholson's uncharacteristically bland performance. Otherwise the film is full of some boring Mafia caricatures - bosses, heavies, etc.

I thought I might have missed something the first time around so I even tried to re-watch this but gave up halfway through that viewing because it was so incredibly dull. I think the fact that I at least tried indicates that there's got to be something of worth here, but I'll be damned if I can tell what it is.

1

[honeykid]

This is one of the films I've not sure if I've seen or not because I know I started to watch it, but it's so dull and really not anything I was enjoying. I remember it being quite lauded when it was released, too.

[Iroquois]

It received eight Oscar nominations (including Nicholson for some reason) and one win for Anjelica Huston. I'm wondering if that can be credited to one massive sympathy vote for John Huston.

[honeykid]

Eight? Blimey. I know that Huston was nominated/won for it, but I didn't know it was nominated for anything else. I've always put it down to being a Huston, but then, a cynic like me would.:D

[Iroquois]

#79 - Lolita
Stanley Kubrick, 1962

http://wunderbuzz.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Lolita-screen1.jpg

While boarding in an American widow's home, an English professor becomes obsessed with the widow's teenage daughter.

It's a little weird to think of a Kubrick film that I'd classify as being merely good rather than great or an all-time favourite, but here we go. Might be a little slow at times, but it's aided by some appropriately strong performances. James Mason makes for a good protagonist who comes across as slimy and unlikeable but charming enough that you can understand why other characters don't see through him. Peter Sellers steals the show as Mason's rival, a quick-talking playwright who's always ready with one line or another (and one memorable scene where he disguises himself as a German psychiatrist serves as an obvious predecessor to his work in Strangelove), while Sue Lyon manages to give the titular character even more depth than you'd expect. The monochromatic cinematography isn't especially daring or innovative but it suits the film nonetheless, as does the darkly comic pacing of some scenes (the prime example being Mason taking a phone call about a car accident). Lesser Kubrick, but still very solid.

3.5

[seanc]

Just watched Lolita for the first time this week. I gave it a 4 Right now it is my favorite Kubrick. I have a few to see though.

[Iroquois]

#80 - The Grapes of Wrath
John Ford, 1940

http://www.mohumanities.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/grapes-of-wrath.jpg

Based on the classic John Steinbeck novel about an Depression-era family abandoning their Oklahoma homestead in order to build a new life in California.

Barring an abortive attempt at reading Of Mice and Men, I haven't managed to read any Steinbeck at this point in time. Since the film had a similarly strong reputation, I figured I'd watch it as well. It's definitely good, but as for actually enjoying it, well, I guess it had its drawbacks. There's a good ensemble at work, of course, and they all get their fair share of moments, but the film as a whole is a bit of a chore to get through at times. Has it just been overtaken by stories that built on its foundations? I liked it well enough, but it's got its problems. The cinematography is sharp at times, but it's often dark to the point of distraction. Ford's style is all the over this film - he seems to have a knack for making films that are a bit too earnest to properly support its darker undercurrents. Given its classic status, I'll definitely have to give it another shot at some point but as far as my subjective opinion goes I merely think it's alright.

3

[Iroquois]

#81 - Life is Beautiful
Roberto Begnini, 1997

http://cdn.miramax.com/media/assets/LIBwmk.jpg

In World War II Italy, an eccentric Jewish man attempts to build a life for himself even as the Nazis move in and start sending people to concentration camps.

I get the impression that this is actually one of those films that you love or you hate. The main pull of this film is the fact that Benigni's protagonist uses his capacity for impressive feats of imagination in order to defend his young son from the horrors of being in a concentration camp. Of course, it takes half the film to actually reach this point, with the first half being the introduction of a bunch of characters who do or do not play a part in the much more important second half. The first half is easy to write off as some whimsical period-piece farce as Benigni's character bumbles his way through a pre-WWII city and manages to befriend or anger a number of characters through his childish but supposedly endearing antics (such as faking his way through being a Nazi educator or winning over his love interest on the basis of the other townspeople's predictable habits). The tendency to rely on convenient coincidences as proof of some greater magic serves the narrative well but its execution isn't particularly entertaining.

The second half is where the film supposedly takes off as Benigni and his family end up in a concentration camp. The premise involving Benigni pretending that being in the camp is an elaborate game for the sake of his son's innocence has some potential but there's something about Benigni's desperately manic energy that ironically doesn't quite sell it. The idea seems to be to make the light-hearted tone of the film's first half translate in part to its much more serious second half but the end result is too tonally inconsistent to take seriously. Not even a certain event happening late in the film that required me to rewind the DVD just to make sure it actually happened was enough to make me reconsider how I wasn't particularly impressed with this film's progression. While technically decent, it doesn't always work as either a comedy or a drama.

2.5

[rauldc14]

I'm disappointed you didn't like The Grapes of Wrath more, but I suppose it isn't a film for everyone.

[Iroquois]

At least I recognise it's a classic and that there's something there that makes me think I'll give it another shot some other time.

[Iroquois]

#82 - The Yakuza
Sydney Pollack, 1974

http://www.retrohound.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/the-yakuza-web-03.jpg

A retired American ex-soldier returns to Japan after 25 years in order to help out a friend who is being harassed by the Yakuza crime syndicate.

A solid if not especially amazing thriller. This could have easily turned into some unfortunate white-saviour nonsense but fortunately Robert Mitchum's weary protagonist isn't that much of a hero - Ken Takakura's retired Yakuza member is probably the closest the film has to one. Though the first half of the film plods along in trying to set up its primary conflict and develop Mitchum's character and his relationships with the rest of the cast, the second half picks up thanks to its developing twists and well-executed action sequences. Screenwriters Paul Schrader and Robert Towne have written some classic films before and since, and while that same storytelling magic doesn't quite translate here, the effort that's been put into accurately depicting Yakuza culture and codes of honour is put to good narrative effect, especially in the film's rather shocking denouement. It hasn't aged all that well and the first half does drag a bit, but it's a decent enough film nonetheless.

2.5

[Iroquois]

#83 - Unbroken
Angelina Jolie, 2014

http://cdn.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/unbroken-movie-jack-oconnell.jpg

Based on the true story of Louie Zamperini, an Olympic athlete who joins the Air Force during World War II and is eventually taken prisoner by the Japanese army.

I'm just going to go ahead and say it - Unbroken is not a very good movie. I'll grant that Roger Deakins' cinematography is top-notch as always - striking contrasts and subtle camera movements abound as he shoots his way to his twelfth Oscar nomination (though if he did win for this, it really would feel like a sympathy vote more than anything). I mention the cinematography first up because it really is the best thing about this movie. The story is a fairly thin "against-all-odds" kind of deal that tries to mix things up by having Zamperini's backstory told in two separate flashbacks that both occur as he is having plane trouble (though I do question why there needed to be two separate flashbacks that both occurred in the first half of the film - the resulting pacing is more awkward than if it was just one flashback or even presented chronologically). Between the plane crashing and Zamperini being captured by the Japanese, there's a sequence where he and two other survivors are stuck in a lifeboat for several weeks. I figure this whole segment of the film could have done with some serious trimming - given how much the trailers emphasised Zamperini's time in the prison camp, the whole lifeboat section just feels like padding and is very lacking in suspense, the occasional shark attack notwithstanding.

The prison camp section that takes up the whole second half of the film isn't much better. Zamperini is the only character with any serious development and he still just comes across as naive yet determined to see the war through. His fellow prisoners aren't given much in the way of memorable definition, nor are his Japanese captors. The film's chief villain, "The Bird" (Miyavi), is supposed to be a menacing and unpredictable sadist in the vein of Amon Goeth, but he still comes across as an unfortunate one-dimensional "evil warden" stereotype with only the slightest hints of character development. From there the film just falls into a rut of Zamperini enduring all sorts of physical and mental hardships. It gets to the point where the most interesting thing that happens is Zamperini being offered the chance to avoid prison by co-operating with the Japanese army's propaganda department, but it's also pretty easy to guess the outcome of that little sub-plot. Aside from that, Unbroken is a pretty standard film that lacks decent plot and character development, instead seeking to present a lavishly produced dramatisation of real-life events. Unfortunately, it takes more than just an astounding true story to make a good film - there's next to no suspense, the characters lack depth and the film seems to be ticking off a bunch of seemingly necessary war movie clichés. Still, at least it's shot well.

2

[Iroquois]

#84 - Ordinary People
Robert Redford, 1980

http://www.empireonline.com/images/uploaded/sibling-rivalries-ordinary-people.jpg

Centres on an upper-class family that is still recovering from the death of its eldest son.

Another day, another Best Picture winner that managed to beat out a much more critically acclaimed classic and ended up having something of a backlash as a result. Instead of being a monochromatic examination of male violence like a certain other Best Picture nominee was, 1980's Best Picture winner is a low-key drama that examines the stilted life of the typical W.A.S.P.-filled American suburbia, especially when that community is thrown by the death of a beloved young person. It could just have easily been another mediocre attempt at manipulating an audience to tears, but to my surprise I actually liked Ordinary People.

Appropriately enough, Ordinary People is driven by its characters more so than any external developments (apart from the death that starts off the film, of course). Newcomer Timothy Hutton rightfully wins an Oscar as the youngest son, who manages to convey a wide range of emotions while still maintaining a consistently shy demeanour, which really helps to sell his inevitable outbursts and actions late in the film. His parents are also good characters - Donald Sutherland is predictably great as the caring but clueless father (and gets in one very gripping monologue at the end) while Mary Tyler Moore plays against type as the emotionally distant mother, with her disdainful attitude making her very easy to hate but she has more depth than you'd think. I also have to acknowledge Judd Hirsch as Hutton's new psychiatrist - while I'm more than a little inclined to see him as an early version of Robin Williams' character from Good Will Hunting, I don't consider that a slight against Hirsch at all, and it's his scenes with Hutton that rank among some of the film's best and most effective.

First-time director Redford doesn't try anything too ostentatious in terms of style - aside from some fairly attention-grabbing editing choices (both aural and visual), he's content to just rely on the strength of the script and the actors. It does lag from time to time and one may question the strength of the romantic sub-plot between Hutton and Elizabeth McGovern, but for the most part it's a solid drama and I was genuinely impressed with it.

4

[Iroquois]

#85 - Death Rides a Horse
Giulio Petroni, 1967

http://www.soundonsight.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/RDV06.png

A pair of cowboys team up to take revenge on a gang of outlaws for their own personal reasons.

It should go without saying that just because a film is a Spaghetti Western doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be on par with anything Sergio Leone ever did. Death Rides a Horse isn't nearly that ambitious, but it still manages to serve as a decent little pot-boiler. The inimitable Lee Van Cleef definitely has more charisma than just about anyone else on screen, including his pretty blonde co-star (John Phillip Law). Their odd-couple chemistry and conflicting motives make for some interesting drama, especially when Law's thirst for bloody vengeance ends up complicating Van Cleef's plans to collect his debts. There isn't much in the way of action or drama - Law's good-hearted avenger is considerably bland compared to Van Cleef's morally grey ex-con, while the villains are definitely a vile bunch but generally lack definition. It takes until the end of the film for the action to get any good, and even then it feels like too little, too late.

Fortunately, the film is backed up by some appropriately gritty camerawork (and the notorious red-tinted flashbacks that Tarantino "appropriated" for Kill Bill), to say nothing of Ennio Morricone's repetitive yet iconic score (again "appropriated" by Tarantino in Kill Bill). It's definitely not a classic, but if you're looking for Spaghetti Westerns in particular then you definitely won't mind this film's shortcomings.

3

[Iroquois]

#86 - West Side Story
Robert Wise and Jerome Robbins, 1961

http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-620/h--/q-95/sys-images/Admin/BkFill/Default_image_group/2011/9/14/1316019705027/West-Side-Story-Film-stil-007.jpg

A musical retelling of Romeo and Juliet that substitutes feuding Italian families for New York street gangs in the present day.

With films that are considered all-time classics, I do have to wonder whether or not I can truly say something about it that hasn't already been said in the decades following its release. That's why I tend to favour these subjective reviews about what I thought, but I need something more than just a laundry list of reasons why I don't personally like it all that much. West Side Story is most definitely a classic, but I won't deny it had its flaws. Granted, it's a very crisp-looking and well-choreographed musical, but I kind of fault it over its two leads. Natalie Wood is generally a good actress, but she doesn't make for an especially convincing Puerto Rican (which becomes much more obvious when she's in a scene with the other Puerto Rican characters) and it's a bit too obvious that she's being dubbed over during songs where she performs. Even so, she still does alright, as does Richard Beymer as her opposite number. Indeed, the show is stolen by the supporting characters, especially George Chakiris and Rita Moreno as Wood's brother and best friend respectively who definitely steal every scene they appear in.

The songs themselves are a matter of dispute. The livelier numbers are great (case in point, "America", which is probably the best song here), but the softer love songs...not so much. I end up coming close to tuning them out completely even as I pay attention to them. A minor grievance against such a well-made film, but the inconsistency when it comes to engaging numbers is a significant problem when it comes to a musical, especially one that's about two-and-a-half hours long. Even so, it's generally entertaining in one way or another.

3.5

[Iroquois]

#87 - The Ghost and Mrs. Muir
Joseph L. Mankiewicz, 1947

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ep-Z85YdmMg/TNgTLBod5MI/AAAAAAAAKMc/9DILgdVcfgE/s1600/02.jpg

A widow moves into a supposedly haunted house and ends up befriending the ghost of a sea captain.

An interesting little slice of paranormal romance. Rex Harrison and Gene Tierney provide decent performances as the titular characters, convincingly selling their slowly developing relationship that starts off with surprisingly candid banter (Mrs. Muir is strangely calm about meeting a ghost, after all). It has a bit of trouble padding out its premise - there's an almost inevitable love triangle involving George Sanders as a charming artist, plus a sub-plot involving the transcription of the captain's memoirs. Some of the third-act complications seem understandable yet disappointing, while the ending is probably a bit too predictable by modern standards (but it still works). Though it's not an amazing film, it's definitely weathered the test of time and several decades worth of imitators with considerable ease.

3

[Iroquois]

#88 - The Asphalt Jungle
John Huston, 1950

http://www.eskimo.com/~noir/ftitles/asphalt/asphalt01.jpg

A bunch of criminals plan a bank heist but it doesn't go off as planned.

A solid effort on Huston's part that seems like the grandfather of all heist movies. I was impressed enough with Rififi (which feels like a French rip-off of this, now that I think about it) but even so, I merely found this one to be alright. Huston is in his prime here and balances a number of character arcs around the familiar "botched heist" narrative, but the end result leaves a bit to be desired. There are multiple well-acted characters but they don't have much in the way of development so it's a little hard to care about their predicaments. Not even Sterling Hayden's protagonist and his oddly noble goal of buying back his old family farm with the proceeds from the heist do much to endear us to him. Having an extended heist sequence play out in the middle of the film is a good choice (again ripped by Rififi) but once again it feels like a rough draft for things to come rather than impressive in its own right.

3

[Iroquois]

#89 - Mildred Pierce
Michael Curtiz, 1945

http://www.filmnoirblonde.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Veda-and-Mildred.jpg

A divorced woman has to try to make ends meet so as to provide for her family but also has to contend with the pressures of running a business and handling her suitors.

Occupying a strange grey area between noir and melodrama, Mildred Pierce is nonetheless a good film. Joan Crawford delivers an award-winning performance as the incredibly driven title character, whose goal of achieving a stable home life makes for an incredible case of dramatic irony as her workaholic tendencies only serve to alienate her from her daughter and her suitors both past and present. Other performers are solid, but Crawford towers over all of them. The plot is a surprisingly non-violent noir narrative (barring the cold open that ends in murder) but it's mixed with enough familial tension to blur the line between noir and melodrama. It's full of enough twists and turns but (perhaps more importantly) the gaps between plot developments are packed out well enough. Master journeyman Curtiz makes sure the whole film is paced well and shot with monochromatic flair.

3.5

[Sexy Celebrity]

But seriously, Birdman is a stupefyingly good piece of work.

I read a bad review for Birdman from Rex Reed. That's not always a sign that the movie is truly awful, but then I read the whole plot summary of Birdman on Wikipedia... and I really don't think that movie sounds like... a good movie.

I know I haven't seen it, but I'm really very skeptical of its supposed greatness.

[Sexy Celebrity]

#28 - Evil Dead II
Sam Raimi, 1987

rating_5

Yeah, I really, really, really don't trust anything you say about movies.

[Iroquois]

I read a bad review for Birdman from Rex Reed. That's not always a sign that the movie is truly awful, but then I read the whole plot summary of Birdman on Wikipedia... and I really don't think that movie sounds like... a good movie.

I know I haven't seen it, but I'm really very skeptical of its supposed greatness.

That's understandable. In my review I acknowledge that, despite all its strengths, I don't think it should be even remotely considered Best Picture material, yet in spite of its more obvious flaws I still like it.

Yeah, I really, really, really don't trust anything you say about movies.

I'd be interested in seeing an in-depth post about why you hate Evil Dead so much - if you already wrote one, post a link.

[honeykid]

It should go without saying that just because a film is a Spaghetti Western doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be on par with anything Sergio Leone ever did.
That's true. Some of them are good.... Though I can't think of one atm.

Natalie Wood is generally a good actress, but she doesn't make for an especially convincing Puerto Rican (which becomes much more obvious when she's in a scene with the other Puerto Rican characters) and it's a bit too obvious that she's being dubbed over during songs where she performs.
She didn't know she'd been dubbed until she went to the premire and saw the film for the first time. I think I'm right in saying she'd demanded that they record her versions of the songs to do the film. They agreed, but I doubt they ever had any intention of using them regardless of how good she was. You have to remember that nearly all those musicals are dubbed and sung by just a few singers, which is why they all sound the same and, probably, why if you don't really care for musicals, you tend to hate all those of the 50's/60's.

There's a good documentary called Secret Voices Of Hollywood which talks about all this.

[Iroquois]

#90 - Oblivion
Joseph Kosinski, 2013

http://truthoncinema.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Oblivion_01.jpg

On a post-apocalyptic Earth, a two-person team are tasked with maintaining machines designed to provide energy but it soon turns out that all is not what it seems.

A film like Oblivion is, in its own weird way, a gift of sorts. It combines big-budget slickness with a narrative that's just riddled with incredible plot holes and various minor inconsistencies. A seasoned consumer of sci-fi both classic and modern can easily pick apart what pieces of work this particular film owes a debt to - even the fact that the trailers and TV spots end up spoiling major plot twists (often for the sake of revealing the film's second-most-famous actor, whose presence is in itself a plot twist) don't make much of a difference as the various shocking revelations end up being predictable from a considerable distance. Even the characters are only given the slightest of definition, which is a considerable problem given how there are only a handful in the whole film. That particular definition sometimes ends up being really bad to boot, as is the case with Andrea Riseborough's character, who serves as Tom Cruise's handler and, conveniently enough, his fake love interest. It's not Cruise fares much better - he puts in his usual amount of effort, but it's still a very flat character. That goes for all the other human characters, and even one not-so-human character (and if you ever watch the movie it's not hard to guess which one).

But hey, at least it looks good. At least director Kosinski, whose last feature was TRON: Legacy, knows how to construct some fairly decent visual effects spectacles (though you could pick apart the logic behind a lot of them as well - if Earth is so contaminated, why does the human base have an outdoors swimming pool? That's one of many questions that the film unintentionally poses). The existence of various gaps in the film's logic and the cavalcade of clichés does make for a bit of ironic fun (because even the action bits aren't much chop), and if nothing else the scenery is nice to look at, but as a genuinely interesting piece of science fiction it leaves a hell of a lot to be desired.

2

[Iroquois]

She didn't know she'd been dubbed until she went to the premire and saw the film for the first time. I think I'm right in saying she'd demanded that they record her versions of the songs to do the film. They agreed, but I doubt they ever had any intention of using them regardless of how good she was. You have to remember that nearly all those musicals are dubbed and sung by just a few singers, which is why they all sound the same and, probably, why if you don't really care for musicals, you tend to hate all those of the 50's/60's.

There's a good documentary called Secret Voices Of Hollywood which talks about all this.

As someone who isn't all that familiar with classic Hollywood musicals, this is a good point to consider. No wonder they've changed up the game for better or worse.

[Iroquois]

#91 - Nightcrawler
Dan Gilroy, 2014

https://justbmovies.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/nightcrawler4.jpg

An aimless low-life decides to become a "nightcrawler", a person who drives around filming crimes and accidents in order to sell the footage to television networks.

Right from the moment that the first sharp night-time images appear on-screen, I knew Nightcrawler was going to be rather impressive. Jake Gyllenhaal manages to deliver an astonishingly great performance as Louis, a clearly disturbed individual whose messed-up nature makes him the perfect fit for an occupation as callous as that of a nightcrawler. The other characters of any significance are generally not much better than he is - there's Bill Paxton as Louis' much more experienced rival, Rene Russo as the TV executive that he sells his footage to and Riz Ahmed as his extremely earnest yet desperate "intern". There is a strong ensemble at work here, but it's Gyllenhaal who makes every scene his own as a gaunt-faced, dead-eyed, constantly smiling opportunist who will not hesitate to spout trite motivational soundbites as if they were incontrovertible gospel.

Outside of the core ensemble, the film moves along just fine. Even though you can probably guess how Gyllenhaal's obsession with his job will escalate out of control over the course of the movie, you don't particularly care as it plays out against some impressively shot night-time sequences (it helps that Oscar-winning cinematographer Robert Elswit is on hand to capture Los Angeles in all its neon-soaked and grime-laden glory) while a captivating score by James Newton Howard that features both sinister guitar work and haunting ambient noise plays in the background. Many scenes are fascinating, whether it's one-on-one dialogue in a dingy restaurant or a tense race-against-time for Louis to capture the perfect shot (especially in the film's unpredictably dangerous climax). The satirical angle here is just strong enough to stand up under scrutiny and it only helps to make the film's relatively surprising ending hold up despite it not being quite what the audience was expecting, but still...Nightcrawler is an extremely well-made debut that makes for a darkly comical journey into the depths of one man's soul (or lack thereof). Highly recommended.

4

[Captain Spaulding]

Iro, I don't think I've ever seen anyone be so critical toward movies. By comparison, you make honeykid seem like the guy from The Lego Movie who runs around singing "Everything is awesome!"

Cynical viewing habits aside, this continues to be an excellent thread. I disagree with many of your assessments, but I still enjoy reading your intelligent and well-written responses. I haven't seen too many of your most recent viewings, but I definitely liked The Asphalt Jungle much more than you did. I agree with you on Oblivion and Death Rides a Horse. The latter is actually one of the first movies I ever watched and wrote about on this forum, back when I didn't even have enough posts to include links yet.

[Iroquois]

I did occasionally wonder if I could end up being just as much of a contrarian as Honeykid, but there are some cinematic sacred cows that I like and he doesn't so I still consider him the (slightly) more critical one out of the both of us

[Iroquois]

#92 - The French Connection
William Friedkin, 1971

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/7/14/1310637856032/The-French-Connection-007.jpg

A loose-cannon detective is determined to trace a drug-trafficking source by any means necessary.

The last time I watched The French Connection was at least a decade or so ago, so of course I wanted to see if it held up. It did for the most part. The legendary car chase is still one of the best action scenes of the 1970s, but everything else...well, that's kind of the curse of being such an influential and acclaimed movie. Gene Hackman is decent enough as the lead detective who's flawed enough that your sympathy for his crime-fighting cause is basically the only thing there is to like about him, which was probably the point but does seem a double-edged sword. Roy Scheider serves well as his slightly less grouchy partner, while Fernando Rey is also good as the incredibly sophisticated villain. Beyond that, it does feel like just another detective movie covered over with early-1970s grime and while that doesn't make it bad, I personally think that it's not all that amazing in its own right. We'll see if it ends up being another decade before I watch it again.

3.5

[nebbit]

Nice reviews Iro :yup:

[Iroquois]

#93 - Mission: Impossible
Brian de Palma, 1996

http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/27800000/Mission-Impossible-1996-tom-cruise-27898897-1024-658.jpg

While on a mission to recover sensitive information, a spy is framed for the deaths of his teammates and must race to recover the information and find out who was responsible for setting him up.

I don't think I've seen the first Mission: Impossible film since the late-90s, so that's saying something. I saw it was on TV and recorded it just for the hell of it. It sort of holds up, but that's probably due to low expectations more than anything. The plot is appropriately convoluted and populated by flat characters - Tom Cruise's righteous hero, Ving Rhames' cool and collected hacker, Emmannuelle Beart's token female character (Vanessa Redgrave's turn as a sophisticated arms dealer isn't much of an improvement), Jean Reno's clearly untrustworthy maniac, and so forth. The action sequences are decent - that infamous "hacking a computer in mid-air" scene still holds up, as does the admittedly rather ludicrous climax on top of a bullet train (though that might just be amusement at the less-than-spectacular quality of the special effects). There's also some amusement to be had at some of the more implausible spy gadgets on display, as with the high-tech computer technology that looks incredibly dated in 2015. Unfortunately, goofy '90s nostalgia doesn't always make for an engaging adventure and the result, while halfway-watchable, isn't all that fun at the end of the day.

2

[Yoda]

I kinda felt that way about Mission: Impossible the first time I saw it, but subsequent viewings make what's going on much clearer, and I think it's pretty great now. Holds up really well across the board.

[Iroquois]

I think I'm good for repeat viewings at this point, but despite the low rating I wouldn't be averse to watching it again at some point.

[honeykid]

I did occasionally wonder if I could end up being just as much of a contrarian as Honeykid, but there are some cinematic sacred cows that I like and he doesn't so I still consider him the (slightly) more critical one out of the both of us

Well, you rate The French Connection higher than I do, even if you do feel fairly similarly about it. So maybe it's just a rating thing. :D

And, remember, not contrarian. I just see things differently.

[Yoda]

I think I'm good for repeat viewings at this point, but despite the low rating I wouldn't be averse to watching it again at some point.
Yeah, it really does help to know what's going on and just sit back and enjoy it on other levels (or just sit back and watch it unfold). This happens to me a lot with movies like this, where I'm just spending too much time trying to figure out what's happening to really enjoy it properly the first time, and I almost invariably like them way more on repeat viewings, so I thought maybe it's the same with you.

[Iroquois]

Well, you rate The French Connection higher than I do, even if you do feel fairly similarly about it. So maybe it's just a rating thing. :D

And, remember, not contrarian. I just see things differently.

I guess "see things differently" is as good a way of putting it as any,

Yeah, it really does help to know what's going on and just sit back and enjoy it on other levels (or just sit back and watch it unfold). This happens to me a lot with movies like this, where I'm just spending too much time trying to figure out what's happening to really enjoy it properly the first time, and I almost invariably like them way more on repeat viewings, so I thought maybe it's the same with you.

Maybe.

[Iroquois]

#94 - Gone Baby Gone
Ben Affleck, 2007

http://www.asset1.net/tv/pictures/movie/gone-baby-gone-2008/Gone-Baby-Gone-1-DI.jpg

When a little girl goes missing from a lower-class Boston neighbourhood, one private detective is brought in to conduct his own investigation.

A solid little 21st-century neo-noir that's not exactly amazing but the relative lack of ambition makes it an ideal feature-length debut for Affleck. Having a handful of veteran characters on board such as Morgan Freeman or Ed Harris helps to sell the material really well, especially in the latter's case. Casey Affleck and Michelle Monaghan are serviceable leads, with the former showing an edge, while Amy Ryan earns the film's sole Oscar nomination as the missing girl's white-trash mother - a thankless role, but she does alright. Competently shot and scored, the lack of external style definitely works in the story's favour. It's got enough depth, unpredictability and consistency to end up on the high end of the scale. I still haven't seen The Town, but between this film and Argo I'm starting to think of Ben Affleck as a surprisingly consistent (if not necessarily spectacular) filmmaker.

3

[seanc]

Three movies on this page that I really like. I haven't seen Mission Imposdile in quite a while now, its one of my favorite action movies ever though. I should rewatch. Gone Baby is my favorite by Affleck but that might have just as much to do with it being a Lehane adaptation, I love them all. Check out The Town. Its a good thriller that comes apart a bit in the third act, which is something I say about 9 of 10 thrillers.