What have I learned? Some films inevitably disappointed me. I just couldn’t see what the fuss was about (The Maltese Falcon, The Manchurian Candidate). Others were newly-discovered treasures that I’d never heard of before (Strangers on a Train, All About Eve, Sunset Boulevard, The Apartment, Once Upon a Time in the West) and some that I had (Apocalypse Now). One challenge was also appreciating the achievement of films for their time but finding them challenging to watch as pure entertainment. Similar to reading books like Ulysses or Tristram Shandy. Ground-breaking works of art, but crap as escapist reading.

The Top 100 list hasn’t changed dramatically in two years and I’ve seen many of the new additions as they were released (most recently The Departed). The ones new on the list which I haven’t seen yet are: Hotel Rwanda, Sin City, Rebecca, The Seventh Seal, The Elephant Man and The Big Sleep. So I will watch those at some stage.

In the meantime, I hope you’ve enjoyed reading my review posts and I hope I’ve inspired you to watch some new films. If you’re a new visitor, please see all reviews below. Comments are still welcome.

Share This

Plot: The aging patriarch of an organized crime dynasty transfers control of his clandestine empire to his reluctant son.

But is it any good?

Wow. I think it says an awful lot that despite watching it on a tiny computer screen, and having already watched so many mafia-themed TV shows/films inspired by it, and disliking most said-mafia-themed TV shows/films because I found the characters to be thuggish bullies who never elicited any sympathy… despite all these things, I still love The Godfather.

Yes, it’s about organised crime, death threats, violence and all such things. But it’s mainly about family loyalties. I know The Sopranos takes on similar themes but I can’t stand The Sopranos. I have no interest in Tony Soprano. But I do feel affection for Marlon Brando’s character, Vito Corleone. Perhaps it’s because of his witty euphemisms: “I made him an offer he couldn’t refuse.” Perhaps it’s because he treats his family with such love and respect. He doesn’t trash rooms in screaming diva fits; he plays in the garden with his grandson and dances proudly at his daughter’s wedding. He’s such a memorable character, down to the little face-brushing gesture with his knuckles, that it’s hard to believe this is the same Brando who screams “Stella-aa-aa!” in tight white t-shirts in A Streetcar Named Desire.

Then there’s young Michael (Pacino), just returned from the army, who wants nothing to do with the Family Business. Well, fair enough. Like me, he sees them as bullies doing nasty deeds to further themselves. A horse’s head in a bed springs to mind. Only it’s not that simple. When his father’s gunned down and left neglected in hospital with no one by his side, Michael steps up to the plate since Vito’s other son, Sonny, is tantrum-prone and not a good businessman. Frankly, Michael can do better. He is needed. Things change, much to the distress of his girlfriend, Kay (Keaton). Thus Michael begins a chilling and riveting transformation that will continue through the trilogy.

Part II may be darker and add more depth and flavour to the overall story, but Part I will always be the definitive movie, the kick-off to not only the trilogy, but every Italian-American organised crime story to follow it. I may not like the majority of those but I love this one. It combines a rarely-found combo of cinematic class, powerful acting, memorable music and, crucially, it’s entertaining! Citizen Kane is still my favourite movie, though.

IMDb’s rating: 9/10
My rating: 10/10

Share This

Plot: Two imprisoned men bond over a number of years, finding solace and eventual redemption through acts of common decency.

But is it any good?

Why is it that some adaptations of Stephen King stories are shit (all except the following three) and some are brilliant and beloved (The Shining, Shawshank and Stand By Me)?

On the surface, Shawshank should be shite. It’s a bloody depressing story about Andy (Robbins) who’s sent to prison for murders (his wife and her lover) he insists he didn’t commit. He’s then forced to pick up the soap in the shower for the next X years and deal with nasty, corrupt prison guards and spend his remaining days in a concrete hell. Sounds unbearable, doesn’t it, and it is really. So why does it sit almost permanently at #2 in imdb’s top 250?

Because it’s an ultimately uplifting tale of survival through the power of friendship, which can bring joy in the darkest of times and places. That’s an inspiring message we can all appreciate. We may not be locked up for life, but everyone faces their own obstacles and most of us make it through them with the help of friendship, regardless of religion, race, IQ or salary. The unifying and comforting benefits of friendship is a theme that can be found in many of these movies I’ve reviewed.

That central theme binds the entire story, which closely follows Andy from his first day in the slammer to the twist/revelation at the end. A solid supporting cast and smooth voice-over narrative from Morgan Freeman, plus cinematography which reveals the daunting scale of the prison, make this a crowning achievement in storytelling. It’s not a family film by all means, but otherwise essential viewing for just about anyone over 12. Cinephiles argue over its high ranking, and it certainly wasn’t ground-breaking cinema like some other movies in the top 20, but it deserves its place here for its powerful, poignant depiction of such a universal theme. Its mass appeal for this reason makes it #2.

IMDb’s rating: 8.9/10
My rating: 10/10

Share This

Plot: The former Fellowship of the Ring prepare for the final battle for Middle Earth, while Frodo & Sam approach Mount Doom to destroy the One Ring.

But is it any good?

This is the one where they reach the volcano. Okay, I’m getting a bit sick of LOTR now. It will be interesting to see whether the trilogy still makes the top 10 lists in a decade or two. I’m guessing that a couple may drop further down the list, but perhaps not this one.

Return of the King is the most epic of the trilogy because of course the first two were leading up to the story’s climax at the volcano. The Fellowship are also less fresh-faced now. They’re getting a bit tired; Frodo in particular is bogged down by trust issues (Sam vs Gollum) and the sheer weight of the ring (literally, as it’s getting heavier, but also the responsibility of it).

I’m not a Tolkeinite or a fantasy freak so can’t comment on the subtleties of differences to the book(s). All I can say is that the film, like the other two, is a cinematic masterpiece. It could so easily have been a twee onscreen tale of elves and little hobbits but it’s not. It could also have been dominated by all the CGI but it wasn’t.

ROTK is definitely my favourite, probably because it’s the darkest of the three and as already discussed I’m partial to dark films. Just watch the beginning of ROTK where we see how Gollum became Gollum. Powerful and realistic stuff indeed.

IMdb’s rating: 8.9/10
My rating: 10/10

Share This

Plot: The early life & career of Vito Corleone in 1920’s New York is portrayed while his son, Michael, expands and tightens his grip on his crime syndicate stretching from Lake Tahoe, Nevada to pre-Revolution 1958 Cuba.

But is it any good?

It’s a bit unfortunate that I have to review the second one before the first. I watched them both back-to-back (well, a night apart) two years ago on a small computer screen because we had no TV at the time. Sadly, the version I watched had no subtitles for the Robert de Niro part and my Italian… well, there is no ‘my’ Italian. Still, I was able to easily follow everything that happened (and have since watched it with the subtitles and didn’t learn anything new).

Part II had the uncomfortable job of following such a strong act - and this time without Brando. It shows Michael’s (Pacino) moral decline as he gets more and more wrapped up in the “family business” but also has the parallel narrative of young Vito’s (De Niro) rise to power in early 1900s New York. Watching Michael’s transformation is pretty heartbreaking stuff; he’s cold and ruthless as he does what he thinks he must, and learning about Vito’s early years is both intense and touching, and adds some depth to the first film.

So which is better? I’m going to be difficult and say I like them both equally. They belong as a pair, not two single films. This one is certainly darker and delves a little more deeply into the minds of the characters. And I’m going to steal a line from imdb about De Niro and Pacino: “To say that these two are good actors is like saying that a nuclear bomb makes a loud noise.”

IMDb’s rating: 8.8/10
My rating: 10/10

Share This

Plot: A poor village under attack by bandits recruits seven unemployed samurai to help them defend themselves.

But is it any good?

So I have finally seen Seven Samurai, which has been waiting patiently for me near the top of the 100 list since I started this project. It is hailed as the granddaddy of the Western genre and has inspired countless other filmmakers around the world with its flawless epic-ness. “If you haven’t seen this movie, you can’t call youself a fan of films,” bleats one reviewer on imdb.com. Actually, I’ve never seen so many gushing love-letters to a movie. “Each and every shot is exquisitly composed..” etc.

Well, respect. The movie certainly deserves all its accolades. Set in 16th-century Japan, it opens with some timid farmers who know their village is shortly to be plundered by bandits so they recruit some unemployed samurai warriors to help them defend it, promising only three meals a day in return. The plot follows the recruitment of the samurai (clearly the 16th-century equivalent of rockstars, or at least some of them), their arrival in the village, their preparation for the bandit attack and then the battle(s).

The samurai themselves range in character from young and silly to wise Obi-Wan/Morgan Freeman-types and each portrait is carefully painted. The farmers are not one-dimensional either: timid, cowardly, a little crooked and opportunistic. There is certainly time to give them depth at 3.5 hours; admittedly there are no superfluous scenes but the duration was still a struggle for me (a quick glance at the imdb rating demographic shows that females give this film about 7.3).

But watching this I was able to recognise the inspiration for films that were to come - it was apparently the first to have slo-mo action scenes - and it was certainly a great tale that seemed very vivid as I watched it. I wouldn’t put it in my own top 10, though. And interestingly, 1950s Japan obviously had no hesitation in displaying male buttocks on film in close-up, resulting at times in some awkward Britney Spears-no-knickers type moments!

IMDb’s rating: 8.8/10
My rating: 8/10

Share This

Plot: Classic film set in unoccupied Africa during the early days of World War II: An American expatriate meets a former lover, with unforeseen complications.

But is it any good?

Maybe I’m cold-hearted, I don’t know, but I felt strangely unmoved by Casablanca. Perhaps it was all the hype that dulled the actual process of seeing it. Sure, it’s funny, sentimental and has some long-lasting quotes. But it’s not in my top 10.

IMDb’s rating: 8.8/10
My rating: 7.5/10

Share This

Plot: Oskar Schindler uses Jews to start a factory in Poland during the war. He witnesses the horrors endured by the Jews, and starts to save them.

But is it any good?

This is certainly not a movie I could bring myself to watch again, but I remember being very stunned and moved at the time. Its stark horrors are heightened by it being filmed in black and white with only occasional splashes of colour for effect (the red dress, for example). Spielberg portrays the plight of the Jews during WW2 with such detail and intensity that it is not easy to forget. Nor should it be. One of those films everyone should watch, but be prepared to be shattered.

IMDb’s rating: 8.8/10
My rating: 10/10

Share This

Plot: In a small village in the Shire a young Hobbit named Frodo has been entrusted with an ancient Ring. Now he must embark on an Epic quest to the Cracks of Doom in order to destroy it.

But is it any good?

This is the one where they start walking to the volcano.

Pros: It’s fresh, it’s new, it’s epic and awesome. It contains the lines: (Gimli, in deep growl) “With my axe!” and then (Legolas, in near-falsetto/squeak) “and my bow!”

Cons: No Gollum. And as I saw this while living in Melbourne my enjoyment was hampered by some Herald Sun newspaper wanker saying that The Eye of Mordor looks like a big vagina. He was right, but I didn’t need to be TOLD.

But really, when you look at previews for the current Eragorn dragon-movie and realise LOTR could have looked like that crap, it’s a massive achievement. I will not watch the extended version, but was very pleased with what I saw in 2001. And so proud of a fellow Wellingtonian.

IMDb’s rating: 8.7/10
My rating: 8.5/10

Share This

Plot: Following the death of a publishing tycoon, news reporters scramble to discover the meaning of his final utterance.

But is it any good?

This remains my favourite movie. Out of context it is a powerful biopic-style film of a media baron. In context it is a powerful biopic-style film of a media baron, based around the life of William Randolf Hearst who condemned the film, written and directed by, and starring, a mid-20s Orson Welles. The movie was hardly a roaring success when released. Welles himself went on to become much like Kane himself - a lonely old recluse.

So who is Kane? In the first scene we (from the camera’s perspective) travel past the forbidding fences into his opulent Xanadu palace and see a withered old man whisper “Rosebud” just before he dies, dropping a clutched snowglobe which shatters on the ground. The media then flocks around trying to uncover the secret of this final utterance and one reporter begins to sift through Kane’s past via a series of interviews. We learn of a small boy given by his mother to a rich guardian; an idealistic young journalist who changes the face of daily news; a wannabe politician who loses passion for his first wife and shows a soft side for a young singer; a pushy media baron who must have everything his own way, driving away those around him.

What makes this film so special in my eyes is the intimate journey through someone’s life, a journey back in time to find out who he really was and his biggest regret. His life is narrated by those who knew him, mostly in flashback mode, revealing him tale by tale through different eyes and explaining how his character was shaped by life events. The poignant story, plus the cinematic techniques that were new at the time (eg. the deep-focus) and Welles’ powerful direction and acting, make this a movie I think is worth watching again and again.

IMDb’s rating: 8.6/10
My rating: 10/10

Share This