All That Jazz (1979)

All That Jazz All That Jazz - 1979

Director - Bob Fosse

Starring - Roy Scheider, Ann Reinking, and Leland Palmer

This one was a little difficult for me.  I didn't particularly like or dislike this film, despite the fact that I really liked some of the performances.  Usually with each of the films on this list I have some sort of reaction, and whether it's shocked disappointment or some degree of elation about how good something is doesn't matter.  It's the reaction that I'm interested in.  The most wonderful (sometimes frustratingly so) part of tackling a chore such as this list, is that each and every one of these films make me feel something.  Or they usually do anyway.

The semi autobiographical All That Jazz, wasn't bad, but ultimately, that is all it ended up being for me.  It wasn't all that long ago that I watched it, and yet I find myself having a hard time remembering it, and consequently it's pretty hard to write about something when it's difficult to remember the plot.  However, have no fear, I did a bit of research on it to get me back up to speed, and I am going to do my best to write something about it anyway.

Joe Gideon is a man who dwells in... no, he revels in his own excess.  It isn't uncommon for people to glamorize or celebrate something like drug use, alcohol, or casual sex, it is actually quite common for people to claim a vice with some degree of pride.  Gideon, the altar-ego of the film's director Bob Fosse, can claim them all.  He is a hedonist for the ages.  The good part is that these things are what keeps him creating and crafting his true calling, choreography, the bad part is, it's also what's killing him.  So the question becomes, is a life spent fervidly devoted to your work worth dying for, and maybe more importantly, is a life without passion worth living?

On one hand, I found it easy to connect with Gideon (played very engrossingly by Roy Scheider) through his love of what he does, on the other I found I wasn't very fond of his results, nor his methods of achieving them.  I know it's blasphemous to say, but I don't think his choreography (Fosse, or Gideon for that matter) was really all that memorable, or special.  Granted I've only really seen this (that I'm aware of), so I suppose his work deserves another chance to connect with me, but based solely on this, I wouldn't go out of my way to give it one.

Gideon/Fosse, as a human being, is rather sloppy and careless, in love, in his relationships, and even in the way he treats himself.  Watching him walk like a wrecking ball through his own life was  like  a trip to the DMV, long, difficult and very annoying.  The odd part was that I like Roy Scheider in the role, and truthfully the Joe Gideon character is interesting to watch.  I definitely wouldn't say that I connected with him, or that I even care if he lives or dies by the end of the film, but it did help to balance out the story a bit and bring it closer to center.  I guess it really all comes down to the fact that I liked Roy Scheider's performance.  I like Roy Scheider.  He was easily the most watchable part of the film.

On a side note, films of the seventies tended to have real looking people in them.  Not everyone was a flawless being of perfect light, unleashed to increase ticket sales in certain demographics.  It's refreshing to see someone with unique features, or a body shape that isn't cookie cutter pretty, and to its credit, All That Jazz really embraces that organic trend of natural people and doesn't relegate them to the background or as the doofy sidekick.  In fact, just about the only thing that I can appreciate about Fosse's work, this film included, is his attraction to form and movement and artistry based on a multitude of things regardless of what others thought.  I only wished I liked his choreography more.

Clearly the rest of the actors and performers in the film felt very strongly about the impact that Bob Fosse has had, including Fosse himself, but even with that devotion and belief in it, All That Jazz was still only tepid at best.  In the end, after reading a bit about it, and doing a little analyzing of my own, I got more out of it than I had initially thought, but truly the motivation for me writing this was because I've been putting this review off now for a month and I just wanted to get if off my plate.

As far as the list goes, the spot would have been better served by any number of different films.  Ingmar Bergman's Scenes from a Marriage, has similar voyeuristic qualities, with a lot of the infidelity and familial drama, yet it resounded with me far more on every level, from the film's technical craftsmanship, to Bergman's direction, to the deep, heartfelt acting.  I guess all I'm saying is that, while I never really hated it, this film never really impacted me like one of the 1001 best movies ever should have.

Nosferatu, Eine Symphonie Des Grauens (AKA: Nosferatu, A Symphony of Terror) (1922)

Nosferatu Nosferatu, Eine Syphonie Des Grauens (AKA: Nosferatu, A Symphony of Terror) - 1922

Director -  F. W. Murnau

Starring - Max Schreck, Greta Schroder, and Gustav van Wangenheim

Of the many different genres of cinema, horror seems to be relegated to the bottom of the list when it comes to perceived importance and impact.  Drama, perhaps, is the category voted the most likely to get recognition and accolades, where as comedy seems to get the people's choice award, but for my money some of the most effective and memorable films reside firmly in the realm of suspense, tragedy, and horror.  Even films that are billed more as mystery like, Psycho, or science fiction, such as Aliens, have elements directly rooted in the anatomy of the horror film.  Brimming with dark imagery, unsettling characters, and casual situations gone wrong, films such as The Exorcist, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and The Thing are very obviously direct descendants of Nosferatu.  it doesn't end there either, F.W. Murnau's silent masterpiece has informed the structure, tone, editing, and atmosphere of movies as a whole, and worked its way into the DNA of the language of modern cinema.

The most striking feature of Nosferatu, is the look of the film (duh...it is a silent movie after all.).  Though not as exaggerated and dramatic in appearance as fellow german expressionist work, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, I found the imagery more immediate and haunting.  Starkly black and white (with only subtle color washes to provide a different feel for outdoor versus indoor scenes), Nosferatu relies on stillness and subtle creeping atmosphere to first un-nerve the viewer, then slowly build the tension of the film to a boiling point.  From the long shadowed gothic architecture of the vampire's castle to the dilapidated, shell of a building which he inhabits upon his arrival in the fictional coastal town of Wisborg, the set pieces lend to the characters aura of danger, and the looming danger that follow with him.

Borrowing obviously from the Dracula story, originally by author Bram Stoker, Murnau and his lead actor Max Schreck craft a version of the vampire character rooted not so much in sexual charisma and riches, than it is in brute strength and fear.  Count Orlok as this Vampire is known, looks sleep deprived, starved, and ravenous.  There is a ferocity in the portrayal that is far more present and vibrant than almost every other vampire that I've ever seen depicted in film.  Orlok looks like a cross between the Tall Man from the Phantasm films, and a burned rat, and frankly seeing him for the first time, silhouetted in the archway of his manor, is more than a little unsettling.  The film even refers to him as the "Bird of Death", further likening him to the dangerous animal that he is.

His appearance isn't his only weapon though, throughout the film, the vampire utilizes impressive strength, mind control, power over animals, as well as a peculiar telekinetic ability which allows him to, non-corporally interact with the world (self-moving coffins, and doors opening in a simple, but effective stop-motion animation).  When these qualities are added up in one package, Orlok seems like an unstoppable force and brings a real sense of dread with him as he lurks slowly through the scene.

One of the first examples of a Cult Film, Nosferatu nearly didn't survive after the estate of Bram Stoker sued for copyright infringement and a court ordered all existing prints of the film burned.  This bankrupted the production company who had neglected to acquire the rights to the Dracula story.  Luckily, copies of the film had already been shipped around the world, and survived destruction, eventually being copied and cultivated by fervent fans and film enthusiasts the world over.

As far as acting goes, the discussion should start and stop with the film's terrifying lead, Max Schreck.  His gaunt frame and solid performance helped to create one of the most indelible characters ever created.  The rest of the cast does a fine job in their roles, but they only ever really play second fiddle to Schreck/Orlok, causing us to miss him when he leaves the frame and thrill us every time he is back on the screen.  His performance is so legendary, that a number of rumors have built up around both the character as well as the actor, painting him as everything from a true method actor, to a a real life sadist who simply plays himself on-screen.  It is these rumors that inspired a fictionalized telling of the actor's life during the filming of Nosferatu, in the form of "Shadow of the Vampire" starring John Malkovich as Murnau and Willem Dafoe as Schreck.

From the research I've done (readings and such about the making of both Nosferatu as well as Shadow of the Vampire) I can find no evidence that any of that is true.  Instead, it would seem that this rather powerful character has simply had the effect of coloring people's impression of a rather popular stage character actor.  Like many actors, (ie: Maria Falconetti from Passion of Joan of Arc, Linda Blair of the Exorcist, and Jaye Davidson of The Crying Game), Schreck seems to have used up all of his intensity, charisma and skill to be remembered for one great work of art.  Though he continued acting, it is always Nosferatu that he will be remembered for, and vice versa.

I feel like there is so much more that could be said about this film, including comparisons to other films, and weighing and mapping the influence that ripples even through the films of today, but I feel the best service I can do is simply to tell you to watch it.  Just watch the shit out of it.  I know it's silent, and sometimes silent films can be boring, but this film is worth it (not that others aren't worth it, mind you).  To see this film is to see one of the keystones in the history of film, a film that helped to define the rules which are adhered to even today.  So do yourself a favor and watch it, you won't regret it.

Seven Brides for Seven Brothers (1954)

Seven Brides for Seven Brothers Seven Brides for Seven Brothers - 1954

Director - Stanley Donen

Starring - Jane Powell, Howard Keel, and Russ Tamblyn

So I know that, by and large, I give musicals a pretty hard time.  Harder than maybe they deserve, but truthfully I'm just not a big fan of a lot of the ones that I've seen.  I've been proven wrong on a handful of occasions, most notably with "Singing In The Rain", which I have a tendency to gush and gush about because it really is that good (no really).  But then there are those examples of Musical film that defy logic, mine anyway.  How is it that people can sit through them?  Bright colors, and loose plotting do not a movie make, a point which "Seven Brides For Seven Brothers" makes all too successfully.

On paper, the very fact that Stanley Donen is the director of this film should have meant it was going to be outstanding.  I mean, he directed the afore-mentioned really really really good musical, Singing In The Rain.  On top of that, Donen also directed one of my favorite movies of all time, Charade.  So by all means, this could have been great, nay, the greatest...ever.  It wasn't.  At best it was overly long, with an utterly ridiculous story that makes zero sense, and at worst, it's a misogynist and tone-deaf film in which the characters learn that abduction and abuse are rewarded with laughs and affection.

The story.  Well the story is about a rough and tumble mountain man, Adam, who arrives into town with the intent of claiming himself a woman.  After judging each and every girl on the street, and measuring their flaws, he finally finds someone he deems worthy of him, and pops the question.  The lady, Milly, a sort of all-purpose cook, waitress, and janitor at the local inn, immediately falls in love and regrettably assumes the feeling is mutual.  She daydreams aloud, often in song (blarg!) about her romantic notions of getting away from the daily grind of constantly living her life in the service of others, and instead spending meaningful time working alongside her true love and partner.

Of course, all Adam really wants is someone to be the cook, waitress, and janitor but with the added benefit of keeping him warm and satisfied during the long and cold winter nights spend out in the middle of fucking nowhere.  Oh, and did I mention he has six functionally retarded brothers that are dirty, violent and completely un-socialized?  Yeah, neither did he.  Adam cleverly withholds this fact from Milly till she meets them after their whirlwind one-day courtship/wedding.

***(Warning Spoilers)***

Later on, after an attempt to acclimate them to civilization spirals into a fist fight, the six brothers are encouraged to steal each of themselves a woman, just like Adam did, in order to salve their wounded pride.  The tried and true method of tricking the girl they fancy into coming outside, then tossing a blanket over their head and forcing them into their kidnap wagon understandably alarms the town, and a chase ensues.

To emphasize just how irresponsible Adam is, when Milly chastises him for inciting this wonton kidnapping, he storms off to a secret pouting cabin in the woods leaving her to take care of the mess that he fucking caused, all while keeping up the high standards of cleanliness and cooking to which they've all become accustomed.

To go too much further would be to give away too much of the story, not that you can't really see where it's going from here, but in the interest of not giving away everything I'll stop here.

***(End Spoilers)***

Now, I realize that this is a 1950s musical, and as such, is supposed to be breezy and fun.  Just an excuse upon which one could drape a little choreography and a bunch of songs.  The story is really more of an afterthought, a necessary evil.  Unfortunately it seemed more than a little dated and seemed to really champion just taking what you want from women.  After all, it's for their own good and they'll end up loving it anyways, right?

Okay, so it's just a goofy love story with some fish out of water elements, and sure it has a lot of sexism which isn't good, but either way the story isn't what's important.  Likewise the singing didn't really stand out, there was one really good dance number, and a bunch of forgettable ones, but that's not really the point. But, it features a young Julie Newmar (for the uninitiated, she played Catwoman on the 1960s Batman TV series)...whose name was, of all things, Dorcas (!!!?).  Oh, but it was filmed in Technicolor, and had some well thought out set-pieces...so essentially, bright colors and loose plotting.  It still doesn't a movie make...too bad they did anyway.

Strictly Ballroom (1992)

Strictly Ballroom Strictly Ballroom - 1992

Director - Baz Luhrmann

Starring - Paul Mercurio, Tara Morice, and Bill Hunter

I hadn't realized before sitting down and watching it, but seeing Strictly Ballroom pointed out just how I'd been missing Australia, not to mention Australian film.  There is a certain quality of the acting, the tone and the intonation.  The characters are at once relate-able and larger than life, and the initial cartoonish impression I had of Australian cinema turned out, I realized, to simply be a vehicle for a more universal set of truths.  In an effort to be funny, and make for a more compelling read, I have had the tendency to make jokes at the expense of, and be rather hard on some of the films that I've seen.  The caricatures of the people in those films seemed unrealistic or even laughable on a first viewing, but ultimately, once the stories were done and the reviews written, I continued to think about films like Priscilla Queen of the Desert, and Muriel's Wedding.   Each stayed with me longer than I would have thought.  I have come to rather like Muriel's Wedding, despite feeling a little indifferent to it when I wrote the initial review. Like each of those other films, Strictly Ballroom, is completely an Australian film, and just as before, it's got me thinking.  Thinking about the film itself, and about going back to Australia.  Hopefully soon!

My wife in particular was excited about this film, thanks in no small part to the fact that it centers around dance.  Though, the film isn't really what I would call a dance film in the same way that something like Singing In The Rain is a dance film, it is instead to dance as Rocky was to boxing, an important plot point, but not necessarily the focus.

The story centers around Scott, the promising dancer who yearns to break out of the rigid formula required by the Pan-Pacific Ballroom Dance competition, and dance his own movies, from the heart.  Everyone from his partner, to the judges, to his family all try to warn him that he is being reckless with his chances of winning the competition and making something of himself.  It's only, Fran, the mousy, seemingly inexperienced dancer in his class that sees otherwise, and encourages him to break free from the rules, and from everyone else's expectations.

Scott and Fran both are both good enough characters, played well by actors Paul Mercurio, and Tara Morice respectively, filling out the roles nicely with likable, engaging characters that the audience wants to root for, but it's really the supporting characters that populate the world around them that make this movie such a joy.  Take Fran's parents for example...at first her father seems like an angry, possibly abusive guy trying to commandeer his daughter's future, but it turns out that he is a passionate dancer who truly doesn't want to see his little girl waste her time with someone who doesn't treat her as she deserves.  Her mother, likewise, is a rich breathing person who deeply loves her family.  You can tell at once that each of them, outside of the reality that this film covers, has lived a full life, each with their own experiences and trials.  This is a testament not only to the filmmakers, but to the actors as well.

Likewise, Scott's parents harbor their own desires and regrets, as they strive and scrabble trying desperately to reach for past glories.  Scott's dance coach, Les, as well as his rival Doug, are both great fun to watch as they blunder through the narrative, successfully wresting my attention away from our two leads.  Good as each of these secondary and tertiary characters might be, certainly the most watchable performance was turned in by Bill Hunter, as the detestable, corrupt, Ballroom Federation president, Barry Fife.  Chewing each bit of scenery that he's given, Fife is sooooooooooo much fun to watch, that I almost wish the film were about him.

At first watch, this film, as well as a lot of other films that come out from down under, seem a little simple, a little cartoonish, or even more than a little over the top, but each film that I have had the good fortune of seeing, is saying more than what is on the surface.  Priscilla, as well as Muriel's Wedding, have strong messages of acceptance, and Muriel in particular has more than a little to say about forgiveness (of yourself just as much as of anyone else.).

Similarly, Strictly Ballroom is more than what is evident on the surface.  It preaches passion for what you love, and acceptance of others, not despite, but because of what they are.  I really enjoyed this film, more even than watching it, I enjoyed thinking about it afterwards, which is really a sort of first for me.  I am looking forward to giving this film another viewing to see if I can glean anything further from it.  More than anything, though, this film makes me miss Australia.  It brought back memories of traveling along the coast of New South Wales, from Kiama back to Sydney (although I'm not sure I could tell you why it made me think of that...), and for that I loved it!

Moonstruck (1987)

Moonstruck Moonstruck – 1987

Director - Norman Jewison

Starring - Cher, Nicolas Cage, Danny Aiello, and Olympia Dukakis

Through the years there have been many messages, poems, and letters delivered through the medium of the motion pictures. Some are about strong women, some are about the enduring strength of an ideal, and some messages are just downright personal (love for an idea, a theme, or a people or demographic), but there is no more popular subject than community. Groups of people bound by something larger than each of the individuals, something definable and relatable.  Or in the case of Moonstruck, a community of people that works and lives in New York City.

The film, features a rather typical sort of love story.  A widowed woman, Loretta (Cher), is currently in a relationship that is going nowhere.  Her boyfriend isn't ready to commit to more, but she comes to realize that maybe she is just settling for less to avoid loneliness.  She lives with her parents, and grandparents and spends all day entrenched in the lives of her loud, boisterous, Italian family.  All day long she listens to her mother, Rose, worry about whether or not her husband is cheating, her father just seems to want to be left alone, and she is caught in the middle.

When her boyfriend, Johnny (Danny Aiello) proposes to her, she travels to the bakery where his long estranged brother works to invite him to the wedding.  Ronny (Nic Cage), is a fiery, passion filled man who is nursing a resentment over the girl that his brother stole long ago.  Naturally, this spirited and outspoken man intrigues Loretta, and she falls in love with him instantly.  Tortured by her guilt over the new-found love, and her betrayal of the man who proposed to her, she is forced to choose between the lie that she loves or the love that's a lie.

The other, of the two, over-arching themes of this film seems to be lies, and though lies and community seem like disparate things, they end up being very closely intertwined.  Each character has a secret, or at the very least a social quirk that they are trying to repress, but due to close quarters of New York City there is always someone paying attention to what they are doing.  This sort of involuntary interaction with neighbors, family, and co-workers means that privacy is really an illusion.  These people then, for lack of anyone better equipped to deal with the situation, become the support system to either validate or discredit what they are doing.

Loretta is seen out on the town with Ronny by her father, who actually IS stepping out with another woman behind Rose's back.  After watching the constant fighting and break-ups of a fellow lonely soul in the neighborhood restaurant, Rose is spotted by her father-in-law walking home with him after the two share a friendly, yet intimate dinner.  And everyone who surrounds Ronny at the bakery has been silently watching him grieve his failed relationship for years.  These people are all witnesses to lives, and hidden pains of one another.  They catch each other at their very worst, but at the same time represent to each other, a support system that is deeply important and personal.

Though she doesn't approve of her father stepping out without her mother, Loretta is bound by the guilt brought on by her own infidelity.  They are locked in opposition with one another, yet they still end up helping each other work out a solution by the end of the film.  Perry (the unlucky-in-love, restaurant patron) and Rose can relate to each other's feelings of loneliness, rejection, and the humiliation that is a natural part of relationships. And though their support is misconstrued by someone else, they are simply providing support for one another.  Finally, Ronny's support system is his job, and he uses it as a way to give his life meaning until something else, something more rewarding (read: Loretta), comes along to snap him out of it.

Even though the film is a love story, we understand as an omnipotent, the all-seeing audience, that the support structure would be the same if it were a drama, or a slapstick comedy, or even a mystery.  The love story is the background, the paint on the house that is the story of the community.  More than anything this film emphasizes the ideal that communities are not only important, and necessary, but all around us.  They may get us into trouble sometimes, but more often than not, it is these important connections in our lives that inevitably get us out of trouble as well.

I realize that Moonstruck is just a fun little romantic comedy, but it does strive to describe and illustrate the connection that exists in its story.  Cher, Nicholas Cage, and Director, Norman Jewison, are well aware of this, and though it may not reach this ideal consistently throughout the film, the fact that it tries raises Moonstruck up far above the level of most.  Once again, I'm left wondering why something so glorious and wonderful as "Paper Moon" never made this list, as it features similar themes, and in my humble opinion is a far superior film.

"The one thing we can all agree upon when it comes to the art of cinema, is that all movies should have Cher in them." - Ashley

I've Seen It, and Now So Has She...

So in the ongoing process of reviewing the movies I had already seen when starting this, here are 25 more films from different years, genres, and nationalities.  Thanks to her going nuts on our movie collection in an attempt to catch up, all of these films were simultaneously reviewed by my lovely wife, Ashley, as well as by me.  Enjoy! The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)

Though not as phenomenal as some of his work, The Man Who Knew Too Much, is one of the really good Hitchcock films.  Jimmy Stewart is always pretty likable, but it's Doris Day who really steals the show for me.  The one thing that the original has over this remake is the ever-wonderful Peter Lorre.  I could watch that guy eat breakfast!

"Don’t F with Doris Day or she will sing you a song!" - Ashley

The Great Escape (1963)

Partly remembered for it's fun story, and partly because of Steve McQueen, The Great Escape is also worthy of remembrance for being one of the last (as far as I could find anyway) really great, ensemble films.  The list of famous actors that make an appearance here is a pretty astounding one.  Everyone from the CEO of Jurassic Park, to Flint of "In Like Flint", to the vigilante from "Death Wish", and plenty more, make an appearance in this film.  Oh, and the story is pretty good too.

“This movie might be set in a prisoner of war camp, but I would liken it to the con or heist movie genres, so it was actually quite enjoyable.” - Ashley

La Battaglia Di Algeri (AKA: The Battle of Algiers) (1965)

The gritty and raw style of this film owes much to the cinema vérité camera work, and black and white film stock, which served to mimic news reel, or documentary style footage.  The cast of actors, or non-actors as they were, was chosen for their look, and the emotional heft they brought the subject matter, with the only "real" actor playing the leader of the French military force tasked with quieting the then French colony, Colonel Mathieu.  As a testament to its message, the film was banned in France for a number of years, before being re-edited and released later on.  As powerful and prescient today as it was when it was filmed, it speaks to our current situation with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and the nature, and victims of terrorism.

“It’s a war movie!” (said with fake excitement) - Ashley

C'era Una Volta Il West  AKA Once Upon a Time in the West (1968)

Gorgeous!  This film is so lush, and beautiful that when I first saw it, it took my breath away.  Though I do love the Man With No Name trilogy, this film, in my humble opinion, is  absolutely Sergio Leone's masterpiece!  Henry Fonda, Jason Robards, and god help us all Claudia Cardinale.  If you haven't seen this film, you are doing yourself a grand disservice!

“One of the best movies this list has introduced me to!” - Ashley

Midnight Cowboy (1969)

I saw this film around two decades ago, and I liked it a lot.  I was amazed at how much I liked it really, but it wasn't until I watched it recently with my wife for her first time, that I was blown away.  Dustin Hoffman is so, so very good, and unfortunately for him, John Voight was so incredible that he still hasn't yet managed to attain such heights again.  Fred Neil's "Everybody Talkin'" performed by Harry Nilsson, is such a perfect song to capture the wonder, and spontaneity of New York city, as well as the despair and fear that come when good fortune you're riding flips upside down and smothers you instead.  One of the most beautiful films I've ever seen.

“Two hustlers find love.” - Ashley

Serpico (1973)

Though I've seen Serpico, I never fell in love with Serpico.  It's a good film, that I, more than likely, should give another chance.  Known as one of the big tent poles of 1970s cinema, this film went a long way in defining the social, and political unrest of the urbanites of the time.

“Al Pacino grows a beard and takes down some corrupt cops.” - Ashley

Jaws (1975)

The godfather of the summer blockbuster is also an incredibly effective horror and suspense film.  This film comes from the young and hungry Steven Spielberg that helped make a lot of the movies that I grew up on, not the tired schmaltzy Spielberg that ruins every movie he makes now in the last 30 minutes (Don't believe me?  Take, A.I., War of the Worlds, Minority Report, Saving Private Ryan, and Jurassic Park 2: The Lost World, and the all terrible Catch Me If You Can, The Terminal, The Adventures of Tin-Tin, and Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.).  So basically, Jaws was good.

“The push-zoom in it is great, other then that, meh.” - Ashley

Network (1976)

Though Network has some pretty interesting things to say about the nature of television and the nature of fame and martyrdom, and is definitely considered to be another one of those "important" movies from the seventies, I didn't like the film really at all.  I found all the characters to be pretty repellent  people, and not in the least compelling on any other level.

“I hated every character in this movie.” - Ashley

Airplane! (1980)

The absolute funniest movie that I had ever seen when I was ten years old, it turns out is best marketed towards the young and those who are young in the head.  It didn't manage to hold onto its title when I recently re-watched it, but it was still really fun to watch.  Leslie Nielson easily steals the show with his trademark deadpan delivery, and square-jawed good looks.  I will always love it for the joy it brought me in my youth.

“Better then the parody movies done today but still not my favorite kind of comedy.” - Ashley

The King of Comedy (1983)

Robert De Niro's selfish, celebrity-obsessed, Travis Bickle is in love with the idea of fame, so much so that fixates on it.  It is all he sees and all he desires.  At times, tense, at others comic, the film goes a fair way towards predicting the phenomenon of instant fame that shows like American Idol, and YouTube have come to inspire. "The King of Comedy", just may be one of Scorsese's lighter works, but one of Martin's lesser works is often times better than someone else's best.

“Robert De Niro being creepy.” - Ashley

The Terminator (1984)

I was raised on this film.  I have probably seen it upwards of 100 times.  It is incredible.

“Arnold Schwarzenegger is bad.” - Ashley

Beverly Hills Cop (1984)

This little flick is a fossil of another time, a time when the name Eddie Murphy meant you were going to see something that was actually funny.  Not solely for children, no fat suits or unnecessary makeup, but an actual, honest to God funny movie.  Murphy made a fair amount of them in his heyday, my only guess is that he just ran out of funny stuff to say, and now is only capable of making crap.  Too bad.

“Oh, I didn’t know Eddie Murphy use to be funny!” - Ashley

‘A’ Gai Waak Juk Jaap (AKA: Project A, Part II) (1987)

I went through a big Hong Kong cinema phase in the mid to late 90s.  Films like A Better Tomorrow, My Lucky Stars, Full Contact, and Hardboiled filled my movie collection.  Some of my favorites were the films of Jackie Chan, including the Project A films.  Packed with action, impossible stunts, and lots of slapstick humor, these films are intensely rewarding, and loads of fun.  Though I like Project A, Part II a lot, I wouldn't put it as my favorite of Chan's films, that honor would go to the absolutely insane Drunken Master II.  The last half an hour of that film was just about the craziest thing I'd ever seen in my life.

"Jackie is a god." - Ashley

A Fish Called Wanda (1988)

Another film that I suppose I should devote another viewing to.  Most people seem to love, A Fish Called Wanda, however I thought it wasn't all that good.  Since it was written by John Cleese, I should by all rights love it, so I can only assume that I saw it at too young an age.

“A raunchy comedy from the 80’s that is actually still funny for a first time view.”      - Ashley

The Naked Gun (1988)

Another of my favorite films from when I was 10 years old.  Leslie Nielsen rode the slapstick gravy train for many years, culminating in The Naked Gun.  Though the films sequels turn out to be rather hokey and one-note, the original film still stands out as one of the best examples of this type of comedy.

“Not bad but just not my kind of comedy.” - Ashley

Die Hard (1988)

As an only child, I spent a lot of time watching movies.  Every Friday night I would have my Mom drive me to the local video emporium, where I would pick up the newest action movies, along with the grossest or most obscure comedies and horror films.  I remember renting Die Hard when if first came out of Video.  I put the VHS tape into the VCR, sat back and spent the next two hours and twelve minutes getting my mind blown!  Easily one of the best action movies ever, and the best Christmas movie by a long shot.  Absolutely deserves to be on this list.

“My husband looks like Bruce Willis, so I’m allowed say how much I like how little his shirt is on in this movie, right?” - Ashley

Total Recall (1990)

Far and away the best film that either Arnold Schwarzenegger or Paul Verhoeven ever had anything to do with, and both men made some goddamned awesome films!  Groundbreaking visual effects, a truly compelling science fiction story, and action for days.  I was lucky enough to see this film in the theater, where at the tender age of eleven, I fell in love.

“Amazing special effects makeup. I wish they still did makeup this way.” - Ashley

Terminator 2: Judgment Day  (1991)

Not as impacting to me as the original, but this was yet another fantastic film.  James Cameron at the peak of his career thus far (yes I am including the disappointing Avatar).

“Arnold Schwarzenegger is good.” - Ashley

JFK (1991)

As a devout fan of film, I have a constantly shifting set of films that revolve in and out as my favorites of all time.  Reed's The Third Man,  Kurosawa's High & Low, Melville's Le Cercle Rouge, and of course Oliver Stone's JFK.  This labyrinth of a film traces the known facts right along side the potential possibilities, watching the two dance with one another, seeing what happens.  Some of my favorite cinematography ever committed to celluloid juxtaposes the black and white of the accepted reality of the Warren Commission with as many points of view as there were watching that day on the grassy knoll.  Black and white, high and low, right and wrong, fact and fiction.  All blend together in this film, tied by the exceptional cast, character actors and famous faces alike.  The best you've ever seen Joe Pesci, Tommy Lee Jones, Kevin Bacon, and Michael Rooker in any film.  This is one of those films that no matter what time it is, if I find it starting on TV, I will watch it all the way through.  I think I'll go watch it right now.

“Was there anyone who didn’t want to kill Kennedy?” - Ashley

C’Est Arrive Pres De Chez Vous (AKA: Man Bites Dog) (1992)

This mockumentary about a vicious serial killer being followed by a documentary film crew attempts to find the line between documentation and complicity.  A dark film with some very subtle comic undertones, Man Bites Dog is more uncomfortable than it is successful.  It felt about 45 minutes too long, which would have shortened the film by about half.  Interesting, but ultimately not really very good.

"Oh this was suppose to be a comedy?" - Ashley

The Crying Game (1992)

It's been a while since I've seen this film, so my only real memory of it is that I managed to see it twice in one weekend, once with each of my parents who didn't know what it was about...awkward.

“Despite knowing the spoiler twist for a couple decades now I found this a really interesting look at the fluidity of human sexuality.” - Ashley

Dead Man (1995)

Long, slow, and still.  Three things that describe the films of Jim Jarmusch.  Dead Man is all of those things, and it was great.  Not a film for every occasion, nor is it for everyone, but if you appreciate thoughtful introspective and occasionally spiritual films, this one may pique your interest.

“So fucking boring!” - Ashley

Fargo (1996)

Of all the Coen Brothers films to put on this list, both this film, and Raising Arizona are two of their most average.  They are certainly good films, not nearly as reprehensible as Burn After Reading, Intolerable Cruelty, or The Ladykillers, but also not even close to as good as Miller's Crossing (my personal favorite Coen Brothers film), The Big Lebowski, or Barton Fink.  That being said, Fargo did open up the Coen Brothers' sensibilities to a whole new crowd of viewers and introduced the masses to William H. Macy, and Peter Stormare, so in that respect, it was a good choice.  Otherwise, a real missed opportunity for this list of "best movies".

“I love that the lead is a smart strong women. Really great movie too.” - Ashley

The Passion of the Christ (2004)

Awful, over-hyped, manipulative, horror-porn along the likes of Hostel, and Hostel 2.

“Yeah, yeah we get it Jesus got his ass beat.” - Ashley

The Aviator (2004)

Even genius doesn't shine all the time.  Yet another movie where the mega-talented Scorsese teams with the mega-mediocre DiCaprio, and turns in underwhelming results.  One of the greatest living cinematographers in the world said it best, describing The Aviator as a "handjob" for Hollywood, and while I don't think it's quite that, he certainly spends the entirety of this film writing an elaborate love letter.  Cate Blanchett was really wonderful as Kate Hepburn, if only DiCaprio could do some acting that isn't just his usual approach of squinting and leaning forward into the camera.

“Leonardo is actually tolerable in this movie. Though he still can’t do an accent worth a shit.” - Ashley

So, there you have it.  Another 25 in the bag.  See you next time!

Les Demoiselles De Rochefort (AKA: The Young Girls of Rochefort) (1967)

Les Demoiselles De Rochefort Les Demoiselles De Rochefort (AKA: The Young Girls of Rochefort) – 1967

Director - Jacques Demy

Starring - Catherine Deneuve, George Chikiris, Françoise Dorléac, and Gene Kelly

The goal of any movie poster is to filter down all the important elements of the film, the who, what, where, and even sometimes why, and give potential viewers the urge to seek it out later on.  There are films that are so enamored with the who, that the poster is nothing but a series of giant heads of famous actors looking vaguely off into the distance (any romantic comedy out in the last 30 years or so).  Still other films are so excited to let you know that there is a twist, one that they all but give it away (the instance that springs to mind is the remake of the wonderful Charade, into the terrible The Truth About Charlie.  Do yourself a favor and don't seek out this poster, or the movie till you've seen Charade, and maybe not even then.)  But this film does a dynamite job of illustrating just what the viewer can expect from this film, best of all their was no condensing necessary either!

Really the poster tells you everything, except for the fact that their isn't anything else.  No captivating story, no dynamic twist, no edge of your seat confrontation, or heartfelt resolution.  The story isn't really what I am going to review here, if the truth be told, it wouldn't really be fair to judge it solely on its story. It is really more the equivalent of a 1960's concert film, than it is a movie.  So the Young Girls of Rochefort is, how shall we say, a little light on plot, but it more than makes up for it in exuberance, color, and having a few honest to god Gene Kelly numbers in the picture.

The story is thin, but plausible enough to hold a series of dance numbers together, however non-important enough to drop at the end without resolving some of them.  The key here seems to be instant gratification.  Once you see it, you can forget it in order to watch the next thing.  With so much effort put into the set pieces, the color, and the dancing, does a fan of musicals need any other reason to watch?  Probably not, but as someone who isn't all that enamored with musicals, I certainly would have liked more.

The aforementioned Gene Kelly appearance was quite a welcome sight.  I really really really really enjoyed Singing In the Rain, and really appreciated An American in Paris to the point where I thought "If all musicals are this good, how have I been so wrong about them my whole life?"  (Spoiler alert, I haven't found all musicals to be worthy of either of those two just yet, although I'm still looking.)  No matter how much I like Catherine Deneuve as an actress, she wasn't given all that much to do in this film.  I'm not sure whether she actually sang or if she was lip syncing, but either way, she seemed like just a name and a face tacked onto this film to sell tickets, so Kelly's appearance midway through the film really got me interested in watching again.

Needless to say, this film was unable to live up to the magic that was "Singing in the Rain", like a lot of other musicals I fear, was relegated quite quickly in my head as an "also-ran".  No amount of enthusiasm or color usage was going to bring it back up to that level for me.

My wife on the other hand,is someone who enjoys most musicals simply for the fact that they're musicals.  She found quite a lot to like and this film was a joy for her to watch.  Despite the limitations I attempted to place on it, it won her over with its energy and determination to be.  If for only that one reaction, it was worth it.  It was more than worthy of my time, and it also brings to mind other films that I like purely on an aesthetic level.  I don't really need a reason to love "The Man With the Movie Camera", or appreciate "Un Chien Andalou", or relentlessly watch all the rather brainless 80's and 90's action films that I love so well.  None of them have stories (well that's debatable I suppose, but each of these films is focused on something other than the story), but each has an equally unmatched exuberance,and verve for itself.  Each has a determined will to be, despite what others try to pigeonhole them as.

So it is true with "Les Demoiselles De Rochefort".  Though it wasn't my cup of tea, it was most definitely made for a specific audience, one that loves it just for what it is.  But the question remains, "Does it deserve to be on this list?"  Ultimately, no.  I would say there are other musical and dance films that go further, with more interesting music, more dynamic dance numbers, more story integration to transcend and become more than just a musical.  So it may not the best, but in a pinch it'll cure what ails you.

Hitlerjunge Salomon (AKA: Europa Europa) (1990)

Hitlerjunge Salomon (AKA: Europa Europa) Hitlerjunge Salomon (AKA: Europa Europa) – 1990

Director - Agnieszka Holland

Starring - Marco Hofschneider, Julie Delpy, and Solomon Perel

What's more uplifting than a story of a young Jewish boy lasting out the war by imitating those who want him dead?  Apparently, it's that exact same story plus the lusty escapades of a hormone addled teen movie tossed in for fun.  It's the lighter side of the Nazi fueled war machine!

Like I said already, as far as Jewish survival stories set during World-War II go, this one was surprisingly lusty and light.  Though the main character, Salomon's, journey is a difficult one, it was oddly punctuated by sexual encounters, camaraderie with those who want him dead, and seemingly, the joys of growing up.  Also, oddly enough, deep in the heart of Nazi, Germany, this young interloper manages to find a surprising number of sympathetic people who help him along the way.  One or even two instances along these lines seem plausible, human nature even, but as many lucky breaks as young Solomon gets during the length of the movie skews the film into the realm of the surreal, and removes from it, some of the danger that other films such as Schindler's List, and The Pianist seem to exude from their very pores.

While that fact doesn't make it a bad film, as such, it definitely makes it unique.  An oddity even.  Seeing it now, through the lens of history, makes the film seem somewhat in-authentic.  A farce dressed in the clothes of history.  If dramatized reality has taught me anything, it's that people who are/were Nazis weren't really people, clearly they were actually just murderous machines, blindly spewing rhetoric and hate (sarcasm).  I realize of course that the film is a biographical one, and tells the actual story of a very real Salomon Perel, it is just a novel thing to see a film that doesn't completely demonize Nazi's, and in many ways treats them as people too, and some of them are worth our pity.

Though it served to lessen the overall impact of the horrors of war in general, and the holocaust in particular, this general humanity that was  bestowed upon the antagonists was indeed a refreshing change from the usual.  Not only does our main character struggle with feelings of fear, jealousy, lust, and love, but so do the people who condemn him so, and it's not only limited to the Germans.  We see the human side of the whole of eastern Europe, with realistic portraits of Poles, and Russians as well as the Germans who Salomon encounters on his path through the war.

Being a young man at the age where hormones threaten to take control of the thought processes, Salomon indulges himself quite a bit in some pretty shockingly dangerous ways, some of which threaten his safety, others of which are the only things keeping him alive.  One of his amorous encounters with an instructor in the Hitler youth, has him (a Jew) being compared loudly, and often, in a sexual way to the "fuhrer" himself (the accuser of Jews).  This film was never one I'd talked about, or read on during film school, so I'm not sure if I am to infer this comparison to mean that even Hitler is/was a human being, or if it was relying solely on the irony of the situation to inject humor, and a sense of heightened stakes into the situation.  I like the idea that this film might have been making a bold statement, so I choose to believe that it humanizes everyone.

Don't get me wrong, at no point do I think that the actions of the Nazi party, or of Adoph Hitler deserve a pass, or even a re-evaluation.  I don't.  All I'm saying is that the only path forward from a wound as great as the Holocaust is acceptance and ultimately forgiveness.  I was surprised to find that forgiveness in this film along side the anger, fear, joy, and sadness that every human is capable of.

So, Europa, Europa wasn't quite what I was expecting when I started it, and looking at it objectively, I would say it doesn't have as much impact as the Schindler's Lists or The Pianists, or even something as singular of purpose as the incomparable, Inglourious Basterds.  Still, the tale of Salomon Perel is one that seeks to open the eyes, as well as the mind.  It chooses a different formula through which to process this history, deal with it, and ultimately heal both the physical as well as psychological wounds left on the soul of a people by the holocaust.  Like I said, it is not the most effective, it's not even my favorite, but it's a new take on the same old story we're used to.  Not just a tale of one survivor, but of many, and that is why it made it on this list.

Rain Man (1988)

Rain Man Rain Man - 1988

Director - Barry Levinson

Starring - Tom Cruise, Dustin Hoffman, and Valeria Golino

What is more awful, the imitation of the famous character, or the famous character, himself?  It's not as easy a question as I was guessing that it would be.  With such well-defined mannerisms, speech patterns that inspire imitation, and the constant repetition that drives it into the brain of the collective public, a film like this one can easily become parody.  Before seeing this film, my only knowledge of it was of the imitation of Ray Babbit that just about everyone seems to know, regardless of having seen the film or not.  I had grown rather sick of these imitations and had developed the opinion that I didn't like Rain Man because of it.  I felt that Dustin Hoffman's performance as the aforementioned Babbit was hammy and over the top, and I wrote off Tom Cruise as having played himself...again.  All before having seen one frame of film.  I was wrong.

For something that could have easily delved into the realm of the predictable, layered with melodrama, and schlock that I feared so much, Rain Man keeps a remarkably level-headed assessment of Hoffman's mentally challenged Ray and his hot-headed brother, Charlie played in a remarkably subtle way by Cruise.  Immediately my impression of the film shot up as the characters turned out to be not only grounded in reality, but more importantly, utterly believable and even likable as well.

Driven mostly by his anger, and to a lesser degree by his fear, Charlie Babbitt,tries to fill the hole inside himself with things and with money.  Constantly he is reminding himself of what the world owes him, and it is with this attitude that he greets the news of his estranged fathers death.  Not willing to deal with how this makes him feel, or his own sense of loss, Charlie looks simply at what was left to him, and feels he is owed more.  He is not a terrible or a bad person, he is just so filled with anger, it's all he can feel anymore.

The majority of his father's money, it turns out, has been left to a brother, that Charlie never knew he had.  Ray Babbitt, the new-found brother, immediately becomes a target for Charlie's anger, despite the fact that he's unable to understand, let alone deal with either the anger or the blame.  Charlie is left with the choice of leaving with nothing, or leaving with Ray, hoping to get a sort of paltry ransom from the executor of his father's estate, and the rest of the film deals with the two brothers learning to find value in one another.

While the union isn't ideal for either of them at first, the two brothers eventually get to know each other, and in time come to trust each other too. As I mentioned before, Tom Cruise, wasn't yet the Tom Cruise we know today.  The 1988 version could actually play more than one character, each one with subtlety and definition, too.  Watching Babbitt stretch and grow, first straining against then breaking through the confines of his anger, was one of the most rewarding experiences thus far in this endeavor.  Combined with the muted performance that Dustin Hoffman turns in, Rain Man showed itself to be the real deal.

While not my favorite of what I've seen during this little endeavor, Rain Man was surprisingly good.  What could easily have fallen back into the gimmick of method acting or even a plain, stale buddy movie, really blossomed into a whole greater than the sum of its parts.  Well worth it.

The Cook, The Thief, His Wife & Her Lover (1989)

The Cook, TheThief, HisWife & HerLover The Cook, The Thief, His Wife & Her Lover - 1989

Director - Peter Greenaway

Starring - Helen Mirren, Richard Bohringer, and Michael Gambon

By far, the most dramatic visual statement a film can make is the use of color.  The use of color in a film, any film, immediately sets for the audience and then maintains the tone of the story throughout the rest of the film.  Amongst all of the important elements of filmmaking, plot, acting, directing, art direction, editing, etc., the choice of how to present your film's color scheme is arguably the most immediate and subjective choice you can make.  A very washed out color palette says something completely different from say a very saturated one, or even a monochromatic one.  From the first frame the audience is instantly on board and facing the direction you've pointed them.

Despite all the nastiness, pain and anger this film has on display, The Cook, The Thief, His Wife & Her Lover is such a lush and visually sumptuous exercise in color use, that a critique or review could be written solely on its use and impact alone (although I'll try to touch on other stuff too).  Peter Greenaway, angry with the political climate in Britain loaded this film with vitriol aimed at the Thatcher government that was in power during the making of this film in the 80s.  Thanks to my limited knowledge of 1980's England, the not so subtle symbolism and rather heavy-handed commentary on the state of his home nation was all but completely over my head.  Thankfully, however, that didn't take away from the overall message of the film, nor on the long-lasting aftertaste it left in my brain.

To start with, I should mention that the entire film is shot in the confines of or immediately outside of a fancy french restaurant, each area of which is dressed in its own specific color.  The exterior of the restaurant is blue, the kitchen green, the dining room red, and the ladies room is white.  Not only that, but each of the character's clothes change to match the setting when they go from one to the next. (ie: as a character moves from the kitchen to the dining room, their clothes change from green to red, etc...) Not only does this stay constant, but each color is indicative of the character who dominates that setting.  The blazing, angry gangster holds court in the dining room.  The ladies room represents a sanctuary for the adulterous couple.  The kitchen is the realm of the cook, and the outside represents the real world.  There is one exception, however.  Michael, the rather nebbish man who captures the eye of the gangster's wife, is always clad in a rather drab brown color.  He is the exception to the color rule, he is his own constant.

The thief of the title refers to Albert Spica, mercilessly and ravenously played to the hilt by Michael Gambon.  Spica is a gangster of the most reprehensible variety, used to getting his way through intimidation, anger, and violence.  Spica dominates and controls (or tries to) everyone around him.  While I doubt very much that Thatcher and her cronies went so far as to actually spread shit on her enemies, taking what was theirs, and leaving them bloodied and broken, he apparently represents her, and her government.

His much abused, much put-upon wife Georgina, played somehow still gracefully by Helen Mirren, stands for the trampled citizenry of Britannia.  Her dutiful acceptance and depressing outlook on this relationship is indicative of most abusive relationships whether they're between two people or on a much larger, country-sized scale.  This subservient behavior that typifies Georgina from the beginning of the film, is immediately thrown off track when she connects with a quiet, lonely soul who represents everything that her gangster is not.  To Georgina, Michael represents safety, happiness (or at the very least less sadness), and something more than simple survival.  The first half of this romance is purely visual, as it transcends the boundaries represented by the different rooms and their colors.  It is fully halfway into the film before we even hear Michael utter his first word.  As I mentioned before, his is the only characters' color scheme that never changes.  He wears a consistently brown colored suit throughout the film, which helps exemplify the inherent stability, and staid nature of his character.

The cook, of the film's title, acts as an overseer.  Not so much an omnipotent god as an observer.  He is privy to more information than everyone else in the film, but unlike a simple observer, he does tend to meddle a bit.  Since he has a rather strong dislike, with good reason, for the brash, un-refined gangster that has hijacked his restaurant, he helps to facilitate, and even protect the blossoming love between Georgina and Michael.  Where as Michael has limited to no ability to stand up to Spica, the Cook is at times outright defiant.  He is more than willing to poke this dangerous man's ego with a stick, because the thing he loves most (his restaurant) has already been taken from him, and he has little left to lose, save his dignity.

The film is certainly bit heavy handed, however, I don't think it would have had the same impact or effect if it had been treated otherwise.  Large bold strokes are required here to convey the hurt, the anger, and the sadness of this film.  It was said by another essayist that the nudity of the film isn't so much revealing as it is exposing.  This couldn't be more true.  The numerous sexual encounters between Georgina and Michael are equally about opening up, showing off flaws, and fear of trust, as they are about intimacy, arousal, and lust.  The glamour and sensuality of it isn't gone really, but juxtaposed with the violence and inhumanity demonstrated by Gambon's Spica, it has a much more comforting effect.  It makes them, and us, feel safe and connected, and what a wonderful way to use sex in a film.

With everything it has to say, The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover really needs to be watched more than once to glean all you can from it.  Despite the difference in tone and message, and despite the rather disparate nature of the films I'm about to compare it to, there is a definite connection between this film and something like the Three Color Trilogy (Bleu, Blanc, and Rouge), by Krzysztof Kieslowski, the films of Jean Pierre Jeunet (especially Amelie), and to a much different yet no less important extent, some of the films of Paul Schrader, especially Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters for it's use of color, Affliction for it's use of tone and message, and Auto Focus for it's mixing of both of these things.  This film is defintely worthy of your attention.  I was certainly glad I gave it mine.

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

The Man Who Sho tLiberty Valance The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance - 1962

Director - John Ford

Starring - Jimmy Stewart, John Wayne, Vera Miles, and Lee Marvin

In the westerns of the thirties, forties and fifties, there was a clear line of right versus wrong, good guy versus bad.  At the beginning of the film, when someone new rides into town, all you have to do is check out the color of his hat, and by paying careful attention, you can fairly reliably ascertain whether they are a hero or a villain.  In the films of the late sixties and seventies, the west is filled with anti-heros, outlaws, and characters whose motivations are all colored in shades of gray.  A good man and a bad man are harder to tell apart, both through their deeds and their choice of clothing.  The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is roughly halfway between these two extremes.  Our main character may be obviously good, but he has a limit and can be pushed over it.

A sort of companion piece to the earlier Jimmy Stewart film, Destry Rides Again, this film explores the somewhat darker side of being an upstanding citizen.  Where in Destry, Stewart played a character who overcame the danger and conflict through sheer force of will, never letting his ideals falter, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance sees him as a strong-willed man left with no further options than to turn his back on his idealism and resort to violence.  Whether one film was a commentary on the other, or if it was just a sign of changing times is something I can't say for sure, but together, each illustrates the glory and the grime of standing up for what you believe in using what is essentially the same character as a means of illustration.

Liberty's story is a familiar one.  Jimmy Stewart plays Ransom Stoddard, a well-meaning yet naive lawyer, who while on a stagecoach heading into the small town of Shinbone runs afoul of a local desperado and general bully, Liberty Valance (the one from the title).  Valance, played by the deliciously malicious Lee Marvin, beats Stoddard to such a degree that he is in need of treatment by the local nurse/doctor, which forces him into the lives of the local restaurant proprietors (including the love interest of local tough guy and town hero Tom Doniphan played by John Wayne).

As Ransom mends, he searches for a legal means of defeating Valance, educating the town, and unbeknownst to him he works his way into the heart of the restaurant owner's daughter Hallie Stoddard.  As this affection becomes more and more plain, Ransom runs the risk of ostracizing his best and only chance of beating Valance at his own game.  Without Tom Doniphan standing in between the outlaw and himself, Ransom will be forced to either use violence and maybe live, and or stick by his ideals and likely die.

Well, hopefully the title of the film should explain that someone, at some point, actually does deal with Valance, but the grand question is who, and ultimately the question becomes Does it matter?"  The world is a violent place full of trials and challenges.  Is rising to face those challenges on those terms a failure of character?  Does it diminish the fact that you do what you can to find a better way, or does the need for self-preservation trump such minor concerns?  Not to mention if you go against your ideals, resort to violence, then find out that it wasn't even you who ended up solving the problem, what then?  Are you still culpable for the choices you made, or do you get a pass?

(***Warning Spoilers***)

The film posits that it is all about perspective.  Ransom Stoddard, gets teased, taunted, beaten and worn down so low, that he finally picks up a revolver, squares off with Liberty Valance, takes aim, and shoots.  Liberty ultimately got what he wanted.  The high-minded, goody-two-shoes, was knocked from his high-horse and forced to come down to his level.

Ransom drew, shot, and Liberty ultimately died, but it wasn't Ransom's bullet that did the killing.  Tom Doniphan, watching from the darkness, made the shot that killed Liberty Valance and saved Ransom's life.  The towns people held Ransom up as a hero, and by saving his life, Tom made sure the woman he loved was happy, but did it negate or tarnish Ransom's sacrifice?  I think it did.  Ransom took the woman Tom loved, whether he meant to or not, so through his bullet Tom responded by robbing Ransom of  both his ideals and the ability to deal with the problem himself, although ultimately it cost him everything.

Tom tells Ransom what he did, freeing and trapping him with his choices at the same time, but it doesn't change what everyone in the town thinks happens. The outcome is still the same.  The only ones affected are Stoddard and Doniphan.  Their perception of their own actions defines how they see themselves, and ultimately informs their actions on into the future.

(***End Spoilers***)

That's pretty heady stuff considering that Destry Rides Again was really more of a typical hero cowboy story about men wearing white hats saving damsels in distress from the men in black hats.  Wayne's Doniphan and to a different yet just as important degree Stewart's Stoddard are each wearing multifaceted hats made up of constantly shifting shades of gray.  Each man is not what you might consider a bad guy, nor are they as undeniably good as compared to the heroes of earlier westerns, but I would argue that this makes them each more compelling characters, capable of a more realistic portrayal, and ultimately more relatable to the audience.

Definitely worth a look, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is leagues better, in my opinion, than another John Wayne film Stagecoach, but not nearly as good as some rather grittier and challenging westerns out there like Once Upon a Time in the West, The Oxbow Incident, and a film not on this list (though it should be), The Proposition.  Check it out.

All About Eve (1950)

All About Eve All About Eve - 1950

Director - Joseph L. Mankiewicz

Starring - Bette Davis, Anne Baxter, and George Sanders

It's rare that a film, good or bad, can be boiled down to a single sentence.  All the complexities and nuance that goes into the crafting of the story, the acting, the production value, or in the case of some films that just get it all wrong, the lack of these things, makes a film a difficult thing to summarize.  Harder still, is boiling down the power of these works still further to describe it in terms of only one word.  Though it doesn't give any detail about the plot, or characterization, it speaks volumes of the impact these raw elements have had on the final product.  So how, you ask, does this film boil down? In the case of, All About Eve, all I can say is...wow.

Despite this being more than a decade after the revelation of film architecture that was Citizen Kane, Eve borrows to great effect the re-arranged timeline, dramatically changing how we see the three main characters at the beginning as compared to how we see them at the end.  Though the central part of the movie plays out in a very linear fashion, the film is bookended by a scene that gains vast amounts of context from when it opens the film to when it closes it.  The middle portion of the narrative periodically skips and jumps forward to flesh out the characters fully and fill in the questions asked at the beginning. Not only do we see the characters evolve, and grow, but we the audience steadily gain an awareness of each of them, their motivations, and their back-stories.  With each turn of the corner, more of the plot is revealed.  We come to find that what we thought we knew, was wrong, and that the truth can be far more dismal and malicious than the fiction we had been invested in.

The most contentious of these characters, played by Anne Baxter, is the titular Eve Harrington.  A rather meek, yet still rather suspicious woman, she is obsessed to the point of stalking with a well-respected and seasoned theater actress, Margo Channing (Bette Davis).  Eve spends so much of her free time idolizing, and brown-nosing Channing, that Margo, eventually begins to buy into the hype so much so that she hires on the young sycophant as her personal assistant.  At first her actions and motivations seem innocent enough, but as the film progresses her agenda seems increasingly dubious.

The tide really turns when the smarmy theater critic (also the occasional narrator) begins trying to manipulate the situation in an effort to exercise some control over both Margo and Eve.  The relationship becomes strained to such a degree, as it does with all of her important relationships, that Margo is nearly ready to cave.

Our second character, Addison DeWitt is the aforementioned culture critic for the newspaper and also functions as our narrator for the film.  The sardonic, unflattering commentary he delivers, immediately paint him as a wounded and more than a little bitter.  DeWitt credits himself for a good portion of these actors success, due to his favorable (or unfavorable) reviews, and is clearly upset that his view is not shared by them.  When he sees in Eve a chance to exercise some control over those he deems in his debt, he makes grab for it, spinning a web of deceit matched only by the one that is being spun around him.

Finally we have Margo, played by the legendary Bette Davis.  Her scowl wreathed in cigarette smoke that are delivered within the first 30 or so seconds of her screen time are enough to convince us that we fully understand her relationship with Eve.  She seems a cold, cunning and angry person.  Although, as the film progresses we see Davis paint Margo Channing as a completely fleshed out person, not simply the one-dimensional character portrait we get from some films of this period.  She is at times cocky, at others she is scared of growing old, or blindly angry at what she perceives as a slight.  Davis is each of these things, and all of them at the same time, delivering one of the best performances I've ever seen.

Beneath the glitzy New York theater setting, the backstabbing, and the drama, All About Eve is really the story of a woman, Margo, peeling away the facile, superficial elements of her life (not by choice, mind you) and seeing what it is that she really has.  The film seeks to determine the value of what you have left once you lose the extraneous things that populate your daily life, and by comparing these two women, Eve and Margo, it is obvious which has the better foundation.  Not only is this film an extraordinary example of the quality of work that came out of the studio system of Hollywood in the 30's, 40's and 50's, it is also a remarkable achievement that it deals so frankly and honestly with the aging process from a female perspective.  This era can easily be described as somewhat of a boys club, so it is refreshing to see some diversity (I'm still waiting to stumble upon a film from this era that tells the tough as nails story of a gay, African-American, scientist, who is also a post-op transgender individual.)

Totally and completely worth it's spot on this list, All About Eve blew me away.  After the film was over, for days and weeks afterwards, I found myself thinking about it.  Even though I had never had any interest in her before, I am very excited to see more of Bette Davis' work.  When watching this film, you should indeed buckle your seat-belt  it will be a bumpy ride!

"Fuck. Bette Davis can act her ass off!" - Ashley

The Philadelphia Story (1940)

The Philadelphia Story The Philadelphia Story - 1940

Director - George Cukor

Starring - Jimmy Stewart, Katharine Hepburn, Ruth Hussey, and Cary Grant

A successful film often has more than one thing going for it.  A charismatic star, on their own, isn't enough to hold up a mediocre story (as much as they might have you believe otherwise).  Likewise, a good story can't endure under the weight of poor acting, and fantastic cinematography can easily translate to a beautiful yet forgettably boring film.  In order to succeed, the stars have to align, talented people who share a vision have to work together, and put aside their differences to create something that transcends each of, and all of them...or it'll fall flat anyway despite all their best efforts.

The Philadelphia Story is one such film that, for me anyway, really fell flat fast.  If one were to take the film and separate it into its crucial elements, talent, crew, story, director, etc., the film looks undeniably strong on paper.  Unfortunately, again in my own humble opinion, it comes off as self-important, and more than a little trite not to mention, straight up boring. Rather than Cary Grant charming me with witty repartee and Jimmy Stewart making me feel as though justice has been done, I felt annoyed at each of their rather lack-luster and incomplete characters.  Both are caricatures of jealous sad-sacks that are found on sitcoms.

I'm afraid the jury is still out when it comes to Katharine Hepburn too.  I started out this project with a healthy, natural dislike of her, stemming mostly from the film Bringing Up Baby.  Then I was caught off guard by her lovely, feisty and moving turn in the film The African Queen.  Now I'm afraid I'm going back to square one with my impressions of her thanks to this film.  She starts off as a character that I rather enjoyed watching.  I liked her and agreed with her motivations, then she was transformed into a watered down milquetoast-ish, doormat type of woman who gets on my nerves almost immediately.

This criticisms are, of course, to say nothing of the fact that this film has been built up so highly from the outset.  So many people consider this film a classic and treat it as such.  All forms of criticism for it are too harsh, with the love story and the characters themselves being too dear to the hearts of those who enjoy it.  To be fair, I am not immune to such blind loyalty.  I would be utterly aghast at any criticism, and recklessly jump to the defense of a film such as, say, Total Recall.  But, I mean come on...it's Total Recall.

So...the story.  As the film opens, we are dropped into the tumultuous marriage of Cary Grant's, C.K. Dexter Haven, and his fire-brand of a wife Katharine Hepburn's Tracy Lord.  The first thing we see is Dexter getting kicked out of his house by Tracy for reasons we will come to understand later.  Dexter leaves, but not until getting in one last bit of domestic violence.  Flash forward a bunch of (Years? Months? Days?) time and we find that Tracy is set to marry again, this time to a rather wealthy man whose new money status makes him a target for the local paper's gossip section.

A photographer and reporter team (Stewart and Hussey as Macaulay Connor and Elizabeth Imbrie respectively) are put on the job of getting the exclusive story of the impending nuptials.  Put up to it by their boss, in cahoots with Dexter, it looks as though it is a smear job engineered by Dexter to get revenge on his ex-wife.

More than anything the failure of this film rests with the lack of chemistry amongst its actors.  Jimmy Stewart, generally seen as a man who could get along with just about anyone, plays a man so filled with melancholy and disdain for the intended subjects of his writing, that he literally makes the worst newspaper reporter ever.  His girlfriend, frankly the most engaging character of the piece, Imbrie is stuck watching her albatross of a boyfriend drunkenly stagger through life and falling in love with another woman on a whim.  Grant, one of my normal favorite actors of the golden age of cinema, is surprisingly absent from this film, especially given that he is one of the headliners, but what I bristled most at was the transformation of the strong confident woman who was Hepburn's Tracy Lord, reduced by guilt and criticism to just the sort of brainless weak-willed woman that she worked her entire career to rally against.

How dare she want a divorce from a husband who is a un-repentant alcoholic, or be angry at a father who cheats on her mother.  How dare she find a respectful, caring, man of considerable means despite the fact that he is not considered "old money".  No wonder she is looked down upon by every other single character in this film, until she is brow-beaten into submission.  Each review I've read describes her as "snooty", or "uppity", and describes her treatment as her having "had it coming".  How refreshing and unique a view. Yuck.

I found that I had checked out of this film pretty quickly and found little in the way of redeeming characteristics from that point forward.  At most, I can say that I saw this "classic", and at least I can say that I'd rather have watched something else.  I'm a little surprised that George Cukor had so much to do with a film about a bunch of men putting an "uppity" woman in her place, seeing as how he has had a long history of working on films with capable women characters (A Star is Born, Wizard of Oz, and he's worked with Katharine Hepburn before on Adam's Rib which I assume falls into that demographic although I haven't seen it myself).  This film was a rather large disappointment to me, and as such is not nearly recommendable, either for me or by me.

"I can not and will not endorse any work whose agenda it is to propagate the idea that anyone should stay in an abusive situation.  That is not love, nor is it amusing to dress it up as such.  A truly disgusting film."  -  Ashley

Freaks (1932)

Freaks Freaks - 1932

Director - Tod Browning

Starring - Wallace Ford, Leila Hyams, and Harry Earles

Traditionally in most movies, especially within Hollywood, the portrayal of a group of people with extreme differences (read: Freaks),  is usually done in one of two ways.  Either they are depicted as terrible abominations not capable of human compassion and understanding, or they are misunderstood and extricated by the so-called decent “normal” people of the story.  One paints a portrait of fear, desperation, and anger, and the other, one of an almost saintly devotion to decency, virtue, and humility.

Tod Browning’s appropriately titled film, Freaks, utilizes both the fear and the somewhat more humanistic approach to paint these rather misunderstood characters in a much more three-dimensional way.  Each of the so-called freaks operates on the same instincts and motivations that any of the other characters might, rather than being simple plot modifiers and footnotes.  Jealousy, anger, love, friendship, and loyalty not to mention a good old desire for revenge all come into play in this rather straight forward, yet effective story.

For a film that does seek to humanize it’s characters regardless of their disabilities or handicaps, it also tends to overly rely on the circus sideshow type shock factor of it’s stars.  Even the film’s poster asks "Can a full-grown woman truly love a midget?", and while the plot of the film makes a bit more headway in making them relatable, it certainly doesn't forego the sensational nature of the subject matter entirely.

The story is simple enough.  Hans a man of diminutive proportions (or a midget), has fallen in love with Cleopatra, the beautiful trapeze artist who is more than happy to lead him on, all the while plotting just how to get his forthcoming inheritance   Cleopatra’s thinly veiled disdain is clear to all the rest of the circus' performers, freaks and normies alike, but despite their objections Hans refuses to see her for what she is and asks her to marry him.  In the spirit of giving her the benefit of the doubt, the "freaks" hold a dinner officially welcoming her into their private circle of friends.  When Cleopatra drunkenly laughs at and tells this close-knit group just exactly what she thinks of them (negative stuff!), they hatch a plan to take their revenge.

The acting, plotting, and cinematography on display here is all fairly standard for the time, with nothing extraordinary on display. The difference, and what sets this film apart, comes in the realization of the characters, and the juxtaposition of their visible flaws with the internal flaws of the vain shallow "beautiful" people.  Though that doesn't remove their desire for fair and equitable treatment.

It's not that the ending, or the actions taken by the "freaks" was too shocking, or unwarranted, quite the contrary actually.  It was just odd to see from a film that came out in the time frame that this film does.  Once again, like His Girl Friday, Detour, and She Done Him Wrong, I find my conceptions of what to expect content-wise from films of the 30's and 40's can be drastically different from what I get.  At this point I don't think I can pre-judge any of the films from that rather tumultuous time frame in America's history.

Often times I forget that these years aren't as homogenized as  early television, and some popular films would have us believe.  For every Jimmy Stewart-esque character, or idyllic suburban homestead on display, there are hundreds of characters who lived through the great depression, watched the buildup to and the active fighting of World War II, and eventually had to deal with the financial and emotional effects of both.

The means and method by which our "freaks" take their revenge may be harsh and  more than a little cold-blooded, but you'll have to admit, it is overwhelmingly fair at the same time, and it rather accurately paints them as, well, people.

(***Warning Spoilers***)

The most unsettling images in the film come out of the last reel of the movie, where Cleopatra is dragging herself backwards through the rain and mud while upwards of fifteen different attackers stalk closer, each with a knife, gun, or blunt instrument.  In the end, it's really a toss-up whether or not the audience will consider it a happy ending.  Thanks to the care taken in the writing and the time spent getting to know each character, I did.

(***End Spoilers***)

Though it wasn't my absolute favorite film on this list so far, it is solidly somewhere in the middle, and as such is pretty deserving of its ranking as one of the 1001 films you should see.  Though I think director Tod Browning's film Dracula is my favorite between the two, Freaks is a really solid film and totally worth checking out!

La Pianiste (AKA: The Piano Teacher) (2001)

La Pianiste (AKA: The Piano Teacher) - 2001

Director - Michael Haneke

Starring - Isabelle Huppert, Annie Girardot, and Benoit Magimel

Oh, Michael Haneke.  You and your sparse, harsh morality tales!  I know from the moment that I hear this particular director's name, that I am going to be witness to an unflinching account of the baser side of human behavior. This prolific filmmakers work often comes on a tide of praise and accolades despite their typically dark subject matter. Of his films, I've seen Cache, The White Ribbon, and now The Piano Teacher, all of them difficult stories about fractured people, poorly relating with one another.

As one might gather from the film's title the main character of this film, Erika, is a teacher of the piano. On her exterior, she is a rather harsh and cold woman, she harbors a deep desire for connection that she doesn't get from her overly dramatic live-in mother, or from her pristine and rather antiseptic relationship with music.

She spends her time looking down her nose at her students and pre judging them based on their understandably timid nature around her, playing piano, oh, and she may cut herself just for laughs. One of her students, Walter, attempts to get her attention first through music, then through flirting, encountering rejection at each turn.  Next, he takes a somewhat more drastic approach by following her into the ladies room, clumsily embracing her, and forcing a kiss on her. She responds, a mite unexpectedly, by opening up to him about her desire to be dominated, humiliated and abused both verbally and physically.

Initially, Walter seems excited, expressing a desire to learn more, and stepping up his advances.  However this eventually gives way to unease and eventually to disgust as Erika outlines exactly what it is she would like him to do to her.   This time it is he who does the rejecting and she who begins the pursuit.  This trading back and forth of who has the power in this relationship is fueled mainly by his anger (with her and with himself), and her need for attention and affection (confused and misguided as it may be).  It seemed to me that her desire to be dominated mirrored in many ways her tumultuous relationship with her mother, and perhaps there have been other similarly motivated relationships that have informed her view of how men and women are supposed to cohabitate.

The acting in this film is typical of the other Haneke films that I have seen, slow in pace, severe in tone, and more than a little uncomfortable.  Isabelle Huppert pushes the role of Erika to such a point that I basically stopped liking her, and then was able to bring her back to a point where I felt sorry for her, rescuing her from the clutches of my uncaring.  Now whether or not you like the character at the end, that is a pretty remarkable feat for an actor to pull off.  Unfortunately, I don't think Benoit Magimel had as much success, nor as much to work with.  By the end of the film, I totally didn't like Walter at all, and it's not as if I started off liking him a lot.  Walter seemed overly eager to me, and by extension, a little insincere and false.  I always felt like he was trying to put one over on Erika, in order to get something (most likely sex although I was ready for anything, money, a laugh, even some sort of bizarre revenge) from her.

In the end though, I felt this film to be inferior to both of the other Haneke films that I'd seen previously.  The Piano Teacher lacked the raw menace and shock that came with Cache, and it lacked the austere beauty, and hidden danger and anger that came out of The White Ribbon.  Cinematographically speaking, this film didn't have all that much going for it.  While composed well enough, the shots seemed ordinary and almost placid, succeeding only in simple documentation of the character's actions.  Though that may have been a conscious choice (I hope it was anyway), it's not one that really worked for me.  The story wasn't shocking enough to juxtapose the calm stability of the imagery, and the imagery wasn't artful enough to keep me entertained while watching it.

Mr. Haneke has at least one other film on this list that I have yet to see, Funny Games, which was ultimately re-made by him (for english speaking audiences), also called funny games.  I've heard some real praise for that film, both versions of it , but also some warning of its harrowing nature, and I must say that I'm a more excited to see that film as it seems like it might have a little more to say even if it's more disturbing.  The Piano Teacher seemed a rather light effort to me, one that certainly wouldn't have ranked as one of the 1001 best films ever, but also one that covered similar material as did films like Secretary, and Y Tu Mama Tambien, which were in terms of craft, construction and message, leagues better than this one.

Seven Chances (1925)

Seven Chances - 1925

Director - Buster Keaton

Starring - Buster Keaton, Ruth Dwyer, and T. Roy Barnes

Each and every time I watch a brand new Buster Keaton movie, I go into it remembering the last one I saw.  So far each of them that I have seen, except the first one of course, the extreme level of quality has me continuing to hold the next one to that high standard.  The problem with that, comes in with my memory.  Each and every time I forget that these films start out slowly.  There is the inevitable set-up of the premise, the introduction of all the main characters, and the reveal of the potential love interest for Keaton's character(it happens in each of them).  As a result I get worried in the first 15 or so minutes, that it's going to be all slow pace, and cutesy plotting.

The fact that Seven Chances was a movie about a man who desperately needs to get married by 7 o'clock on the same day, only elongates the necessary set-up of the film, and tricked me into believing that this would be the one that would simply be corny and sweet, without the usual jaw-dropping action.  As in each of the others, however, I was not disappointed or let down in the least, it simply took me a little longer to get to the meat of Keaton's athleticism, derring-do, and stunt-work.

As I mentioned earlier, Seven Chances is about a man who needs to get married on the double in order to gain a huge inheritance, and after doing an inventory of the women in his life, and in the immediate vicinity, he determines that he has seven opportunities to make that happen.  Of course the girl he truly loves misunderstands how he actually feels about her, and thinks he only wants the money.  The real trouble starts when his lawyer, in an effort to expedite the process, explains in the newspaper just what the situation is.  Soon enough a flood of women come out of the woodwork all bent on marrying the rather flustered bachelor cum-millionaire.

As with all of the Keaton films that I've seen (Sherlock, Jr., The General, and Steamboat Bill, Jr.), the plot of Seven Chances is a backdrop at best and really ends up being a device through which to deliver the action.  The romance and characterization serves the purpose of setting up the scene and attracting people to the film in the first place, and while there are some fairly funny gags with Three's Company-like misunderstandings, everyone is really there to see Keaton potentially kill himself.

Once again, the mans sheer physicality is astounding.  Each of the stunts is actually done by him, usually in one-unbroken take, and certainly without our modern-day concern for safety.  The rock-slide sequence in particular is the defining moment of this film.  The capper on a 20 plus minute chase sequence, it's pretty insane to watch this guy run head first into a stream of rolling and bouncing rocks (I assume they weren't really rocks, but still, his skill at avoiding all the obstacles in his path is exemplary).

That being said, I don't think this film was quite as good as any of the others I've seen, and I'm not quite sure what aspect or characteristic placed this film on this list in the first place.  Perhaps the compilers of this list felt that Seven Chances had some unique defining quality, or maybe that it was of some great historical import, or perhaps it was simply a personal favorite, I'm not really sure.  I will say that it didn't seem that there was a real stand-out reason to choose it over something else.  Perhaps there was a quota for a certain number of movies from each year, and without this film, 1925 was looking a little light.  Who knows?

Hopefully, I haven't given the impression that Seven Chances is a bad film or anything.  The fact that I was excited to watch it, I enjoyed it, and that I will be excited to watch the next Keaton film is a testament to his staying power as an entertainer, one who I would have been completely ignorant of, if it hadn't been for this list.

Drugstore Cowboy (1989)

Drugstore Cowboy - 1989

Director - Gus Van Sant

Starring - Matt Dillon, Kelly Lynch, and James LeGros

There are a few basic steps that each and every narrative film must go through to ensure that the audience can relate to, continue to watch and enjoy the film in question.  Step one: Develop compelling characters.  We as the audience need a trustworthy, reliable vehicle through which we can experience the story.  Step 2: Craft an interesting tale.  Fashion a story that has a message about something the audience either already knows something about, or would be interested to learn about.  And step 3: Tie the whole thing together and make it fun (or in the absence of fun, make it important).

In the case of Drugstore Cowboy, Gus Van Sant cherry picks from the list of steps, taking elements that he likes and leaving the rest.  While it does have characters, they aren't very compelling.  In fact they are all rather shallow and unlikable, each a little smarmier than the last.  As far as story goes, it is of the long, agonizing, downward spiral variety.  Not super compelling, really, just a little boring to watch.  As for the last step, that was actually sort of a success.  These, selfish, venal characters were married very well with the uncomfortable depressing story, unfortunately the fun and importance WAS left out.

To bring everyone up to speed, here is a brief breakdown of the story.  Bob, Diane, Rick and Nadine are a group of junkies and opportunists out to commit small-scale robbery of drugstores (hence the name) in order to steal the controlled medication from the pharmacy counter.  When they aren't faking seizures and or breaking and entering all in the name of getting high, they're getting wasted, antagonizing the cops and belittling each other and their drug addled stoner neighbor (which ends up being important later on in the story).  After one of them accidentally overdoses, the three remaining addicts hole up in a haze of pot, heroin and dilaudid, and try to figure out how to ditch the body and avoid the police.

Like some of his other films (Elephant, Gerry, and To Die For spring to mind), Gus Van Sant seems to gravitate towards subject matter without a light at the end of the tunnel.  But where Elephant was an examination of the country's reaction to the Columbine school shooting, and To Die For was an interesting, well acted, noir story at its best (I never saw Gerry), Drugstore Cowboy lacks any real redeeming quality.  Matt Dillon's Bob spends so much of the movie as a paranoid, shitty human being, that I found it hard to give a shit about his so called "redemption" and thought it seemed rather tacked on and false.

Heather Graham as Nadine was the most sympathetic of all the characters, and only really because I felt sorry for her.  Where as the others seemed reap what they had sewn, Nadine seemed decidedly innocent and tragic.  Matt Dillon, and the rest of the major players did a fine job acting, and in truth they were probably fairly accurate to how these people would be in real life, I simply took no pleasure in watching them.

As far as direction, I far prefer the rather optimistic Gus Van Sant who surfaces every now and again to direct the occasional Oscar bait like Good Will Hunting, and Finding Forrester.  These films are far less confrontational, but they also balance the director's inherent malaise a little better with the occasional sweetness and intelligence that we all know he's capable of.

Now I realize I'm being a little overly harsh on this film.  It simply wasn't my cup of tea.  In terms of its structure, and artistry, the film stands up fine, but the subject matter and the characterizations really left something to be desired for me.  I know it's not fair to pre-judge a film, but I have a feeling that I will have an equally hard time with My Own Private Idaho which I will also have to watch as it is one of the 1001 on this list.  But I'll do my best to give it a fair shake, and who knows...maybe I'll be surprised.

If you're looking for a dark movie revolving around drug addiction, and poor choices, I don't know that you can get any better than Requiem for a Dream.  Strangely enough, the highs and lows are far deeper than those of Drugstore Cowboy, and the ending is just as (if not more) bleak and depressing.  Still the craftsmanship, architecture and immersion of Requiem left me feeling strangely satisfied, like I had really just seen something vital and important, something with a very strong warning message about the dependence and co-dependence of drug addiction, not to mention the inter-personal relationships of the people involved.

"Terrible people doing terrible things in a terrible movie." - Ashley

Die Buchse Der Pandora (AKA: Pandora's Box) (1929)

Die Buchse Der Pandora (AKA: Pandora's Box) - 1929

Director - G. W. Pabst

Starring - Louise Brooks, Francis Lederer, Alice Roberts, and Carl Goetz

There are a whole stable full of directors that you hear about, and see examples from during film school.  You get a bit of a buffet education as it concerns the history of film combined with a bit of the preferences and eccentricities of the person teaching the class. What you don't get, is a real comprehensive view of any country or movement's stable of talented directors or actors for any given time period.  Due to a lack of time, and with such a wealth of history packed into the 130 years or so that film has been around, there are bound to be more than a few important names and examples that fall through the cracks.

One such director was G. W. Pabst, a name I had heard on more than one occasion during one or two of my cinema history classes, but nothing that was ever explored in-depth.  As far as Pabst's rather sizable list of credits, the name that comes up more than any of the others, time and again as one of his best is (surprise, surprise, that's why I'm writing this review) Pandora's Box.  So does the most popular film from one of Germany's greatest directors of the 20's, 30's, and 40's deserve more attention in the eyes of the world?  Absolutely, it does.

Pandora's Box tells the story of the ingenue Lulu, a woman struggling to balance the expectations of the multiple men in her life, while each in turn blames her for all of their shortcomings and misfortunes.  Lulu, the object of each (and presumably every) man's desire, simultaneously becomes the scapegoat and the solution for each.  It is implied, rather explicitly, that she is a courtesan.  An object to covet, to own, use, and discard as the situation demands.

To Schigolch, the man who turned her out (read: pimp), she is a source of income and security, a commodity to be spent.  To her current keeper, Dr. Schon, she is a trophy to be proudly kept and displayed.  To Alwa, Dr. Schon's son, she is an innocent to be lusted after and saved.  Each man takes it upon himself to "rescue" Lulu through ineffectual half-measures, later blaming her for their own actions.  Where once she was considered a shining, golden conquest, now she is seen as a home-wrecker, and a burden.

While she doesn't strictly do anything malicious or wrong per se, Lulu never really learns her lesson and manages to perpetuate the cycle through her own inaction.  She is more than willing to let these people come to her rescue and place her in these gilded cages.  Either unable or unwilling to stand up for herself against her "benefactors", Lulu continues to spiral downwards into worse and worse situations culminating in selling herself, body and soul.

I have this impression of movies from this day and age as being simply sensational adventures to thrill audiences.  Pandora's Box, with its contemplation of gender, sexuality, dominance, and castigation, is a different animal all together.  With this film, there is an intelligence and genuine desire to explore different points of view, a challenge to the audience to consider the inequalities facing woman, and illustrating the need for examination and change.  All of this, mind you was taking place in the aftermath of World War I, during the rise of the Nazi party, alongside the economical, and social chaos and turmoil that was Germany in 1929.

Louise Brooks, the American expatriate who plays Lulu, does an exceptional job in the role, embracing the it from her trademark bob-haircut, to her pouty doe-eyed expression.  Many were upset at the casting of an American in what was considered a role meant for a German, but fears were ultimately assuaged and critics were duly mollified upon seeing Brooks' performance.  Truly, she made the role hers, and she has remained synonymous with the character of Lulu ever since.

Francis Lederer, Alice Roberts, and Carl Goetz provide eye-catching support for Brooks, each turning in roles of a lifetime in their own rights.  Goetz, in particular reeks with a slimy, contestable charm as Lulu's pimp/father-figure Schigolch, a man who doesn't think twice about wringing all he can from his young meal-ticket.

The version of the film I saw was the newly remastered version put out by the always fantastic Criterion Collection.  This version was no exception to their rule of providing only the highest quality films, restoration, remastering, and packaging.  If you do get to see this film, I hope it is this version that you decide to watch.  Rent it if you must, and buy it if you can, as the film comes with the usual rogues gallery of special features and a whole book full of essays on the film to boot.

I know very little about the rest of G.W. Pabst's work, but now I'd really like to know more.  So influential in the world of film was Pabst, that he even gets a shout out, and becomes more than a slight plot point in Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds (a phenomenal film in its own right.  If you haven't seen it, do yourself a favor and GO SEE THAT SHIT!)  Needless to say, I will be hunting down more of this man's work, eagerly hoping that Pandora's Box wasn't just a one shot wonder, or simply a fluke.  Highly recommended!!

Das Kabinett Des Doktor Caligari (AKA: The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari) (1919)

Das Kabinett Des Doktor Caligari (AKA: The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari) - 1919

Director - Robert Wiene

Starring - Werner Krauss, Conrad Viedt, and Frederich Feher

We've all been through the situation in which a movie that we missed gets watched by everyone else.  Everyone else loves the film and proceeds to tell us about it and how good it is.  It's at this point that we go to see said film, and lo and behold, it's disappointing.  For one reason or another it doesn't stack up or meet our expectations.  I think we can all agree that this sucks.

There is a similar scenario that I've encountered a few times, where the extremely popular film gets talked up to such a degree that it starts getting boring again.  We get sick of hearing about it, it might come from a certain time frame that doesn't necessarily interest us, doesn't have sound, or whatever.  Long story short, we are disappointed going INTO the film.  Despite the fact that the glowing reviews haven't changed, they've been negated by our own shitty attitude.  Going into a movie this way, makes it seem pretty good, or if you're lucky like I was with The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, it ends up being pretty great.

Few movies have had as much of a lasting impact, been as visually striking, impacting and influential as The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.  The tone is set up from the start, and it continues to bleed menace and unease for the rest of its compact 80 minute run time.  The premise, the makeup and most of all the set pieces serve to keep the tone of the film from faltering or the pace from slowing down, and all of these elements work together to enhance something that could have easily been over-rated.

The story is one that is familiar to modern movie audiences, yet it is not one that is expected.  I have to be careful when explaining it to not give too much away, but suffice to say, a strange character comes to town, Dr. Caligari, a somnambulist, with large claims of hypnotism, and mystery (now I'm still a little unclear whether the term somnambulist refers to Dr. Caligari himself or to his perpetually sleeping minion Cesare).  That very night a horrible murder occurs, and by chance the victim happens to be someone who had a run in with Dr. Caligari earlier on in the story.  The show goes on and the murders continue, until someone makes the connection, and starts to probe a little further into the past of this Caligari character.

In the film's historical time frame, acting was a loose term at best that was really more a study of posing and moving ones eyes, but it is put to good use here as each actor manages to convey a fair amount of terror and suspicion all through their looks.  The most successful of these performances is turned in by Werner Krauss, as the good doctor himself.  A fair amount of his success is due to his makeup and to the set pieces, both of which accentuate the unsettling nature of his character's devious nature.  Caligari slinks around all sneers and grimaces, perpetuating the fear and discomfort of the audience, all without the convenience of dialogue.  Similarly effective is the gaunt haunted character Cesare, Caligari's minion, though he is really more of a tool of menace that the doctor wields than a character in his own right.

The one drawback I can point to as something that took me out of the story, was the speed at which the subtitles delivered the necessary information.  They operated at a snail's pace, and stayed up on-screen way too long.  I suppose that can be chalked up to the fact that at the time it was made, film was a newer art form, and as such was subject to the learning curve just like everything else.  Though it explains things, being able to read the cue card 5-8 times through before they changed doesn't make it any less distracting during what is otherwise a rather tense narrative.

All in all, I would definitely champion this film to be one of the 1001 films one should make a point of seeing before they die.  It belongs on this list as an example of history, technical innovation (the set pieces, taking on the physical characteristics of the characters is pretty astounding), not to mention the recognition deserved based on its quality as a piece of art.  Dr. Caligari is definitely a pre-cursor to a lot of horror and suspense films, so if that genre interests you, you should definitely take a look.

Artists and Models (1955)

Artists and Models -1955 Director - Frank Tashlin

Starring - Dean Martin, Jerry Lewis, Dorothy Malone, and Shirley MacLaine

So I'm gonna try (and more than likely fail) to review this movie without writing it off as simply a farcical exercise in showcasing Jerry Lewis' one character that he does lumped together with a few opportunities for Dean Martin to sing. Frankly it was more of a talent show than it was a movie, but the question remains...is it worth it? No. No, is the answer.

The real difficulty with trying to keep this review about the higher brow aspects of a film like this, is that it's really only about the momentary gag. Each bit in the film doesn't build it self upon a story or even upon a theme, but simply builds itself on the last joke. Once the scene ends, it basically starts from scratch with only the loose frame-work of the Martin and Lewis characters being roommates.  This creates a rather herky-jerky, start-stop style for the story, and makes if very difficult to treat it otherwise.

Oh sure there is a tiny progression in story concerning the love interests, but it's really more so Dino can sing silky love songs and Jerry Lewis can play embarrassed, and awkward with his famous, functionally retarded character. Each scene of this talent show technically contains the same characters, but none of them are bound by the rules of reality. Actually, I'm getting ahead of myself here...the story.

The story is simple, two guys live together in an apartment. One is an artist that sings and the other is...a sidekick? I'm not sure what the other one is really. It doesn't matter, because the artist is no good as an artist, he would rather sing and try to woo his neighbor from a few flights down, and the side kick is simply there to eat paint chips and ham it up at every opportunity.  Half of the film is taken up by the kooky (I say kooky in a condescending way, not in a raucous and fun sort of way.) sight gags and slap stickery, which leaves the other half to develop the love story with the neighbor.

That neighbor coincidentally has a roommate as well, so it's a perfect double date situation, except for the fact that the fantastic Shirley MacLaine is stuck with Jerry Lewis as a romantic counterpart.  The rest of the story involves something with getting a job at a comic book publisher, a singing and dancing number, brainwashing, and secret agents looking to get the code to some missiles out of the head of Jerry Lewis. So...not too much.

For all the grousing that I've done up to this point, the movie wasn't truly terrible.  I was able to watch it in one sitting without turning it off, I paid attention the whole time, and most importantly (I guess) I remember what happened despite seeing it about a month ago.  That being said, it wasn't worth my time in doing all of those things either, rather the movie just sort of stuck in my brain, unwanted and unbidden.  The acting, story and comedy was all rather second, if not third-rate.  Save for one scene, the bathtub/phone call scene, the film was never able to get a laugh out of me, and I only laughed during the aforementioned scene because it seemed so ludicrous that Jerry Lewis would not only just walk in on Dean Martin taking a bath, but that it didn't seem to bother Dino in the least.  Who knows, perhaps it was commonplace in the 50's to bathe openly under the scrutiny of your bizarre man-child of a roommate.

As far as cinematography and presentation goes, don't expect anything dazzling or innovative and you won't be disappointed.  Everything was par for the course for movies of this timeframe, with the possible exception of there being a crossover of the music and movie worlds, but that's only really speculation, and now that I think about it, it's most definitely not true.

Either way, all of this amounts to another film on this list that by all rights doesn't really deserve to be here.  It's almost like someone chose by throwing darts at a list of movies that were made, that's it.  Not movies that were contenders, just movies that survived the act of being created.  If it's a musical, or comedy that you're looking for, you might do better to look elsewhere.