Cries&Whispers Top 100

I absolutely love There Will Be Blood. Loved it so much I added it to my own list right after I saw it.

These were my thoughts on it when it was up for discussion during the movie club.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

Much rep for Dial M for Murder and of course The Dark Knight.

QFT.

Late Spring is maybe the saddest of the Noriko trilogy for me. Also, Ozu actually moves the camera!

Absolutely disagree. NCfOM is pretty overrated for being totally out of the Coen's style and thus extremely uneven and awkward at times. TWBB is as fascinating as it is well made.

C&W, Ozu is definately one of the greatest directors of all time, Late Spring is a wonderful film but Tokyo Story has the top Ozu film for me.
Very enjoyable list

I agree. Most of Ozu's films are variations on a familial theme, so they're all equally moving, but for me, the story in Late Spring is better than Tokyo Story.

No Country for Old Men could not be any more in the Coen Brothers style. Think of Fargo with its study of a particular town, how it focuses on nuances of the citizens' speaking style, humor, and entire disposition. This is exactly what the Coen's do in No Country. They study the mannerisms and idiomatic expressions from a specific West Texas town and are deliberate in their presentation of these common characters.

Beyond that, the characters are all motivated by the MacGuffin that drives virtually every Coen Bros. film --money. One person steals it, bad people kill others while searching for it, and a clever, sympathetic cop is on their tail.

Also, No Country for Old Men is, in my opinion, a completely flawless movie. The pacing is perfect, the shot placement is perfect, every shot in every scene is sustained for exactly as long as it needs to be, and never more. Roger Deakins' cinematography is beautiful, as always, and the performances of Javier Bardem, Tommy Lee Jones, Josh Brolin, and especially Kelly MacDonald are all exceptional.

Above all, the editing of "Roderick Jaynes" is just about as great as in any movie ever. Look at the sequence of shots in the scene in the motel when Josh Brolin hides the suitcase in the vent, when Javier Bardem goes through the room to test how thick walls are and get a feel for it, then returns and kills the Mexicans, and uses the dime to open the vent. Or the scene in which Chigurh finds Moss' hotel room and we see his shadow behind the door, Moss gets the lock shot into his stomach, jumps out the window, and the scene moves into the street, where the shootout-one of the most realistic and engaging I've seen-occurs.

This is a better film than Fargo. That is another absolutely flawless movie, but it sometimes falls too far into absurdity to take seriously. The Coen's really love these characters, but they seem to also make fun of them a lot. There are jokes here only when they fit the story. This is a more serious film with a more compelling central character in Lee Jones' sheriff than Marge Gunderson.

If anything, There Will Be Blood is awkward and uneven at times, with scenes that go on too long, indulgent shots, and pacing that at times is at times quick and at times crawls at a snail's speed.

...and it wasn't even on my list. I'll have to take out something and replace it with this movie, I guess.

__________________
"I want a film I watch to express either the joy of making cinema or the anguish of making cinema" -Francois Truffaut

Tokyo Story is in my Top 20.

I'm switching out Tokyo Story for Late Spring actually, now that I think about it!

I agree that it's better than Fargo. But I like the Coen films like Barton Fink, The Man Who Wasn't There, and even A Serious Man more. These are Coen films by definition for me, along with the much lesser Burn After Reading and Big Lewbowski. No Country for Old Men surprised me. Maybe I watched it expecting something else...

I agree that it's in the element of the Coen's ensemble cast clusterf*ck disaster films with beautifully ambiguous endings ... and then I woke up is one of the best of them, if not the best.

Maybe I didn't like the decision to switch out the usual Coen surrealism for NCfOM's brand of Inaritu ultra-realism.

Maybe I didn't like how Woody Harrelson's character was in there for, like, a second. I hate stressing "integration" and "smoothness" in "distributing" the ensemble cast, but maybe that sudden in/out kind of bothered me.

Maybe I didn't like the fade out and massive ellipses surrounding Josh Brolin's death. I mean, we can cry experimental here, but the rest of the film was pretty by-the-book. It's like from the point of Brolin's death on, the movie gets really lightheaded and ambiguous with Chigur killing Carla Jean who accepts it in a way that seems really out of the blue, the uncertain fate and suggested immortality of Chigur, and of course Tommy Lee Jones's incredible little dream.

You see, I'm forcing it now, because I guess I loved the film a whole lot, but TWBB more, because it's hypnotic lull is sort of my type of film.

And then I woke up.

That's fair enough. They're birds of a feather, so it's hard for me to separate the two. But when I do, I usually say I prefer the story of Late Spring, and I find Tokyo Story the better film.

Of course, all the Coen brothers films are great, but I think you've just listed my least favorites. None of those films seem real. All the characters are essentially caricatures of people, exaggerated versions of reality. I'll use A Serious Man as an example. It was an extremely well-written film, but it's just really tedious and left me unfulfilled. Here's how the best scene of that movie represents the whole of many of the Coen's films.

The story his dentist related about the man who had "help me, save me" engraved in his teeth was done so well. There's voice-over narration to relate the story without the actors actually speaking, great musical accompaniment, and some very profound ideas hinted at. That is expert storytelling, but what does it lead to? Nothing, no explanation, and we're left as confused as the protagonist. It's almost a story for story's sake. This is representative of those Coen Bros. movies. They don't serve any real purpose. They're very entertaining along the way and even introduce some great ideas, but they almost never lead to anything. Except in his more serious films.

Yes, among this, Blood Simple, and Fargo, this is probably the best executed. And the ending is the best of any Coen Brothers film.

Inarritu? As in Alejandro Gonzalez? I don't see them as the same, but saying that they are, that would be a major compliment. His movies are not always very good, but they are certainly real, affecting stories.

Harrelson was actually in it for quite a bit, and he was a pivotal character, as the only person who knew Chigurh. I like when a great actor comes in for a brief moment to pepper a movie. But I actually think Harrelson did more than that.

So you like prefer the Coen's surrealism over their realism, but you don't like the scenes surrounding Brolin's death? I think Carla Jean's death scene is among the best in the movie. She doesn't just 'accept' it. Chigurh is portrayed throughout the movie as a killing machine, an embodiment of death. She is the first person to reject the notion of chance or fate. She tells him he has a choice, that our lives are guided by decisions, not a predetermined destiny. When she refuses to call the coin toss, she's pretty much taking the greatest stand in the movie. She was always the strongest, wisest character in the movie, so I don't see this as random acceptance at all. She just doesn't plead for her life. She tries to make Chigurh think about his own.

A lot of your opinions on the movie are very perceptive and actually make it seem like you thought the movie was very good. Could you find anything as deep in There Will Be Blood? I'd like to know.

I can't help but agree with everything you've said. You've said it so well, and utterly exposed the emptiness in my initial claim. I bow to you, sir. That is, except for the bit about the dentist's story. It's all an analog to the Book of Job, which I consider to be probably one of the most profound books in the Bible because of what it says about accepting uncertainty. A Serious Man and The Man Who Wasn't There are perfect companion pieces, and I'm in the process of writing a comparison between them in relation to existentialism. A Serious Man is an adaptation of the Book of Job, the beginning of Christian existentialism, first developed by Kierkegaard and hinted at by Meister Eckhart before him. TMWWT is a loose adaptation of Camus' The Stranger, a key work in Existentialism capital-E. Both films are linked aesthetically to Barton Fink, but BF is harder to categorize in terms of philosophy. I love BF because it is probably the most terrifying film I've ever seen. ASM and TMWWT are also linked by their references to quantum physics, i.e., Schrodinger's Cat and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle respectively. I've basically just outlined my thesis, but thereya go.

Maybe philosophical hermeneutic is the real reason why I watch films.

I feel a great itch to rewatch No Country and do an analysis of it also. You've won me over to its beauty. I remember being stunned by the ending so much. I want to come up with an elegant solution to what Chigurh is--maybe not just Bergman's personified Death again?--and just wtf Tommy Lee Jones is talking about in his dream.

TWBB is a difficult one. Something on the nature of evil.

/topic

THIS IS A GREAT LIST BTW!

Have you read McCarthy's original book planetnews? The sheriff has a lot of internal monologue in the book and I think that having read it first it gives you an insight into the amazing source the Coens had to work with. Obviously they couldn't have included as much of Sheriff Bell's philosophy in the film as there is in the book, but they did their best to make it as true as a great book can possibly be to a film and make the film an outstanding example of their own art. The casting was just perfect too. In my mind There Will Be Blood isn't in the same league.

I love Barton Fink too. Seen it so many times and every time I just want to sit and muse on how when the Coens are at their best they're pretty near perfect storytellers.

I probably should check it out since people call it one of the best novels of ever. I read The Road only after seeing the film, which I thought was excellent, but McCarthy's form blew me away. It's sort of stupid to compare novels and films as their craft is basically non-overlapping (even screenwriting is a visual process, no), but in this case the novel WAS better than the film. I've heard so many ravings about McCarthy's genius as THE singular writer of today; it's a shame I haven't responded properly.

There Will Be Blood was based on a novel too: Upton Sinclair's Oil!. I probably won't be reading that anytime soon, but as for not holding up to NCfoM, I'll have to take a good, long think into that one. Both were made the same year and competed in the Academy Awards (ah, what a great year for cinema that was!) so the pairing is justified despite their stylistic differences and aims.

MOAR LISZT PLZ

70. His Girl Friday (1940)



Take any one of Howard Hawks’ ten best films and they could just as easily fit here. As one of the first directors to be labeled a true auteur, Hawks left his personal impression on every film he made.. Nearly all of his major films undermine cultural gender conventions and feature a sexual playfulness unseen during his time, and they’re all worthy inclusions in a Best list. But I find this one the most entertaining. The entire thing is just so quick and witty, a perfect example of Hawks’ distinct tonality. The dialogue turns one-liners into entire conversations, the characters exchange double entendres quicker than we can pick them up, and the director frames the physical comedy with confidence in the seductive and comedic chemistry of his leading stars. Hawks’ stroke of genius was transforming the character of Hildy Johnson to a female, thus shifting the entire dynamic of the relationship between the two central characters. Cary Grant is hilarious, as he always is in comedies, and Rosalind Russell makes keeping up with his sharp, fast lines look easy.

69. Magnolia (1999)



P.T. Anderson is not afraid to approach clichéd ideas of love and forgiveness or chance and fate with complete earnestness. With almost any other writer/director, this material would seem melodramatic or just silly. But Anderson makes it feel real and genuinely affecting. This is in my opinion, his boldest work. He creates some of the most compelling characters I can think of and places them into impossible situations that are both within their control and out of their reach. I just think everything about this movie is absolute perfection: from the pacing and editing, which always keeps us engaged as it fatefully connects over a dozen characters in a dozen different story arcs; to the screenplay, which gives the film one of the greatest introductions in movie history and makes absurd lines and circumstances seem believable; to the cinematography, which tracks, zooms, and swoops from scene to scene with immediacy; to the astounding performances, which amount to one of the best ensemble achievements in cinema. And how do characters resolve impossible situations? With an impossible ending, of course.

68. How Green Was My Valley (1941)





I wonder if there has ever been a greater pure moviemaker than John Ford. Every movie he’s made, every one, has lived up to a standard of excellence in storytelling, composition, and photography that few others can match. The only other directors I think I can say this about with certainty are Alfred Hitchcock and Yasujiro Ozu. As with Howard Hawks, I could pretty much choose any Ford film and place it here. I chose this because I think it’s one of the most beautifully shot black and white films I’ve ever seen. Arthur C. Miller’s Oscar-winning cinematography is breathtaking in every shot. Should he have beat out Gregg Toland’s work in Citizen Kane? Probably not, but his achievement here is no less exceptional.


67. The Hurt Locker (2008)





Howard Hawks once famously described a good movie as one with, ‘three good scenes and no bad ones.’ Following that logic, this is a great movie. Not only are there no bad scenes, but every scene is executed flawlessly. Each character is painted intimately so we understand his motivations and fears, and each actor channels his character so well. It may be a war movie, but the story is more interested in characterization than strategy and battle or the politics of war. Which isn’t to say that elements of those aren’t present as well. But I really watch the movie for Kathryn Bigelow’s faultless directing. Every scene is an exercise in sustained tension, and Bigelow films them in such a way that I was always on the edge of my seat, even in quieter scenes. Of course, there was the car bomb, the body bomb, and the sniper shootout, but there were also the scene where they got drunk and started hitting each other, the opening segment with Guy Pierce, the episode with David Morse, and the scene where he tells his wife the army needs more bomb techs. I’m sure many people will disagree with my inclusion of this film on my list. It seems no one liked it as much as the Academy, which showered it with Oscars earlier this year. But in my opinion, this is a perfect movie.

66. The 25th Hour





This is a heartbreaking, completely realistic look at the way time and circumstance can change relationships. It follows one small-time drug dealer and his interactions with his father, and his childhood friends who’ve all grown up to be very different people, the day before he’s about to go to prison. I find most Spike Lee movies heavy-handed and unfocused. No doubt, he’s one of the most important writer/directors of the last quarter-century, but I think very few of his characters could exist in the real world. Beyond that, I think his dialogue hardly ever sounds real and his overbearing directing style detracts from his films’ impact. This is easily Lee’s most pragmatic film, and the authenticity of the characters and the way he presents the subject matter allowed me to connect with this story more than any he’s written or directed, even Do The Right Thing. Above all, the performances are without exception outstanding, especially from Edward Norton and Barry Pepper. This is one of my very favorite films of the 2000s, and of all time.

Your list has been one of my favorites to read! Keep em coming!

__________________
If I had a dollar for every existential crisis I've ever had, does money really even matter?

First of all, these snippets are all really wonderfully written. Great job.

Can't even imagine it any other way. "I want to go someplace where I can be a... man." Great summary of what makes the dialogue so fun.
You're right. Separate stories connecting is becoming a cliche these days, but P. T. Anderson can do no wrong. Great, great film. "It's not... going to stop... no it's not..."

Another 40s fail for me. I'm sure it's awesome.

I would disagree here, because I'm not too sure what the film was aiming for. It has elements of a super-intense war film where you're on the edge of your seat and also the quiet, monotonous Jarhead style war film. It seems critical of war and supportive at the same time. I can appreciate a purposely uneven story for the purpose of showing life's unevenness, but the message is strangely ambivalent when the film is not. It makes me feel like Bigelow was trying for something, but failed. The heroic rock music at the end seals it.

Absolutely agree with this. Do The Right Thing is a good film, but it's too surreal and bombastic to contribute productively to any sort of discourse. And the "**** you" rant always moves me.

__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."

Firstly, yes the rant in the mirror where Norton vents his frustration at different races and classes before resigning himself to the truth, that everything's his fault, is my favorite scene of the movie, and classic Spike Lee. His movies always find a way to dissolve back into racial commentary, but it actually fits the story here. I think he's saying that often times, our prejudices stem from self-hatred or frustration within ourselves.

Anyway, yup, I know most people, especially those most educated in film for some reason, seem to dislike The Hurt Locker, or at least think it wasn't as good as it was hailed. But to me, it was very clear what the film was aiming for. I think its intense focus was part of what made it so great. It comments on how different personalities respond to war, following in particular one unique soldier who accepts so strongly his identity as a soldier that he can hardly function outside of this context. It's like my post on The Wrestler with my comments on Raging Bull and Taxi Driver. These are characters who can do only one (usually self-destructive) thing well, and can view the world only through this lens.

I think it's strange in that for all its realism, it is still very subjective in many ways. I think first of the high-resolution slow motion shots of sand rising from the ground and shell casings falling to the ground as an indication of war as a drug. Also, in the scene in the grocery store near the end, Bigelow makes the shelf of cereal boxes seem daunting, showing us how impotent Sgt. James is making mundane decisions or operating in the real world. For a man who always knows the right wire to pull, he can't even find the right cereal box to pull. And I think the rock music in the end wasn't Bigelow trying to get the audience pumped up for more war, I think it was her trying to say that Sgt. James was getting pumped up for more war. I don't think it's supportive of the war at all. War has ruined most of these people.

Anyway, thanks for the comment. I'm always interested to know how people feel about movies I love, even if they disagree.

Yeah, I agree it fits well with Wrester, RB and TD. It definitely works better as a personal portrait than a genre war film. The ending MUST be referring to James now that I think about it. It would be insane for the Academy or anyone to laud a pro-war film. Nevertheless, it wasn't exactly critical. Not that James was really critical. The ending scenes with James back in "normal life" recalls what I like to call the "living dead" syndrome. He, like Che Guevara, has made the ultimate sacrifice, his life. He's already dead, but walks around like he's alive. The only difference is his inability to function in "normal life". He belongs in the field now. That's the only explanation I can fathom for people as brave as he when dealing with bombs. No one is meant to have that much courage. The point is that he's really already dead.

EXACTLY. No one is supposed to be like James. I'm not sure it's courage and bravery so much as it's a complete lack of caring about one's own safety or life. ("If I'm gonna die, I wanna die comfortably.") I wouldn't say exactly that he has a death wish, but he does seem like someone who's already dead, or understands life enough to know that it's transient and completely out of our control. By being a bomb technician, and diffusing a bomb, he essentially decides his own fate. If he lives, it's solely because of his own actions; if he dies, it's solely because of his own failures. In other words, in war, he is in control. In the real world, where anything can happen, he is completely lost.

What you're describing is exactly how I interpreted The Deer Hunter. These men have been in so many life-threatening situations and survived them that their entire perception of life and its worth are thrown off. War has numbed these people. Christopher Walken is the textbook example of your "living dead" syndrome.

Another good connection there. It's a pretty common aspect of war and combat in general. You can't remain human if you're going through that stuff. You also can't be judged as human either. This is why I think criticisms of Che as a cold-blooded murderer are unfounded.

Same thing with Edward from Twilight.

Surely if The Hurt Locker was "a perfect movie" it'd be at #1, wouldn't it? Or are there just 66 perfect movies ahead of it?

No, I consider a movie perfect when it sets out to do something--invoke a certain feeling or emotion, deliver a certain message, argue a specific point--and succeeds on every level. A perfect movie is one with no bad scenes, where the directing is perfect and always serves the story, where the acting is superb from everybody, and where the script has nothing that I immediately think sounds like a cheesy movie line. Whenever I see The Hurt Locker, I say, there is nothing I would have liked to be done differently in this movie. It's perfectly executed.

This is my favorites list, not my best list, so I've included movies I think are flawed because I still love them. Fight Club is, simply put, not a very good movie. But I love its style and Fincher's awesome directing, so it's on here. Dial M for Murder is a perfect film to me, but I have at least five Hitchcock films ahead of it, some which I consider flawed.

There are still plenty of movies coming up that are certainly not perfect in my opinion. But I like them better than The Hurt Locker.