Another revisit of a pre-critical era flick. Surprisingly the film holds up pretty well, the dialog is sharp and zingy even if the plotting is a little thin, and there are a few too many coincidences. Actually it's not that surprising considering it was written by Shane Black. He's also written two of my favorite christmas movies of all time. Once again my nostalgia for the flick will actually preclude my inclusion of an intelligent rating, but as I love doing them anyway:
87 Fictional Creature Testicles out of 10
1.25.2008
#7 Mighty Aphrodite
Mostly silly entry from Allen. But I have to say I prefer a silly movie from him over most of the comedies that come out. Some highlights:
Lenny Weinrib: Achilles only had an Achilles heel, I have an entire Achilles body.
Linda: You didn't want a blowjob so the least I could do is get you a tie.
Linda: Okay, so I had one guy fucking me from behind and two guys dressed as cops in my mouth and all I could think was, "I like acting. I wanna study."
Kevin: I've had 16 fights and I won all of them but 12.
8 Pornographic Timepieces out of 10
Lenny Weinrib: Achilles only had an Achilles heel, I have an entire Achilles body.
Linda: You didn't want a blowjob so the least I could do is get you a tie.
Linda: Okay, so I had one guy fucking me from behind and two guys dressed as cops in my mouth and all I could think was, "I like acting. I wanna study."
Kevin: I've had 16 fights and I won all of them but 12.
8 Pornographic Timepieces out of 10
1.23.2008
#6 The Terminator
This movie predates any critical thought for me by several years, so it could really be terrible and I would never even know it. I love this movie. One thought: Why wasn't Michael Biehn a bigger star? He holds the movie together as the emotionally wounded soldier who was manipulated into his job.
95 Time Traveling Paradoxes out of 10
(I told you I couldn't think critically about this movie!)
95 Time Traveling Paradoxes out of 10
(I told you I couldn't think critically about this movie!)
1.21.2008
#5 Once Upon a Time in the West
Maybe it's because Zodiac has been on my mind so much lately, but when I watched OUATITW I couldn't help but be reminded of Fincher's deliberately paced masterpiece from earlier this year. They are both grand epic movies that are more about how a handful of characters react to an unstoppable force (a phantom of a killer in Zodiac, the westward expansion of modern America in OUATITW). This led me to naturally compare the filmmakers themselves. Both have an unerring eye for cinematic detail. Reportedly Leone spent hours setting up the shot of water falling onto the gunmans hat in the opening sequence. Here's a quote from Fincher regarding his directing style
“If an actor is going to let the role come to them, they can’t resent the fact that I’m willing to wait as long as that takes. You know, the first day of production in San Francisco we shot 56 takes of Mark and Jake – and it’s the 56th take that’s in the movie”
Apart from their methods and styles both directors had a similar impact on their respective cinematic climates. Se7en is to the police procedural what Fistful of Dollars is to the western. Both made us look at their respective genres in new ways and reinvigorated them. Zodiac and OUATITW are both more mature revisits to that earlier genre that shows a patience and an even greater understanding of cinema. Also like Zodiac, OUATITW is a better film than the respective directors earlier efforts, but most likely will never receive the public admiration that it deserves.
Some personal highlights:
Henry Fonda as a bad guy.
Jason Robards as a bad ass.
Charles Bronson not playing a caricature of himself.
9 pair of pants (with both belt and suspenders) out of 10
“If an actor is going to let the role come to them, they can’t resent the fact that I’m willing to wait as long as that takes. You know, the first day of production in San Francisco we shot 56 takes of Mark and Jake – and it’s the 56th take that’s in the movie”
Apart from their methods and styles both directors had a similar impact on their respective cinematic climates. Se7en is to the police procedural what Fistful of Dollars is to the western. Both made us look at their respective genres in new ways and reinvigorated them. Zodiac and OUATITW are both more mature revisits to that earlier genre that shows a patience and an even greater understanding of cinema. Also like Zodiac, OUATITW is a better film than the respective directors earlier efforts, but most likely will never receive the public admiration that it deserves.
Some personal highlights:
Henry Fonda as a bad guy.
Jason Robards as a bad ass.
Charles Bronson not playing a caricature of himself.
9 pair of pants (with both belt and suspenders) out of 10
1.18.2008
Star Trek
I've never watched an episode of any iteration of Star Trek. I have watched the first movie (or more correctly Motion Picture), but haven't gotten into any of the mythos of the series (serii?) at all.
That being said, I got damn goosebumps watching the trailer for the upcoming J.J. Abrams version.
That being said, I got damn goosebumps watching the trailer for the upcoming J.J. Abrams version.
#4 Cloverfield
Ok, I skipped over a few movies I've watched in the past few weeks to comment on this one, but hey, it's opening weekend and I caught it at a midnight screening so I'm kind of stoked.
Normally I don't like seeing movies with a large audience. I'm one of those jerks who likes to pay attention to the movie rather than your inane conversation. Seriously, if you wanted to spend an hour and a half discussing what that bitch Jane said about the size of your thighs why didn't you go to a coffee house? They love loitering chatty types there. Sorry, I have anger issues. But last night was different. A near capacity audience who cheered when they saw the Bad Robot logo come up before the movie? Sign me up for that! This sounds like a group of folks I would like to drink some Kool-Aid with.
Case in point: The new Star Trek trailer that played before the flick was greeted with "ohh"s and "ahhh"s and general drooling. In response to this admittedly fanboyish reaction some meat-head shouted out "Fuckin nerds"...some giggling from the crowd. From across the auditorium came the retort "Yeah, so?"...clapping and hooting ensued. Slinging around (supposed) epithets like geek and nerd at a midnight showing of a monster movie might be sort of a pot, kettle, black issue.
All of which brings me to my point, if you have any interest in seeing this movie in the theater, try to catch it this weekend. It's great fun with a large group.
However I don't think this is a "must see on the big screen" type of movie. It would probably be better suited stylistically to a television, if not a computer screen. As a matter of fact he shakycam/first person method of film making employed would probably look right at home with a YouTube logo in the bottom right hand corner.
I'm going to postulate that the ideal viewing environment would be a house party or a movie night type gathering. Somewhere you can get the social interaction and also (probably) avoid getting motion sickness.
None of this actually speaks to the movie itself however. Picture Godzilla and The Blair Witch Project humping and making little baby movies and you'll be pretty close. I don't mean that in a bad way though. Unlike Blair Witch the characters are actually pretty likable, and the movie never cheats on the "found footage" conceit. Hud, the camera operator, barely knows how to work the equipment he is given. There are no cuts other than the camera being turned on and off. There is no explanation as to what the footage is other than the stern government warning seen at the beginning and the end.
The film also manages to comment on it's own presentation without being too cute or on the nose. During the party scene that practically starts off the movie we see other people walking around with camcorders, taking pictures with digital cameras and camera phones. We are forced to accept the gimmick of first person film making because in our modern "we are Big Brother" world it has become commonplace. At one point during the party this becomes obvious when Hud focuses his camera onto the screen of another camera that has a better angle of the action than he does.
The other moment that drives the fact of camera ubiquity home happens during one of the lulls in the first wave of destruction. Almost immediately after crawling out of their hiding places, the survivors pull out their camera phones and start taking pictures. This also seems to make a point of our post 9/11 reality, one where seeing the head of the Statue of Liberty come crashing down into a Midtown(?) street seems unlikely, but not out of the question.
The film is at least slightly scarier than it's PG-13 rating lets on,(apparently the MPAA doesn't have a check box for nihilism next to blood and boobs) and you probably should remember to bring your Dramamine. It might not hold up to repeated viewings but as a roller coaster it works pretty well. With that in mind, if you dig on thrill ride flicks, get thee to a mulitplex.
8 Creepy Lice Spider-Squids out of 10
Normally I don't like seeing movies with a large audience. I'm one of those jerks who likes to pay attention to the movie rather than your inane conversation. Seriously, if you wanted to spend an hour and a half discussing what that bitch Jane said about the size of your thighs why didn't you go to a coffee house? They love loitering chatty types there. Sorry, I have anger issues. But last night was different. A near capacity audience who cheered when they saw the Bad Robot logo come up before the movie? Sign me up for that! This sounds like a group of folks I would like to drink some Kool-Aid with.
Case in point: The new Star Trek trailer that played before the flick was greeted with "ohh"s and "ahhh"s and general drooling. In response to this admittedly fanboyish reaction some meat-head shouted out "Fuckin nerds"...some giggling from the crowd. From across the auditorium came the retort "Yeah, so?"...clapping and hooting ensued. Slinging around (supposed) epithets like geek and nerd at a midnight showing of a monster movie might be sort of a pot, kettle, black issue.
All of which brings me to my point, if you have any interest in seeing this movie in the theater, try to catch it this weekend. It's great fun with a large group.
However I don't think this is a "must see on the big screen" type of movie. It would probably be better suited stylistically to a television, if not a computer screen. As a matter of fact he shakycam/first person method of film making employed would probably look right at home with a YouTube logo in the bottom right hand corner.
I'm going to postulate that the ideal viewing environment would be a house party or a movie night type gathering. Somewhere you can get the social interaction and also (probably) avoid getting motion sickness.
None of this actually speaks to the movie itself however. Picture Godzilla and The Blair Witch Project humping and making little baby movies and you'll be pretty close. I don't mean that in a bad way though. Unlike Blair Witch the characters are actually pretty likable, and the movie never cheats on the "found footage" conceit. Hud, the camera operator, barely knows how to work the equipment he is given. There are no cuts other than the camera being turned on and off. There is no explanation as to what the footage is other than the stern government warning seen at the beginning and the end.
The film also manages to comment on it's own presentation without being too cute or on the nose. During the party scene that practically starts off the movie we see other people walking around with camcorders, taking pictures with digital cameras and camera phones. We are forced to accept the gimmick of first person film making because in our modern "we are Big Brother" world it has become commonplace. At one point during the party this becomes obvious when Hud focuses his camera onto the screen of another camera that has a better angle of the action than he does.
The other moment that drives the fact of camera ubiquity home happens during one of the lulls in the first wave of destruction. Almost immediately after crawling out of their hiding places, the survivors pull out their camera phones and start taking pictures. This also seems to make a point of our post 9/11 reality, one where seeing the head of the Statue of Liberty come crashing down into a Midtown(?) street seems unlikely, but not out of the question.
The film is at least slightly scarier than it's PG-13 rating lets on,(apparently the MPAA doesn't have a check box for nihilism next to blood and boobs) and you probably should remember to bring your Dramamine. It might not hold up to repeated viewings but as a roller coaster it works pretty well. With that in mind, if you dig on thrill ride flicks, get thee to a mulitplex.
8 Creepy Lice Spider-Squids out of 10
1.13.2008
#3 Sweeny Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
I love the music, I love the story line, I love the characters. But alas I didn't love the movie. I really really really liked it, but it didn't sweep me away. As evidence I present the fact that I've tried to write this post half a dozen times but still can't muster up enough oomph to actually write much about the movie. So just a couple quick highlights then:
1. The final shot of the film is perfect, as in, it could not be better.
II. Johnny Depp as an insane emo Bowie could not rock harder.
C. Slash, blood, slash, blood, it could not bleed bloodier.
Here's a song I like that has nothing to do with the movie, but it's distracted me pretty well from writing so,
Almost forgot the verdict!
7 Excised Songs out of 10
1. The final shot of the film is perfect, as in, it could not be better.
II. Johnny Depp as an insane emo Bowie could not rock harder.
C. Slash, blood, slash, blood, it could not bleed bloodier.
Here's a song I like that has nothing to do with the movie, but it's distracted me pretty well from writing so,
Almost forgot the verdict!
7 Excised Songs out of 10
#2 Juno
I loved this movie, my wife Mari LOVED this movie. Which is rare and should probably be taken as a better indicator than my own endorsement.
If you're not into the subversive cute genre (Garden State, Gilmore Girls, Wes Anderson Flicks) you very well might not dig on this one so much. Especially the first few 10 minutes or so. I have to admit I was a little scared during the first couple scenes. When Juno tells a dog to "Shut your gob" I suddenly envisioned Juno as a knocked up, sassy Napoleon Dynamite. It almost seems as if the filmmakers front loaded the quirk to sort of mess with your precocious barometer. After the first 10 or 15 minutes the language and mannerisms just become natural and you are allowed to love all the characters. And you do, every one of them is presented in a sympathetic light (except maybe Bleeker's pseudo girlfriend with the stink eye), yes all of them, that includes both the yuppie adopters as well.
Not that this makes or breaks the film, but the soundtrack has been in regular rotation at the Ickes house since the day we saw the movie.
Score:
9 impregnated minors out of 10
If you're not into the subversive cute genre (Garden State, Gilmore Girls, Wes Anderson Flicks) you very well might not dig on this one so much. Especially the first few 10 minutes or so. I have to admit I was a little scared during the first couple scenes. When Juno tells a dog to "Shut your gob" I suddenly envisioned Juno as a knocked up, sassy Napoleon Dynamite. It almost seems as if the filmmakers front loaded the quirk to sort of mess with your precocious barometer. After the first 10 or 15 minutes the language and mannerisms just become natural and you are allowed to love all the characters. And you do, every one of them is presented in a sympathetic light (except maybe Bleeker's pseudo girlfriend with the stink eye), yes all of them, that includes both the yuppie adopters as well.
Not that this makes or breaks the film, but the soundtrack has been in regular rotation at the Ickes house since the day we saw the movie.
Score:
9 impregnated minors out of 10
1.12.2008
#1 No Country For Old Men
Formalities first, go see this movie. All of you, because it's going to be all spoiler-y up in this here ma'fa, 'aight?
Let me get the fanboyishness out of the way first. This is a perfect film. There, I've said it.
I know that a lot of people are looking at it through the lens of being a "revisionist western", I think mainly because there were a couple other big ones this year and people love trends. I'm contemplating coming up with my own category for it, "rural noir". The only other film that fits this description (off the top of my head anyway) is Paul Newman's revisit of the Harper (Archer) character in "The Drowning Pool".
But at best the categories only describe the story and the style. The big game with this movie (and indeed most Coen Brothers flicks) is figuring out how to best read the movie. What are the hidden themes? What is the symbolic significance of X or Y? How do you infer a larger philosophical construct from the Coen oeuvre? Or on the flip side of the coin (which it just so happens is a quarter from 1958) is the possibility that the Coens are just fantastic stylists and any larger meanings that one may glean from their works are just reflections of the viewer. Let's forget this last and plunge ahead with the speculation!
Totally Unsubstantiated Theory Ahead
I've seen it debated (here and here) that Anton Chigurh may or may not be the main character in the movie. I think that the case could be made for any of the three male leads as the main character. But who the hero is, is I believe a separate discussion entirely. If you take out Ed Tom Bell from the running (he could be considered the Greek Chorus of the piece) that leaves us with Lewellyn Moss and the "hitman" Anton.
Consider our introduction to Moss, we see him taking aim at an antelope through the scope of a rifle, his physical remove from his target seeming to mirror his emotional state. He pulls the trigger, but only succeeds in wounding the animal. He begins tracking it, only to be distracted by another trail of blood that intersects the path of the antelope. Peering through the brush he finds that this trail comes from a wounded dog. Here he gives up his pursuit of the antelope and backtracks along the trail of the dog to find out how it got injured in the first place. By choosing to do so he essentially sentences both the antelope and the wounded dog to die slow painful deaths out in the desert. This also sets up a pattern of behavior that Moss repeats time and again in the movie. He thoughtlessly causes pain to others and refuses to take the responsibility for what he has done.
So if Moss's actions are morally questionable what are we to make of Chigurh's? He is seen taking an active role in far more deaths than Moss. However he does seem to feel the weight of his crimes, and seemingly tries to understand the people he is visiting death upon. (This is entirely based on the way he is played by Bardem, whose eyes seem so inquisitive right before he sends his victims to their great reward.) He is also the only character who is brought up in the film as having a set of ethics:
Llewelyn Moss: If I was cuttin' deals, why wouldn't I go deal with this guy Chigurh?
Carson Wells: No no. No. You don't understand. You can't make a deal with him. Even if you gave him the money he'd still kill you. He's a peculiar man. You could even say that he has principles. Principles that transcend money or drugs or anything like that.
Now, it is true that no one in, or out of the film for that matter, actually understands or could enumerate the rules that Chigurh lives by, but he does have them, and he follows them strictly from what we can see. He does so in his quest for something larger than the 2 million dollars (we are led to believe at least). If the movie were framed a little differently I believe that Chigurh would be our hero, or the anti-hero at least. He actually brings to mind other characters from fictional America's epic cinematic mythology: The Man With No Name, Harmonica (Once Upon a Time In The West), Leon (The Professional), Travis Bickle. All of these men do terrible things, but we are asked to believe that to do them for a good reason. Chigurh could be merely The Man With No Name stripped of context. Maybe "revisionist western" isn't such a bad label after all.
Score:
10 ultimate badasses out of 10
Let me get the fanboyishness out of the way first. This is a perfect film. There, I've said it.
I know that a lot of people are looking at it through the lens of being a "revisionist western", I think mainly because there were a couple other big ones this year and people love trends. I'm contemplating coming up with my own category for it, "rural noir". The only other film that fits this description (off the top of my head anyway) is Paul Newman's revisit of the Harper (Archer) character in "The Drowning Pool".
But at best the categories only describe the story and the style. The big game with this movie (and indeed most Coen Brothers flicks) is figuring out how to best read the movie. What are the hidden themes? What is the symbolic significance of X or Y? How do you infer a larger philosophical construct from the Coen oeuvre? Or on the flip side of the coin (which it just so happens is a quarter from 1958) is the possibility that the Coens are just fantastic stylists and any larger meanings that one may glean from their works are just reflections of the viewer. Let's forget this last and plunge ahead with the speculation!
Totally Unsubstantiated Theory Ahead
I've seen it debated (here and here) that Anton Chigurh may or may not be the main character in the movie. I think that the case could be made for any of the three male leads as the main character. But who the hero is, is I believe a separate discussion entirely. If you take out Ed Tom Bell from the running (he could be considered the Greek Chorus of the piece) that leaves us with Lewellyn Moss and the "hitman" Anton.
Consider our introduction to Moss, we see him taking aim at an antelope through the scope of a rifle, his physical remove from his target seeming to mirror his emotional state. He pulls the trigger, but only succeeds in wounding the animal. He begins tracking it, only to be distracted by another trail of blood that intersects the path of the antelope. Peering through the brush he finds that this trail comes from a wounded dog. Here he gives up his pursuit of the antelope and backtracks along the trail of the dog to find out how it got injured in the first place. By choosing to do so he essentially sentences both the antelope and the wounded dog to die slow painful deaths out in the desert. This also sets up a pattern of behavior that Moss repeats time and again in the movie. He thoughtlessly causes pain to others and refuses to take the responsibility for what he has done.
So if Moss's actions are morally questionable what are we to make of Chigurh's? He is seen taking an active role in far more deaths than Moss. However he does seem to feel the weight of his crimes, and seemingly tries to understand the people he is visiting death upon. (This is entirely based on the way he is played by Bardem, whose eyes seem so inquisitive right before he sends his victims to their great reward.) He is also the only character who is brought up in the film as having a set of ethics:
Llewelyn Moss: If I was cuttin' deals, why wouldn't I go deal with this guy Chigurh?
Carson Wells: No no. No. You don't understand. You can't make a deal with him. Even if you gave him the money he'd still kill you. He's a peculiar man. You could even say that he has principles. Principles that transcend money or drugs or anything like that.
Now, it is true that no one in, or out of the film for that matter, actually understands or could enumerate the rules that Chigurh lives by, but he does have them, and he follows them strictly from what we can see. He does so in his quest for something larger than the 2 million dollars (we are led to believe at least). If the movie were framed a little differently I believe that Chigurh would be our hero, or the anti-hero at least. He actually brings to mind other characters from fictional America's epic cinematic mythology: The Man With No Name, Harmonica (Once Upon a Time In The West), Leon (The Professional), Travis Bickle. All of these men do terrible things, but we are asked to believe that to do them for a good reason. Chigurh could be merely The Man With No Name stripped of context. Maybe "revisionist western" isn't such a bad label after all.
Score:
10 ultimate badasses out of 10
So What Have You Been Up To?
Myself? Oh not much. Well, thats not entirely true, it could be quite a lot actually, I just don't want to talk about it too much, lest I jinx it. If you've talked to me IRL in the past few months you probably know about it already. If I haven't talked to you and you just can't wait, drop me a line and I'll probably fill you in. I just don't know if it's kosher to broadcast it yet.
Enough of that vagueness. Here's a specific for you, I will not be outdone by Mike. Since he has seen fit to post about every new film he watches this year, I've decided to blatantly rip off the idea. I'm actually planning on trying to write something about every film I see, whether I've seen it or not. No matter the source, (movies on tv are fair game) as long as I watched it on purpose. I'm not going to pressure myself into writing about Flubber just because it was on in the background and I was too busy playing on PokerStars to look for the remote. Also each movie gets own post, unless it was watched as part of an intentional double bill or marathon, conceived for the purpose of comparing and contrasting the works.
So in the spirit of completeness (and also because I have OCD) I will be doubling back to pick up the movies I checked out the first couple of weeks of 2008.
Enough of that vagueness. Here's a specific for you, I will not be outdone by Mike. Since he has seen fit to post about every new film he watches this year, I've decided to blatantly rip off the idea. I'm actually planning on trying to write something about every film I see, whether I've seen it or not. No matter the source, (movies on tv are fair game) as long as I watched it on purpose. I'm not going to pressure myself into writing about Flubber just because it was on in the background and I was too busy playing on PokerStars to look for the remote. Also each movie gets own post, unless it was watched as part of an intentional double bill or marathon, conceived for the purpose of comparing and contrasting the works.
So in the spirit of completeness (and also because I have OCD) I will be doubling back to pick up the movies I checked out the first couple of weeks of 2008.
8.24.2007
100 Movies
I was going to write a post entitled "The 100 Greatest Movies Evar" but then I figured I wasn't really egotistical enough to declare, by myself, the greatest movies ever. (Truthfully, I do think that highly of myself, but it seemed like a lot of pressure.) I revised it into a list of "My 100 Favorite Films". This would seem to suffice for most people, for me it quickly devolved into a series of sub-lists of particular directors and genres, so as to not skew the main list one way or another. Having 6 or 8 Hitchcock films on the list might start to do just that thing, but I couldn't very well just write 'Hitchcock Films' as an entry. First of all I haven't seen all of them, secondly some of his movies just wouldn't make my top 100 list. Ok, so we can all tell that the 100 faves list would probably turn into an essay on classification systems and the applications thereof.
I decided to free myself and create a list that I am calling "100 Movies That I Love But Which Are Not Necessarily My Favorite Films, Nor Would They Be My Votes For The Greatest Movies Of All Time, Although Some Of Them Certainly Could Be." Or "100 Movies" if you're into the whole brevity thing.
My wife mocked me for not only feeling the need to make such a list, but that I would need to both quantify and qualify the list itself. Then she mocked me for being able to make several lists that would all contain 100 movies and would have so little overlap that I would need to define them as discrete items. I realize that to most people this stuff is trivia but it's what I dig on.
Enough hullabaloo, on with the 100 Movies.
(Oh, and just because this is a numbered list, that does not in and of itself denote any sort of ranking system, these are just some movies I love, off the top of my head.)
1. Leon: The Professional
2. The Maltese Falcon
3. True Romance
4. In America
5. MASH
6. Raging Bull
7. When Harry Met Sally
8. Vertigo
9. To Kill A Mockingbird
10. Spirited Away
11. Jaws
12. 12 Monkeys
13. Dog Day Afternoon
14. Interiors
15. The Evil Dead
16. A Very Long Engagement
17. Glengarry Glen Ross
18. 28 Days Later
19. Bullitt
20. Oldboy
21. Armageddon
22. Usual Suspects
23. Sin City
24. Empire Records
25. The Big Lebowski
26. Clue
27. Carlito's Way
28. The Thin Man
29. L'Avventura
30. Night of the Living Dead
31. THX 1138
32. Cabin Fever
33. The Royal Tenenbaums
34. Punch Drunk Love
35. Charade
36. The Tingler
37. Lethal Weapon
38. Rosemary's Baby
39. A Slipping Down Life
40. Children Of Men
41. The Limey
42. Taxi Driver
43. The Color Of Money
44. Cool Hand Luke
45. The Exorcist
46. Do The Right Thing
47. Tideland
48. Psycho
49. Zodiac
50. American Grafitti
51. Romeo+Juliet
52. Nightmare On Elm Street
53. Brick
54. Blood Simple
55. The Village
56. Sunset Boulevard
57. El Mariachi
58. Clerks 2
59. The Goonies
60. Breakfast At Tiffany's
61. Annie Hall
62. A History Of Violence
63. La Femme Nikita
64. Pan's Labyrinth
65. Primer
66. The Departed
67. The Shining
68. Tombstone
69. King Kong
70. L.A. Confidential
71. Pet Sematary
72. Close Encounters of the Third Kind
73. The Jerk
74. Heat
75. Pi
76. The Commitments
77. The Lady Vanishes
78. True Grit
79. Nashville
80. Barton Fink
81. Dr. Strangelove
82. Children of the Corn
83. Halloween
84. Spartacus
85. Intacto
86. The World According to Garp
87. Ghostbusters
88. The City of Lost Children
89. The Terminator
90. Alien (s) (3) (Resurrection)
91. The Verdict
92. The Abyss
93. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
94. Rashomon
95. Run Lola Run
96. Stalag 17
97. Rififi
98. The Talented Mr. Ripley
99. The Fly (Cronenberg)
100. Ginger Snaps
I decided to free myself and create a list that I am calling "100 Movies That I Love But Which Are Not Necessarily My Favorite Films, Nor Would They Be My Votes For The Greatest Movies Of All Time, Although Some Of Them Certainly Could Be." Or "100 Movies" if you're into the whole brevity thing.
My wife mocked me for not only feeling the need to make such a list, but that I would need to both quantify and qualify the list itself. Then she mocked me for being able to make several lists that would all contain 100 movies and would have so little overlap that I would need to define them as discrete items. I realize that to most people this stuff is trivia but it's what I dig on.
Enough hullabaloo, on with the 100 Movies.
(Oh, and just because this is a numbered list, that does not in and of itself denote any sort of ranking system, these are just some movies I love, off the top of my head.)
1. Leon: The Professional
2. The Maltese Falcon
3. True Romance
4. In America
5. MASH
6. Raging Bull
7. When Harry Met Sally
8. Vertigo
9. To Kill A Mockingbird
10. Spirited Away
11. Jaws
12. 12 Monkeys
13. Dog Day Afternoon
14. Interiors
15. The Evil Dead
16. A Very Long Engagement
17. Glengarry Glen Ross
18. 28 Days Later
19. Bullitt
20. Oldboy
21. Armageddon
22. Usual Suspects
23. Sin City
24. Empire Records
25. The Big Lebowski
26. Clue
27. Carlito's Way
28. The Thin Man
29. L'Avventura
30. Night of the Living Dead
31. THX 1138
32. Cabin Fever
33. The Royal Tenenbaums
34. Punch Drunk Love
35. Charade
36. The Tingler
37. Lethal Weapon
38. Rosemary's Baby
39. A Slipping Down Life
40. Children Of Men
41. The Limey
42. Taxi Driver
43. The Color Of Money
44. Cool Hand Luke
45. The Exorcist
46. Do The Right Thing
47. Tideland
48. Psycho
49. Zodiac
50. American Grafitti
51. Romeo+Juliet
52. Nightmare On Elm Street
53. Brick
54. Blood Simple
55. The Village
56. Sunset Boulevard
57. El Mariachi
58. Clerks 2
59. The Goonies
60. Breakfast At Tiffany's
61. Annie Hall
62. A History Of Violence
63. La Femme Nikita
64. Pan's Labyrinth
65. Primer
66. The Departed
67. The Shining
68. Tombstone
69. King Kong
70. L.A. Confidential
71. Pet Sematary
72. Close Encounters of the Third Kind
73. The Jerk
74. Heat
75. Pi
76. The Commitments
77. The Lady Vanishes
78. True Grit
79. Nashville
80. Barton Fink
81. Dr. Strangelove
82. Children of the Corn
83. Halloween
84. Spartacus
85. Intacto
86. The World According to Garp
87. Ghostbusters
88. The City of Lost Children
89. The Terminator
90. Alien (s) (3) (Resurrection)
91. The Verdict
92. The Abyss
93. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
94. Rashomon
95. Run Lola Run
96. Stalag 17
97. Rififi
98. The Talented Mr. Ripley
99. The Fly (Cronenberg)
100. Ginger Snaps
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)