Top 250 wrap-up, part 12 of 20

Over the last three years, I’ve watched my way through the IMDb’s Top 250. Now I’m ranking those 314 movies (math is hard) from worst to best according to my “objective rating” system. And as a token adjustment for my glaring biases in grading the movies, ties are broken by favoring the ones I liked least.

Part 12 of 20: 3.0/4 (Good)

#150. The Empire Strikes Back, Irvin Kershner, 1980. Currently #11.

#149. The Return of the King, Peter Jackson, 2003. Currently #12.

#148. Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, Gore Verbinski, 2003. Currently #234.

#147. Return of the Jedi, Richard Marquand, 1983. Currently #108.

#146. King Kong, Merian C. Cooper & Ernest B. Schoedsack, 1933. Currently off the list.

#145. The Adventures of Robin Hood, Michael Curtiz & William Keighley, 1938. Currently off the list.

#144. Ace in the Hole, Billy Wilder, 1951. Currently off the list.

#143. Casino Royale, Martin Campbell, 2006. Currently off the list.

#142. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Steven Spielberg, 1989. Currently #106.

#141. The Usual Suspects, Bryan Singer, 1995. Currenlty #24.

#140. Let the Right One In, Tomas Alfredson, 2008. Currently #215.

#139. Wings of Desire, Wim Wenders, 1987. Currently off the list.

#138. Hero, Yimou Zhang, 2002. Currently off the list.

#137. Gran Torino, Clint Eastwood, 2008. Currently #95.

#136. Some Like It Hot, Billy Wilder, 1959. Currently #79.

#135. L.A. Confidential, Curtis Hanson, 1997. Currently #67.

#134. American Gangster, Ridley Scott, 2007. Currently off the list.

#133. Judgment at Nuremberg, Stanley Kramer, 1961. Currently #188.

#132. Toy Story, John Lasseter, 1995. Currently #149.

#131. Patton, Franklin J. Schaffner, 1970. Currently #227.

#130. Gone with the Wind, Victor Fleming, 1939. Currently #152.

#129. Citizen Kane, Orson Welles, 1941. Currently #37.

#128. The Hustler, Robert Rossen, 1961. Currently #192.

#127. The Bicycle Thief, Vittorio De Sica, 1948. Currently #88.

#126. Red, Krzysztof Kieslowski, 1994. Currently #245.

Top 250 wrap-up, part 11 of 20

Over the last three years, I’ve watched my way through the IMDb’s Top 250. Now I’m ranking those 314 movies (math is hard) from worst to best according to my “objective rating” system. And as a token adjustment for my glaring biases in grading the movies, ties are broken by favoring the ones I liked least.

Part 11 of 20: 2.9/4 (Good)

#175. Roman Holiday, William Wyler, 1953. Currently #229 on the IMDb.

#174. It's a Wonderful Life, Frank Capra, 1946. Currently #29.

#173. Life of Brian, Terry Jones, 1979. Currently #164.

#172. Fight Club, David Fincher, 1999. Currently #15.

#171. The Wages of Fear, Henri-Georges Clouzot, 1953. Currently #179.

#170. On the Waterfront, Elia Kazan, 1954. Currently #105.

#169. Inherit the Wind, Stanley Kramer, 1960. Currently off the list.

#168. Come and See, Elem Klimov, 1985. Currently off the list.

#167. City Lights, Charles Chaplin, 1931. Currently #60.

#166. Blade Runner, Ridley Scott, 1982. Currently #117.

#165. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, George Roy Hill, 1969. Currently #151.

#164. Full Metal Jacket, Stanley Kubrick, 1987. Currently #86.

#163. Iron Man, Jon Favreau, 2008. Currently off the list.

#162. Kind Hearts and Coronets, Robert Hamer, 1949. Currently #209.

#161. Big Fish, Tim Burton, 2003. Currently #217.

#160. The General, Clyde Bruckman & Buster Keaton, 1927. Currently #120.

#159. The Ox-Bow Incident, William A. Wellman, 1943. Currently off the list.

#158. 8½, Federico Fellini, 1963. Currently #186.

#157. Brazil, Terry Gilliam, 1985. Currently off the list.

#156. Nights of Cabiria, Federico Fellini, 1957. Currently #226.

#155. There Will Be Blood, Paul Thomas Anderson, 2007. Currently #146.

#154. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Ang Lee, 2000. Currently off the list.

#153. Million Dollar Baby, Clint Eastwood, 2004. Currently #148.

#152. Donnie Darko, Richard Kelly, 2001. Currently #134.

#151. Grave of the Fireflies, Isao Takahata, 1988. Currently #131.

Cairo Time

Data
Title: Cairo Time
Year: 2009 (Canada), 2010 (US)
Length: 90 minutes
Director: Ruba Nadda
Writer: Ruba Nadda
Starring: Patricia Clarkson, Alexander Siddig
Music: Niall Byrne (and non-original music)
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Synopsis: a woman visits Egypt without her husband

My reaction
Concept: Indifferent.
Story: Indifferent.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Bad.
Cinematography: Great. Mostly just good, but amazingly spectacular for one scene.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great.
Music: Indifferent. There's some great music used, but the entire score seems to consist of a single cue used repeatedly throughout the film with no regard to how it works for the scene.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). Reminiscent of Brief Encounter, except that it's not nearly as good. Most of the movie is slow and boring. But the last fifteen minutes or so are good enough to make it worth watching.
Objective Rating: 2.9/4 (Good).

Top 250 wrap-up, part 10 of 20

Over the last three years, I’ve watched my way through the IMDb’s Top 250. Now I’m ranking those 314 movies (math is hard) from worst to best according to my “objective rating” system. And as a token adjustment for my glaring biases in grading the movies, ties are broken by favoring the ones I liked least.

Part 10 of 20: 2.8/4 (Good)

#199. Aliens, James Cameron, 1986. Currently #61 on the IMDb's list.

#198. Singin' in the Rain, Gene Kelly & Stanley Donen, 1952. Currently #78.

#197. Sin City, Frank Miller & Robert Rodriguez, 2005. Currently #103.

#196. Inception, Christopher Nolan, 2010. Currently #6.

#195. The Gold Rush, Charles Chaplin, 1925. Currently #155.

#194. Young Frankenstein, Mel Brooks, 1974. Currently off the list.

#193. Shaun of the Dead, Edgar Wright, 2004. Currently off the list.

#192. Memento, Christopher Nolan, 2001. Currently #30.

#191. Unforgiven, Clint Eastwood, 1992. Currently #100.

#190. Amadeus, Milos Forman, 1984. Currently #83.

#189. The Killing, Stanley Kubrick, 1956. Currently #193.

#188. Star Trek, J.J. Abrams, 2009. Currently #185.

#187. Howl's Moving Castle, Hayao Miyazaki, 2004. Currently #236.

#186. The Elephant Man, David Lynch, 1980. Currently #101.

#185. Paths of Glory, Stanley Kubrick, 1957. Currently #52.

#184. The Seventh Seal, Ingmar Bergman, 1957. Currently #113.

#183. Ikiru, Akira Kurosawa, 1952. Currently #175.

#182. A Clockwork Orange, Stanley Kubrick, 1971. Currently #55.

#181. Dial M for Murder, Alfred Hitchcock, 1954. Currently #210.

#180. Mystic River, Clint Eastwood, 2003. Currently #220.

#179. Notorious, Alfred Hitchcock, 1946. Currently #147.

#178. Saving Private Ryan, Steven Spielberg, 1998. Currently #43.

#177. In the Mood for Love, Kar Wai Wong, 2000. Currently #234.

#176. Wild Strawberries, Ingmar Bergman, 1957. Currently #128.

more top fives of 2010

And now I am picking a Top Five in each of the categories by which I make the habit of grading movies (because that's easier than picking arbitrary categories (that is, different arbitrary categories)). Again, these are selected from everything (and only things) I saw for the first time since the day I posted year-end lists last year.

Concept
#1. 12 Angry Men, 1957. Twelve strangers with a life in their hands, locked in a room with only their wits to fight with: one of the ballsiest set-ups a movie ever had.
#2. The Road, 2009. Based on a beautiful, intense science-fiction novel that seemed perfect for a film adaptation.
#3. The Last Man on Earth, 1964. Vincent Price, dapper zombie hunter.
#4. Dracula, 1931. The ultimate monster story.
#5. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, 1948. Three men in an isolated wilderness with a small fortune; the best plot from any Western I can think of.

Story
#1. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, 1948. Part action/adventure, part character drama. Clever and iconic.
#2. 12 Angry Men, 1957. There's no action, even in the loosest sense of the word, but the story arc is still more gripping than just about any other movie.
#3. True Grit, 2010. A simple, straight-forward set-up that still manages to be unpredictable.
#4. The Bridge on the River Kwai, 1957. One of the only epics that has the depth of story to warrant its running time.
#5. The Ghost Writer, 2010. A tight mystery with twists and suspense to rival the classics of the genre.

Characters
#1. Winter's Bone, 2010. One of the most memorable roles I've seen in a long time.
#2. Mary and Max, 2009. Lovable, and hilarious in a quiet, warm sort of way.
#3. Jack Goes Boating, 2010. Like Rocky or Away We Go, it's one of the only love stories about a couple that seems capable of love.
#4. Crazy Heart, 2009. Jeff Bridges' performance was great, but it didn't really compare to his Oscar competition; it's the character that won.
#5. The Fighter, 2010. I thought there were rules against having great characters in true stories, but I guess I was wrong. These people let the writers go ahead and put everything in there and capture something real.

Dialog
#1. True Grit, 2010. Nothing else comes close.
#2. In the Loop, 2009. Absurd hilarity that puts The Holy Grail to shame.
#3. 12 Angry Men, 1957. It's a great movie, and it's nothing but dialog, so it stands to reason, it must be spectacular dialog.
#4. Mary and Max, 2009. Funny and poetic.
#5. Raising Arizona, 1987. The Coen Brothers, reminding everyone in the 1980s what dialog is.

Pacing
#1. 12 Angry Men, 1957.
#2. The Social Network, 2010.
#3. The Departed, 2006.
#4. The Ghost Writer, 2010.
#5. The Bridge on the River Kwai, 1957.

Cinematography
#1. The Third Man, 1949. The definition of great cinematography.
#2. I Am Love, 2010.
#3. Street Angel, 1928
#4. North by Northwest, 1959
#5. Vertigo, 1958

Special effects/design
#1. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, 1937. So fun to look at, it had me grinning like an idiot through the whole movie.
#2. The Adventures of Prince Achmed, 1926. Beautiful, elegant simplicity.
#3. Easy A, 2010. Weird choice, I know, but those costumes are unforgettable.
#4. Bambi, 1942. Pushed animation further than it would go for more than fifty years.
#5. Inception, 2010. I guess something on this list had to get here with special effects.

Acting
#1. Requiem for a Dream, 2000. Jennifer Connelly and Ellen Burstyn are so good they make you want to vomit a little. But I think they meant to.
#2. Downfall, 2004. Bruno Ganz as Hitler: more than just an internet meme.
#3. A Single Man, 2009. Note to self: see The King's Speech.
#4. The Fighter, 2010. Christian Bale, who are you and what did you do with Batman?
#5. Winter's Bone, 2010. My favorite for Best Actress this year.

Music
#1. North by Northwest, 1959. John Adams' source material.
#2. Winter's Bone, 2010. Appalachian ballads and banjo pickin' = automatic love.
#3. Inception, 2010. Hans Zimmer, who are you and what did you do with your steaming piles of bad film scores?
#4. Crazy Heart, 2009.
#5. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, 1937. Wait, a musical? I loved the music in a musical?

Top Ten (or Five) of 2010

We interrupt your regularly scheduled list of movies for a different list of movies.

Note that, as in the past, these lists are the top ten/five of my year, not of the year. Everything (and only things) I saw for the first time since the day I posted year-end lists last year are eligible. Also, unlike in the past, these are not necessarily my favorites, nor are they necessarily the ones I think are best: they're just the Top Ten (or Top Five).

Top Ten Movies I Saw in 2010
1. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, 1937
2. Mary and Max, 2009
3. Dumbo, 1941
4. True Grit, 2010
5. The Departed, 2006
6. Winter's Bone, 2010
7. 12 Angry Men, 1957
8. The Bridge on the River Kwai, 1957
9. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, 2010
10. Black Swan, 2010

Top Five Shorts I Saw in 2010
1. "Granny O'Grimm's Sleeping Beauty," 2008
2. "Day & Night," 2010
3. "Kavi," 2009
4. "French Roast," 2008
5. "Runaway," 2009

Top Five TV Shows I Saw in 2010
1. Doctor Who: The Specials, 2008-2010
2. Doctor Who: Series Five, 2010
3. A Bit of Fry & Laurie: Season One, 1987-1989
4. Dexter: Season One, 2006
5. "Wallace and Gromit in 'A Matter of Loaf and Death,'" 2008

Top 250 wrap-up, part 9 of 20

Over the last three years, I’ve watched my way through the IMDb’s Top 250. Now I’m ranking those 314 movies (math is hard) from worst to best according to my “objective rating” system. And as a token adjustment for my glaring biases in grading the movies, ties are broken by favoring the ones I liked least.

Part 9 of 20: 2.7/4 (Good)

#214. The Fellowship of the Ring, Peter Jackson, 2001. Currently #19 on the IMDb.

#213. The Hangover, Todd Phillips, 2009. Currently off the list.

#212. North by Northwest, Alfred Hitchcock, 1959. Currently #38.

#211. Run, Lola, Run, Tom Tykwer, 1998. Currently off the list.

#210. How to Train Your Dragon, Dean DeBlois & Chris Sanders, 2010. Currently #174.

#209. The Wild Bunch, Sam Peckinpah, 1969. Currently #199.

#208. The Social Network, David Fincher, 2010. Currently #150.

#207. The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, John Ford, 1962. Currently #246.

#206. The African Queen, John Huston, 1951. Currently off the list.

#205. The Godfather: Part II, Francis Ford Coppola, 1974. Currently #3.

#204. City of God, Fernando Meirelles & Kátia Lund, 2002. Currently #18.

#203. Slumdog Millionaire, Danny Boyle & Loveleen Tandan, 2008. Currently #116.

#202. Fanny and Alexander, Ingmar Bergman, 1982. Currently #212.

#201. A Streetcar Named Desire, Elia Kazan, 1951. Currently #200.

#200. The Pianist, Roman Polanski, 2002. Currently #54.

The Karate Kid

Data
Title: The Karate Kid
Year: 2010
Length: 140 minutes
Director: Harald Zwart
Writer: Christopher Murphey; story by Robert Mark Kamen
Starring: Jaden Smith, Jackie Chan, Taraji P. Henson, Wenwen Han
Music: James Horner (and non-original music)
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Synopsis: a kid moves to China, gets bullied and learns kung fu

My reaction
Concept: Bad. It was an okay concept for the original movie, but in this one the kids are much younger, so it doesn't make any sense.
Story: Bad.
Characters: Indifferent.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Terrible. Who thought it was a good idea to remake a corny 1980s kids' movie as a sprawling epic? What the hell?
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Good. Everyone is very good, especially Jackie Chan. His horrible career must be a deliberate choice because apparently the guy can really bring it when he wants to.
Music: Terrible. It just wouldn't be The Karate Kid if it didn't have one of the worst soundtracks of all time.
Subjective Rating: 5/10 (Indifferent). It's jarringly amoral for a movie that pretends to have a pacifist philosophy. It's at least as corny as the original, but takes itself seriously, with only occasional gags or one-liners to lighten the tone. Seeing brutal beatings or sexual tension in a cast of 12-year-olds is completely tasteless. It is, by its nature, as predictable as a movie you've already seen. It's in love with an oppressive, anti-American nation and isn't shy about it. But it also has surprising moments of greatness, enough to let you realize that, no, remaking The Karate Kid isn't a dumb idea - they just happen to be doing it poorly.
Objective Rating: 1.9/4 (Eh).

Top 250 wrap-up, part 8 of 20

Over the last three years, I’ve watched my way through the IMDb’s Top 250. Now I’m ranking those 314 movies (math is hard) from worst to best according to my “objective rating” system. And as a token adjustment for my glaring biases in grading the movies, ties are broken by favoring the ones I liked least.

Part 8 of 20: 2.6/4 (Good)

#228. The Two Towers, Peter Jackson, 2002. Currently #31 on the IMDb.

#227. My Man Godfrey, Gregory La Cava, 1936. Currently off the list.

#226. Double Indemnity, Billy Wilder, 1944. Currently #53.

#225. Metropolis, Fritz Lang, 1927. Currently #97.

#224. The Apartment, Billy Wilder, 1960. Currently #92.

#223. Laura, Otto Preminger, 1944. Currently off the list.

#222. Letters from Iwo Jima, Clint Eastwood, 2006. Currently #232.

#221. A Man for All Seasons, Fred Zinnemann, 1966. Currently off the list.

#220. The Lady Vanishes, Alfred Hitchcock, 1938. Currently off the list.

#219. Schindler's List, Steven Spielberg, 1993. Currently #7.

#218. Blood Diamond, Edward Zwick, 2006. Currently off the list.

#217. Casino, Martin Scorsese, 1995. Currently #176.

#216. Goodfellas, Martin Scorsese, 1990. Currently #16.

#215. The Big Sleep, Howard Hawks, 1946. Currently #161.

Black Swan

Data
Title: Black Swan
Year: 2010
Length: 108 minutes
Director: Darren Aronofsky
Writers: Mark Heyman, Andres Heinz & John J. McLaughlin, story by Heinz
Starring: Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis, Vincent Cassel, Barbara Hershey
Music: Clint Mansell & Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky (and non-original music)
Oscars: won for Best Actress (Portman); nominations for Best Picture, Best Directing, Best Cinematography and Best Editing
How I saw it: in the theater, yesterday
Synopsis: a ballerina loses her mind

My reaction
Concept: Good.
Story: Good.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great. What the hell happened to Natalie Portman? Did she just get bored with standing around in front of cameras and decide to spontaneously become a great actress (and ballet dancer)?
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great). Extremely intense - not something you want to watch if you're feeling at all stressed out.
Objective Rating: 3.5/4 (Very good).

Top 250 wrap-up, part 7 of 20

Over the last three years, I’ve watched my way through the IMDb’s Top 250. Now I’m ranking those 314 movies (math is hard) from worst to best according to my “objective rating” system. And as a token adjustment for my glaring biases in grading the movies, ties are broken by favoring the ones I liked least.

Part 7 of 20: 2.5/4 (Okay)

#241. The Thing, John Carpenter, 1982. Currently #174 on the IMDb.

#240. All Quiet on the Western Front, Lewis Milestone, 1930. Currently #214.

#239. Hot Fuzz, Edgar Wright, 2007. Currently off the list.

#238. Crash, Paul Haggis, 2004. Currently #242.

#237. Forrest Gump, Robert Zemeckis, 1994. Currently #33.

#236. Juno, Jason Reitman, 2007. Currently off the list.

#235. The Great Escape, John Sturges, 1963. Currently #110.

#234. The Lion King, Roger Allers & Rob Minkoff, 1994. Currently #143.

#233. The Lost Weekend, Billy Wilder, 1945. Currently off the list.

#232. The Battle of Algiers, Gillo Pontecorvo, 1966. Currently #201.

#231. Spartacus, Stanley Kubrick, 1960. Currently off the list.

#230. Trainspotting, Danny Boyle, 1996. Currently #154.

#229. Sweet Smell of Success, Alexander Mackendrick, 1957. Currently off the list.



The Thing is the only one of these that I liked, although I think very highly of All Quiet on the Western Front as well. A few others are all right. There are some real "classics" in this bunch (The Great Escape, Spartacus) that completely fail to live up to their reputations.

Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer

Data
Title: "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer"
Year: 1948
Length: 8 minutes
Director: Max Fleischer
Writer: Joe Stultz, story by Robert May
Starring: Paul Wing
Music: Johnny Marks
How I saw it: on video, a few days ago (A Christmas Carol bonus feature)
Synopsis: Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer had a very shiny nose etc.

My reaction
Concept: Bad.
Story: Terrible.
Characters: Terrible.
Dialog: Bad.
Pacing: Bad.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Indifferent.
Acting: Bad.
Music: Indifferent.
Subjective Rating: 2/10 (Terrible). If this had remained the only version of Rudolph, the character would have been forgotten long ago.
Objective Rating: 1.0/4 (Bad).

Top 250 wrap-up, part 6 of 20

Over the last three years, I’ve watched my way through the IMDb’s Top 250. Now I’m ranking those 314 movies (math is hard) from worst to best according to my “objective rating” system. And as a token adjustment for my glaring biases in grading the movies, ties are broken by favoring the ones I liked least.

Part 6 of 20: 2.4/4 (Okay)

#252. Grindhouse, Robert Rodriguez & Quentin Tarantino, 2007. Currently off the IMDb's list.

#251. Toy Story 2, John Lasseter, Ash Brannon & Lee Unkrich, 1999. Currently off the list.

#250. The Professional, Luc Besson, 1994. Currently #35.

#249. The Sting, George Roy Hill, 1973. Currently #98.

#248. Infernal Affairs, Wai-keung Lau & Alan Mak, 2002. Currently #231.

#247. Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, Guy Ritchie, 1998. Currently #173.

#246. Pan's Labyrinth, Guillermo del Toro, 2006. Currently #75.

#245. The Celebration, Thomas Vinterberg, 1998. Currently #222.

#244. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, Robert Wiene, 1920. Currently off the list.

#243. Tae Guk Gi: The Brotherhood of War, Je-gyu Kang, 2004. Currently off the list.

#242. The Green Mile, Frank Darabont, 1999. Currently #85.



There's not a single movie in this bunch that I feel strongly about, one way or the other. Weird.

A Christmas Carol

Data
Title: Scrooge
Year: 1951
Length: 86 minutes
Director: Brian Desmond Hurst
Writer: Noel Langley, based on the book by Charles Dickens
Starring: Alastair Sim
Music: Richard Addinsell
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), a couple days ago
Synopsis: a wealthy, uncaring man is haunted by Christmas spirits



My reaction
Concept: Great.
Story: Great.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Great. "I must stand on my head."
Pacing: Indifferent. The Christmas Past section is too long, while other parts are rushed.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Good.
Acting: Good.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). I was pretty surprised by how much less moving it is than the Muppet version. But while it doesn't have the emotional weight it needs, a lot of it is fun to watch, thanks mostly to Sim's awesome face.
Objective Rating: 3.2/4 (Very good).

Top 250 wrap-up, part 5 of 20

Over the last three years, I’ve watched my way through the IMDb’s Top 250. Now I’m ranking those 314 movies (math is hard) from worst to best according to my “objective rating” system. And as a token adjustment for my glaring biases in grading the movies, ties are broken by favoring the ones I liked least.

Part 5 of 20: 2.3/4 (Okay)

#264. Duck Soup, Leo McCarey, 1933. Currently #226 on the IMDb.

#263. The Bourne Ultimatum, Paul Greengrass, 2007. Currently #165.

#262. Out of the Past, Jacques Tourneur, 1947. Currently off the list.

#261. Good Will Hunting, Gus Van Sant, 1997. Currently #195.

#260. It Happened One Night, Frank Capra, 1934. Currently #141.

#259. Great Expectations, David Lean, 1946. Currently off the list.

#258. Chinatown, Roman Polanski, 1974. Currently #68.

#257. Once, John Carney, 2006. Currently off the list.

#256. Lawrence of Arabia, David Lean, 1962. Currently #48.

#255. Requiem for a Dream, Darren Aronofsky, 2000. Currently #63.

#254. The 400 Blows, François Truffaut, 1959. Currently #197.

#253. The Best Years of Our Lives, William Wyler, 1946. Currently #169.



A few of these are very good, and of those that I didn't like, there are only two I wouldn't want to watch again: Lawrence of Arabia is too damn long to be considered for a second chance, and Requiem for a Dream, while it has many fine qualities, is too draining to see a second time.

I Am Love

Data
Title: Io sono l'amore
Year: 2010
Length: 120 minutes
Director: Luca Guadagnino
Writers: Luca Guadagnino, Barbara Alberti, Ivan Cotroneo & Walter Fasano, story by Guadagnino
Starring: Tilda Swinton, Flavio Parenti, Edoardo Gabbriellini
Music: non-original music (mostly John Adams)
Oscars: nomination for Best Costume Design
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), a few days ago
Synopsis: a woman married to a wealthy man has an affair with her son's friend



My reaction
Concept: Terrible. There's a reason this sort of story has been out of fashion for 100 years. It's because it's crap.
Story: Terrible. It's not only that I don't like this sort of story - also, there's just not much story there to dislike. Nothing happens until about an hour into the movie, and then it's mostly just people having sex.
Characters: Bad. As far as I can tell, I think the whole point of the movie is that the protagonist has no identity? Or something like that? Which is not interesting in an Ingmar Bergman sort of way, but instead just means the audience has no reason to care about anything she does.
Dialog: Indifferent.
Pacing: Bad.
Cinematography: Great. Can a movie include a lingering shot of the underside of a man's ballsack and still have great cinematography? Yes, apparently it can; it's that good (the cinematography, not the ballsack (I could have done without the ballsack)).
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 3/10 (Bad). The script is crap. If ever the other aspects of a film could have compensated for a worthless script, this movie would have done it. Amazing visuals, perfect acting, striking music... But the script is still crap. It could have been painted frame-by-frame by Leonardo Da Vinci and I still wouldn't care about anything that happens in this movie.
Objective Rating: 2.1/4 (Okay).

Top 250 wrap-up, part 4 of 20

Over the last three years, I’ve watched my way through the IMDb’s Top 250. Now I’m ranking those 314 movies (math is hard) from worst to best according to my “objective rating” system. And as a token adjustment for my glaring biases in grading the movies, ties are broken by favoring the ones I liked least.

Part 4 of 20: 2.2/4 (Okay)

#279. Modern Times, Charles Chaplin, 1936. Currently #69 on the IMDb.

#278. The Terminator, James Cameron, 1984. Currently #168.

#277. Avatar, James Cameron, 2009. Currently #137.

#276. The Kid, Charles Chaplin, 1921. Currently #170.

#275. The Matrix, The Wachowski Brothers, 1999. Currently #26.

#274. Das Boot, Wolfgang Petersen, 1981. Currently #64.

#273. Seven, David Fincher, 1995. Currently #28.

#272. Changeling, Clint Eastwood, 2008. Currently off the list.

#271. Manhattan, Woody Allen, 1979. Currently #218.

#270. The Shawshank Redemption, Frank Darabont, 1994. Currently #1.

#269. Barry Lyndon, Stanley Kubrick, 1975. Currently #221.

#268. Amores perros, Alejandro González Iñárritu, 2000. Currently #167.

#267. Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans, F.W. Murnau, 1927. Currently #152.

#266. Le Samouraï, Jean-Pierre Melville, 1967. Currently off the list.

#265. La Dolce vita, Federico Fellini, 1960. Currently off the list.



Finally, we're getting into the part of the ranking where there are some genuinely good movies (but flawed enough to get a relatively low score). Of course, there's also a lot of crap in this bunch (but well made enough to get a relatively high score).

Anyway, here is a list of mediocre movies for you. Merry Christmas.

The Muppet Christmas Carol

Data
Title: The Muppet Christmas Carol
Year: 1992
Length: 89 minutes (extended version)
Director: Brian Henson
Writer: Jerry Juhl, based on the novel by Charles Dickens
Starring: Michael Caine, The Muppets (Dave Goelz, Steve Whitmire, Jerry Nelson, Frank Oz)
Music: Paul Williams (songs); Miles Goodman (score)

My reaction
Synopsis: a wealthy, uncaring man is haunted by Christmas Muppets
How I saw it: on video many times (have on VHS), most recently yesterday
Concept: Great.
Story: Great.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Good.
Acting: Good.
Music: Indifferent. There are some great songs, and there are some terrible songs. I've just learned that the worst of them, "When Love Is Gone," was not in the theatrical cut. It's effectively not in ours, either, since we fast forward through it.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great). I have to admit it gets a bonus point or two just for being the Muppets, but that's the way it goes.
Objective Rating: 3.2/4 (Very good).

Top 250 wrap-up, part 3 of 20

Over the last three years, I’ve watched my way through the IMDb’s Top 250. Now I’m ranking those 314 movies (math is hard) from worst to best according to my “objective rating” system. And as a token adjustment for my glaring biases in grading the movies, ties are broken by favoring the ones I liked least.

Part 3 of 20: 2.1/4 (Okay)

#289. Kick-Ass, Matthew Vaughn, 2010. Currently #233 on the IMDb.

#288. District 9, Neill Blomkamp, 2009. Currently #131.

#287. The Great Dictator, Charles Chaplin, 1940. Currently #91.

#286. Heat, Michael Mann, 1995. Currently #121.

#285. Ben-Hur, William Wyler, 1959. Currently #159.

#284. Glory, Edward Zwick, 1989. Currently off the list.

#283. Beauty and the Beast, Jean Cocteau, 1946. Currently off the list.

#282. Bonnie and Clyde, Arthur Penn, 1967. Currently off the list.

#281. Platoon, Oliver Stone, 1986. Currently #144.

#280. The Deer Hunter, Michael Cimino, 1978. Currently #135.



We're pretty solidly in Unremarkable But Harmless territory here.  The spectrum ranges from good but vastly over-rated movies at one end to movies I hated but can see the draw to at the other. Beauty and the Beast stands out as one I'd particularly like to give a second chance to; my own misguided expectations (of seeing a fairytale romance) might have wrecked that one for me.

True Grit

Data
Title: True Grit
Year: 2010
Length: 110 minutes
Directors: Ethan Coen & Joel Coen
Writers: Joel Coen & Ethan Coen, based on the novel by Charles Portis
Starring: Jeff Bridges, Hailee Steinfeld, Matt Damon, Josh Brolin, Barry Pepper
Music: Carter Burwell
Oscars: nominations for Best Picture, Best Directing, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Actor (Bridges), Best Supporting Actress (Steinfeld), Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design, Best Sound Editing and Best Sound Mixing

My reaction
Synopsis: a girl hires a US Marshall to hunt her father's murderer
How I saw it: in the theater, yesterday
Concept: Great.
Story: Great.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great. As good as it gets. It kind of makes me feel a little angry about all the thousands of screenwriters out there who aren't writers - if language can be this good, why do we accept anything less?
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great. Not as great as I expected, but great. Damon in particular is unrecognizable, which might be a first for him.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great). There's no question that this is the best movie of the year (not that this year has offered much competition). If the Coens only ever make westerns from here on out, I would be okay with that.
Objective Rating: 3.9/4 (Great).

Top 250 wrap-up, part 2 of 20

Over the last three years, I've watched my way through the IMDb's Top 250. Now I'm ranking those 314 movies (math is hard) from worst to best according to my "objective rating" system. And as a token adjustment for my glaring biases in grading the movies, ties are broken by favoring the ones I liked least.

Part 2 of 20: 1.8/4 through 2.0/4

1.8/4 (Eh):

#302. Cinderella Man, Ron Howard, 2005. Currently off the IMDb's list.

#301. Braveheart, Mel Gibson, 1995. Currently #90.

#300. The Searchers, John Ford, 1956. Currently off the list.

#299. Scarface, Brian De Palma, 1983. Currently #158.

1.9/4 (Eh):

#298. Diabolique, Henri-Georges Clouzot, 1955. Currently #186.

#297. Into the Wild, Sean Penn, 2007. Currently #145.

#296. Nosferatu, F.W. Murnau, 1922. Currently off the list.

#295. Once Upon a Time in America, Sergio Leone, 1984. Currently #84.

2.0/4 (Indifferent)

#294. Die Hard, John McTiernan, 1988. Currently #110.

#293. Safety Last!, Fred C. Newmeyer & Sam Taylor, 1923. Currently off the list.

#292. The Philadelphia Story, George Cukor, 1940. Currently #237.

#291. V for Vendetta, James McTeigue, 2005. Currently #176.

#290. Aguirre: The Wrath of God, Werner Herzog, 1972. Currently off the list.



There are only a few here that I think deserve a second chance (Philadelphia Story, Nosferatu, and Safety Last). And Die Hard is a good movie - just not the sort of good that gets credit from my rating system. The rest of these range from mediocre to completely terrible.

Top 250 wrap-up, part 1 of 20

It is done.

On February 11th, 2008 I wrote (on my old blog): "I plan on watching every one of [the movies on the IMDb's Top 250]... starting with #250. It'll take a year or more to get through, but I like the idea of watching movies that a lot of people think are the best." Two years, ten months, ten days and 314 films later (i.e., yesterday), I'm finally finished.

To be fair, I haven't seen every movie on the Top 250. I passed over Sleuth (which has since fallen off the list) because it's not available to rent. For Cinema Paradiso, I saw the director's cut, which I don't count as the same movie. Black Swan, The Secret in Their Eyes, The Passion of Joan of Arc and Castle in the Sky crawled onto the list long after I'd passed their current spots, and I didn't double back for them. Things are always jumping on and off, and at some point I had to just say, "these are the ones that I'm watching, and that will be that." Otherwise the project would literally never end. 314 movies out of 250 is close enough!

Now, since I spent nearly three years watching these movies, I figure they deserve and epic send-off. So I will be ranking them, in 20 installments, from worst to best. But not according to how much I liked them, oh, no. That would be too easy (and besides, there are so damn many of them, it would just be like copying my Favorites page with arbitrary omissions). When I first started this unholy project, I made up a ten-point "objective" rating system (which evolved into the rating format I now use on this blog). The system was created for the Top 250, and so that is how I will rank them. And as a token adjustment for my glaring biases in grading the movies, ties will be broken by favoring the ones I liked least.

-

My Ranking of the IMDb's Top 250, part 1 of 20: 1.7/4 (Eh) and below

1.2/4 (Bad):

#314. Mulholland Dr., David Lynch, 2001. Currently #248 on the IMDb.

1.3/4 (Bad):

#313. Arsenic and Old Lace, Frank Capra, 1944. Currently #236.

#312. Doctor Zhivago, David Lean, 1965. Currently off the list.

1.4/4 (Bad):

#311. His Girl Friday, Howard Hawks, 1940. Currently #238.

#310. Rope, Alfred Hitchcock, 1948. Currently #241.

1.6/4 (Eh):

#309. Bringing Up Baby, Howard Hawks, 1938. Currently off the list.

#308. Terminator 2: Judgment Day, James Cameron, 1991. Currently #42.

#307. Raging Bull, Martin Scorsese, 1980. Currently #76.

#306. Persona, Ingmar Bergman, 1966. Currently #213.

1.7/4 (Eh):

#305. Gladiator, Ridley Scott, 2000. Currently #97.

#304. Bride of Frankenstein, James Whale, 1935. Currently off the list.

#303. Stalker, Andrei Tarkovsky, 1979. Currently off the list.



Given the scale of this project, and that I've already posted about each of these movies, I'm sure you will excuse the lack of film-by-film commentary. There are several in this bunch that I wouldn't mind seeing again to give another chance (Bride of Frankenstein, Bringing Up Baby, Raging Bull), though I don't think I'd change my mind about them. Some are harmless garbage (Arsenic and Old Lace, Terminator 2, Gladiator, Persona). Others I wouldn't mind destroying every last copy, as a service to future generations.

I realize that posting a list of Beloved Movies That I Think Are Bad to the internet may be asking for trouble. But I welcome anyone to tell me why I'm wrong about any of these. I sincerely want to know.

The Shawshank Redemption

The Top 63 Marathon, part 63 (#1!)



Data
Title: The Shawshank Redemption
Year: 1994
Length: 142 minutes
Director: Frank Darabont
Writer: Frank Darabont, based on a story by Stephen King
Starring: Tim Robbins, Morgan Freeman, Bob Gunton
Music: Thomas Newman (and non-original music)
Distinctions: Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Actor (Freeman), Best Score, Best Cinematography, Best Editing and Best Sound; currently #1 on the IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a quiet banker goes to prison for murder
How I saw it: on video a few times, most recently yesterday (rented from Netflix)
Concept: Indifferent.
Story: Bad.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Bad.
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Indifferent. Worst makeup ever.
Acting: Indifferent. As if the lack of makeup effects isn't bad enough, Robbins inexplicably chooses to convey the aging of his character by doing a Bill Pullman impression.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 5/10 (Indifferent). Corny, cliche, and just plain bad storytelling. More than half a million people have ranked it at the IMDb, and almost all of them love it. I swear it must be an enormous conspiracy (and even my wife is in on it - she likes it and is unable or unwilling to say why). I just get nothing out of this movie. What does Stephen King have on you people?
Objective Rating: 2.2/4 (Okay).

The Godfather

The Top 63 Marathon, part 62 (#2)



Data
Title: The Godfather
Year: 1972
Length: 175 minutes
Director: Francis Ford Coppola
Writers: Mario Puzo & Francis Ford Coppola, based on Puzo's novel
Starring: Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, James Caan, Richard S. Castellano, Robert Duvall
Music: Nino Rota
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Actor (Brando); Oscar nominations for Best Director, Best Supporting Actors (Pacino, Caan and Duvall), Best Costume Design, Best Editing and Best Sound; withdrawn Oscar nomination for Best Score; currently #2 on the IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: the son of a gangster gets involved in "the family business" when his father is shot
How I saw it: on video a few times, most recently yesterday (rented from Netflix)
Concept: Good.
Story: Good.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 9/10 (One of my favorites). Normally it wouldn't be possible for a gangster movie to get more than an 8/10 from me, regardless of how exceptional the quality (and the quality here is crazy exceptional), but I'm making an exception just this once. About three and a half years ago, I re-watched this movie (I'd also seen it as a teenager, when I was too young to appreciate it). I don't remember why I watched it, since gangsters whacking each other is not my kind of thing, but I did, and movies haven't been the same for me since. This is the one that showed me what film as a medium is capable of, what I'd been missing by sticking mostly to Fun movies. This is the one where I first realized how visceral a reaction to great movie making can be. And so I sought out more, eventually started in on the Top 250, watched so many movies I needed this blog to keep track of them, and here we are. Watching movies (full-blown film buffery) has now surpassed my other hobbies by a large margin, and I owe it all to Nino Rota, an unfortunate horse, and Al Pacino's twitchy eyes.
Objective Rating: 3.7/4 3.8/4 (Great).

One A.M.

Data
Title: "One A.M."
Year: 1916
Length: 17 minutes (probably an edited version)
Director: Charles Chaplin
Writers: Charles Chaplin
Starring: Charles Chaplin
Music: uncredited jazz score with sound effects

My reaction
Synopsis: a drunk man stumbles around his home
How I saw it: online (at the Internet Archive), today
Concept: Good.
Story: Bad. But it wouldn't be as good a movie if it had a story.
Characters: Indifferent.
Dialog: n/a
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Good.
Acting: Good.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). Not every gag gets a laugh, but it's funny on the whole.
Objective Rating: 2.6/4 (Good).

Elf

Data
Title: Elf
Year: 2003
Length: 97 minutes
Director: Jon Favreau
Writer: David Berenbaum
Starring: Will Ferrell, James Caan, Zooey Deschanel
Music: John Debney (but mostly non-original music)

My reaction
Synopsis: a man raised by Christmas elves goes to New York
How I saw it: in the theater, 2003; on video a few times (have on DVD), most recently yesterday
Concept: Great. Although, with any other casting, it could have been a terrible concept.
Story: Indifferent.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Good.
Acting: Good.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 9/10 (One of my favorites). Will Ferrell as a man-child can't go too far wrong at the worst of times, and this movie in particular is his best version of the character. Sweet, absurd, and unrelentingly joyful.
Objective Rating: 3.1/4 3.2/4 (Very good).

The Fighter

Data
Title: The Fighter
Year: 2010
Length: 115 minutes
Director: David O. Russell
Writers: Scott Silver, Paul Tamasy & Eric Johnson, story by Tamasy, Johnson & Keith Dorrington
Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Melissa Leo
Music: Michael Brook (but mostly non-original music)
Oscars: won for Best Supporting Actor (Bale) and Best Supporting Actress (Leo); nominations for Best Picture, Best Directing, Best Original Screenplay, Best Supporting Actress (Adams) and Best Editing

My reaction
Synopsis: a promising boxer is held back by his overbearing family
How I saw it: in the theater, yesterday
Concept: Indifferent.
Story: Indifferent. You get no leniency in the Predictable And Obvious department for being a true story. On the contrary, being true means it's even more predictable, since it must be a story that someone looked at and said, "why, that sounds like a movie!"
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Indifferent. It drags a lot in the middle, especially when the protagonist is unbearably passive.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great. Holy crap. I haven't seen The King's Speech yet, but at this point Bale seems to me like a no-brainer for an Oscar.
Music: Indifferent. There's a lot of great music, used very effectively. But then there's the "Back in the Saddle" fight montage. Hilarious.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). There are a handful of very cliched moments, some so bad that it's hard to believe they're not meant as parody. But otherwise, it's a great movie. Highly recommended.
Objective Rating: 3.0/4 (Good).

The Immigrant

Data
Title: "The Immigrant"
Year: 1917
Length: 20 minutes
Director: Charles Chaplin
Writers: Charles Chaplin, Vincent Bryan & Maverick Terrell
Starring: Charles Chaplin, Edna Purviance, Eric Campbell
Music: uncredited orchestral score with sound effects

My reaction
Synopsis: The Tramp arrives in America, then goes out to dinner without money
How I saw it: online (at the Internet Archive), yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Indifferent.
Characters: Indifferent.
Dialog: Good. Dialog cards are used only when they're absolutely necessary (twice in all, I think), which works quite well.
Pacing: Good. Just a few seconds of an establishing shot at the start would have gone a long way; things just start happening before you even realize the movie's rolling.
Cinematography: Good. Unremarkable by today's standards, but for the most part it's shot using modern conventions, which I found to be a pleasant surprise.
Special effects/design: Good.
Acting: Good. Great compared with typical Silent Film Acting, though. Purviance in the last scene is especially good.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 6/10 (Okay). Over-rated, and nowhere near as funny as his feature films. I suppose it's regarded as highly as it is because it's important more than because it's good. Perhaps it's one of the first comedies to have pathos, rather than just people falling down? Personally, I would prefer more falling down; that's what Chaplin's good at. (No, on second thought, what Chaplin's good at is almost but not quite falling down. There's none of that sort of brilliance in this movie.)
Objective Rating: 2.7/4 (Good).

The Kids Are All Right

Data
Title: The Kids Are All Right
Year: 2010
Length: 106 minutes
Director: Lisa Cholodenko
Writers: Lisa Cholodenko & Stuart Blumberg
Starring: Julianne Moore, Annette Bening, Mark Ruffalo, Mia Wasikowska, Josh Hutcherson
Music: Carter Burwell (but mostly non-original music)
Oscars: nominations for Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay, Best Actress (Bening) and Best Supporting Actor (Ruffalo)

My reaction
Synopsis: teenage siblings contact their mothers' sperm doner; relationships ensue
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), today
Concept: Bad.
Story: Indifferent. It's character-driven, so it's not so bad that the story's not very good. But the story's not very good. I give it an "indifferent" instead of "bad" because the ending, after all the unreasonably predictable bullshit is out of the way, feels genuine.
Characters: Great. My wife observed that it's nice that there's not one central character, but you can see things from everyone's perspective. With this sort of story, it's rare that any characters are sympathetic, but here, all of them are sympathetic.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Good.
Acting: Great.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). Exceptional performances - possibly the best of anything I've seen from 2010 (although it's late at night as I write this so I can't say I'm thinking too clearly about it (in fact, just now it took me a minute to figure out that the word "possibly" doesn't have an "r" in it)). It's too bad those performances are wasted on a movie with a plot out of a soap opera.
Objective Rating: 2.9/4 (Good).

Wisdom Teeth

Data
Title: "Wisdom Teeth"
Year: 2010
Length: 6 minutes
Director: Don Hertzfeldt
Writer: Don Hertzfeldt
Starring: Don Hertzfeldt (presumably)

My reaction
Synopsis: um... it's better if you don't know
How I saw it: on youtube (in HD courtesy of Showtime), today
Concept: Indifferent.
Story: Bad. It's gag-oriented - not meant to have a story.
Characters: Bad.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great.
Music: Good. No music, to good effect.
Subjective Rating: 6/10 (Okay). This short was probably my most anticipated film of the year, but it just wouldn't be 2010 if any movie managed to come anywhere near expectations. I watched it twice; I laughed pretty hard the first time, but I barely cracked a smile the second time. It's a huge understatement to say this is a step down from Hertzfeldt's previous few films, but in all fairness he and/or his publicity people (does Don Hertzfeldt have people?) do apologize profusely whenever they mention it. And even in a silly thing like this, the level of craftsmanship from that guy is impeccable.
Objective Rating: 2.8/4 (Good).

The Godfather: Part II

The Top 63 Marathon, part 61 (#3)



Data
Title: The Godfather: Part II
Year: 1974
Length: 200 minutes
Director: Francis Ford Coppola
Writers: Francis Ford Coppola & Mario Puzo, based on Puzo's novel
Starring: Al Pacino, Robert Duvall, Diane Keaton, Robert De Niro, John Cazale, Talia Shire, Lee Strasberg, Michael V. Gazzo
Music: Nino Rota
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Supporting Actor (De Niro), Best Score and Best Art Direction/Set Decoration; Oscar nominations for Best Actor (Pacino), Best Supporting Actress (Shire), Best Supporting Actor (both Strasberg & Gazzo) and Best Costume Design; currently #3 on the IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a crime boss defends his empire, and flashbacks show how his father got into The Family Business
How I saw it: on video a couple times, most recently yesterday (rented from Netflix)
Concept: Indifferent.
Story: Indifferent. Michael's story doesn't really have an arc; some stuff happens, then the movie stops.
Characters: Good. If it weren't a sequel, and what's in this movie were all there is to the characters, then they'd be pretty mediocre characters.
Dialog: Good. The only bits that really stand out are the references to Part I.
Pacing: Bad. It's not just long, but the lack of a traditional story means that if you're not checking the clock, you have no idea where you are in the movie.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Great. Crazy spectacular.
Acting: Great.
Music: Good. It's a big step down from the first movie (like just about everything else in this movie).
Subjective Rating: 6/10 (Okay). It's a fine movie, but I do not understand how people can compare it to the original (much less claim it's better). There's no real protagonist (Vito's too small a character to count, and Michael did all his developing in the first movie and is now just a heartless villain). There's only one scene with any emotional impact (the one between Michael and Kay), and that feels disconnected, like it's been transplanted form a different movie. There's no suspense. There's nothing to get me at all involved in the main story. What's all the fuss about?
Objective Rating: 2.7/4 (Good).

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

The Top 63 Marathon, part 60 (#4)



Data
Title: Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo
Year: 1966 (Italy), 1967 (US)
Length: 161 minutes
Director: Sergio Leone
Writers: Agenore Incrocci, Furio Scarpelli, Luciano Vincenzoni & Sergio Leone, with Mickey Knox; story by Vincenzoni & Leone
Starring: Eli Wallach, Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef
Music: Ennio Morricone
Distinctions: currently #4 on the IMDb's Top 250



My reaction
Synopsis: three outlaws are after buried Confederate gold
How I saw it: on video many times (have on DVD), most recently yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Great.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Indifferent. It's too long, but if it were faster it wouldn't work half as well.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Good.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 9/10 (One of my favorites). The finale showdown is my favorite scene in any movie. If it doesn't give you goosebumps, you need to take a long, hard look at yourself.
Objective Rating: 3.6/4 3.7/4 (Great).



[update: re-watched, 1/16/2014]

Solitary Man

Data
Title: Solitary Man
Year: 2010
Length: 90 minutes
Directors: Brian Koppelman & David Levien
Writer: Brian Koppelman
Starring: Michael Douglas
Music: Michael Penn (but mostly non-original music)

My reaction
Synopsis: after realizing he's mortal, a businessman screws up his life
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Bad. It's yet another re-write of The Wrestler, except that where that and Crazy Heart had tragically flawed lead characters with fascinating careers, this one has an unforgivable asshole car-dealer. And nobody's singing any T-Bone Burnett songs.
Story: Bad. It would be a good story, but everything good about the story is unoriginal, and [spoiler!:] he couldn't bother coming up with an ending. "Will he die? Will he redeem himself? Is there any way to end this movie that's not predictable? F**k it, I can't think of anything, I'll just let the audience fill it in."
Characters: Great. So, unforgivable asshole, right? I sympathized with him anyway. He's that well-written.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Good.
Acting: Great. I don't like Michael Douglas, and I hate his character, but I enjoyed watching him. How'd he do that?
Music: Indifferent. Yeah, they play that song. The Johnny Cash version. Over the opening credits. It's like the movie has a theme song. ("Next week on Solitary Man... dude tries to have sex with some more people.")
Subjective Rating: 6/10 (Okay). If you've seen Crazy Heart or The Wrestler, then this doesn't have much new to offer except an excuse to give Michael Douglas an Oscar nomination. But it didn't bore me. Good directing and editing. My wife says it's geared for an older audience. Perhaps that would explain why so many of the secondary characters are not immediately appalled by Douglas' character.
Objective Rating: 2.7/4 (Good).

Pulp Fiction

The Top 63 Marathon, part 59 (#5)



Data
Title: Pulp Fiction
Year: 1994
Length: 154 minutes
Director: Quentin Tarantino
Writer: Quentin Tarantino; stories by Tarantino & Roger Avary
Starring: John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson, Bruce Willis, Uma Thurman
Music: non-original music
Distinctions: Oscar for Best Original Screenplay; Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Travolta), Best Supporting Actor (Jackson), Best Supporting Actress (Thurman) and Best Editing; currently #5 on the IMDb's Top 250



My reaction
Synopsis: a few related stories revolve around an L.A. gangster
How I saw it: on video many times, most recently yesterday (rented from Netflix)
Concept: Indifferent.
Story: Great.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great. Oh, I'm sorry, did I break your concentration?
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Indifferent. I will never forgive Tarantino for casting John Travolta in this movie. A decade and a half of crap movies are all your fault, Quentin.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great). It's just so fun! Maybe that's why I don't like most gangster movies; they always want to be the next Godfather and don't bother about being any fun.
Objective Rating: 3.6/4 (Great).

Schindler's List

The Top 63 Marathon, part 58 (#6)



Data
Title: Schindler's List
Year: 1993
Length: 195 minutes
Director: Steven Spielberg
Writer: Steven Zaillian, based on the book by Thomas Keneally
Starring: Liam Neeson, Ben Kingsley, Ralph Fiennes
Music: John Williams (and non-original music)
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Score, Best Art Direction/Set Decoration and Best Editing; Oscar nominations for Best Actor (Neeson), Best Supporting Actor (Fiennes), Best Costume Design, Best Makeup and Best Sound; currently #7 on the IMDb's Top 250



My reaction
Synopsis: a WWII German businessman saves his slaves' lives
How I saw it: on video a few times, most recently yesterday (rented from Netflix)
Concept: Terrible. It is probably possible to think of a concept for a movie that I would like less. I can't do it, though; if you squeezed any more of my pet peeves into a single screenplay, it would just get silly.
Story: Indifferent. The holocaust you say? And all the main characters survive? Of course they do. It's inspirational that way.
Characters: Indifferent. There's some good development for Neeson's character, I guess. The only thing that could possibly have saved the Nazi character from being complete crap (oh, look, a sadistic Nazi commander - I bet he won't let Cinderella go to the ball) was an amazing performance by someone like Ralph Fiennes (check).
Dialog: Good.  Would have been "great," but I had to take a point off for the text blurbs.
Pacing: Indifferent. Doesn't need to be half as long, but I've been bored much more by shorter movies.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 5/10 (Indifferent). I don't know what people see in this sort of movie. Okay, this one in particular is shot really well and all that, and I was able to appreciate the craftsmanship.  But the show-people-something-horrible-that-really-happened story just seems so... easy.
Objective Rating: 2.6/4 (Good).

Battlestar Galactica: The Miniseries

Data
Title: Battlestar Galactica: The Miniseries
Year: 2003
Network: Syfy
Length: 180 minutes
Creator: Glen A. Larson
Director: Michael Rymer
Writer: Ronald D. Moore
Starring: Edward James Olmos, Mary McDonnell, Katee Sackhoff, Jamie Bamber, James Callis, Tricia Helfer
Music: Richard Gibbs

My reaction
Synopsis: evil robots try to destroy humanity... in space!
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Great.
Story: Indifferent.
Characters: Bad. They would be fine characters for an action/sci-fi adventure. They're pretty bad considering that this show's emphasis is on character drama.
Dialog: Indifferent. "Let's repeat this a few more times, just in case the audience hasn't caught on yet."
Pacing: Bad. I was bored most of the time.
Cinematography: Bad. Mediocre for the live action shots, awful for the CG shots.
Special effects/design: Bad. But then again, who's to say the interior of a giant spaceship in a distant galaxy wouldn't be made primarily of peg-board?
Acting: Indifferent. Most of the cast is passable, a few are terrible.
Music: Good. I've got to give it credit for trying so very hard to convince the audience that this show is exciting.
Subjective Rating: 5/10 (Indifferent). I really wanted to love this. I tried so hard to love it. Based on the hype, I expected something on the level of Doctor Who or Lost. At the worst, I thought, it would be on the level of Deep Space Nine. In fact, it's not even as good as the original Battlestar Galactica (or at least, not as good as the pilot). If I wasn't clinging to the hope that it would eventually live up to its reputation, I probably would have turned it off after 15 minutes. The first hour or so is just dumb and boring. It does pick up a little as it gets going, but it never quite gets good. The writer's idea of good drama is having a pretty woman kiss somebody. Yeah, that might be pretty exciting if you're 14 years old.
Objective Rating: 1.9/4 (Eh).

Raising Arizona

Data
Title: Raising Arizona
Year: 1987
Length: 94 minutes
Director: Joel Coen
Writers: Ethan Coen & Joel Coen
Starring: Nicolas Cage, Holly Hunter
Music: Carter Burwell



My reaction
Synopsis: a couple kidnaps a baby to raise as their own
How I saw it: on video, yesterday (have on DVD)
Concept: Terrible.
Story: Indifferent.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great. Overflowing with Coeny Coenness.
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Good.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great). They don't hold back any quirk. This movie is like the Coen brothers are jumping up and down, waving their arms, trying to get people's attention. Except, instead of arms, they are waving brilliant, original film-making. [note to self: avoid metaphors]
Objective Rating: 3.1/4 (Very good).

12 Angry Men

The Top 63 Marathon, part 57 (#7)



Data
Title: 12 Angry Men
Year: 1957
Length: 96 minutes
Director: Sidney Lumet
Writer: Reginald Rose
Starring: Henry Fonda, Martin Balsam, John Fiedler, Lee J. Cobb, E.G. Marshall, Jack Klugman, Edward Binns, Jack Warden, Joseph Sweeney, Ed Begley, George Voskovec, Robert Webber
Music: Kenyon Hopkins
Distinctions: Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay; currently #8 on the IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: jurors deliberate on a murder trial with mandatory death penalty
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Great.
Story: Great.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great. Nothing but a bunch of guys talking to each other, and you're on the edge of your seat.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Good.
Acting: Great.
Music: Indifferent. It's good music, but every time it cuts in (which is not often) is an unwelcome intrusion.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great) 9/10 (One of my favorites). I say "nothing but a bunch of guys talking to each other," but honestly, I can't think of anything I'd rather see in a movie than really gripping conversation. I don't know if it's hard to pull off, or if it's just hard to sell, but it's a shame there aren't more movies like this.
Objective Rating: 3.7/4 3.8/4 (Great).

[edit: re-watched 10/5/2012]

Peter Pan

Data
Title: Peter Pan
Year: 1953
Length: 77 minutes
Directors: Clyde Geronimi, Wilfred Jackson & Hamilton Luske
Writers: Ted Sears, Erdman Penner, Bill Peet, Winston Hibler, Joe Rinaldi, Milt Banta, Ralph Wright & William Cottrell, based on the play by J.M. Barrie
Starring: Bobby Driscoll, Kathryn Beaumont, Hans Conried, Bill Thompson
Music: Oliver Wallace (score); Sammy Fain, Sammy Cahn, Oliver Wallace, Erdman Penner, Frank Churchill, Ted Sears & Winston Hibler (songs)

My reaction
Synopsis: three children follow Peter Pan to Neverland
How I saw it: on video a couple times, most recently yesterday (have on VHS)
Concept: Great. A Disney movie based on one of the best books ever written. What could go wrong?
Story: Bad. How did they manage to twist Peter Pan into a story about how all women are petty, jealous bitches? (And how completely awful must Song of the South be if they keep that hidden away and let this one out?)
Characters: Bad.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Indifferent.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Good. Great design, mediocre animation.
Acting: Good.
Music: Bad. Great score, terrible songs.
Subjective Rating: 6/10 (Okay). Disposable cartoon antics interspersed with tedious singing. Bonus point for letting Captain Hook shoot one of the tedious singers.
Objective Rating: 2.2/4 (Okay).

Doctor Who #79: Revenge of the Cybermen

Data
Title: Doctor Who: “Revenge of the Cybermen”
Year: 1975
Network: BBC
Episodes: 4, at 25 minutes each; the last story (of five) from season twelve
Creators: Sydney Newman, C.E. Webber, Donald Wilson
Director: Michael E. Briant
Writer: Gerry Davis
Starring: Tom Baker, Elisabeth Sladen, Ian Marter
Music: Ron Grainer (theme); Carey Blyton

My reaction
Synopsis: a conspiracy involves a space outpost, an inhabited moon of Jupiter, and an approaching Cyberman ship
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Indifferent.
Story: Indifferent. Nice plot ideas, poorly executed.
Characters: Indifferent.
Dialog: Indifferent. A lot is bad, but Baker gets a few fun lines.
Pacing: Indifferent.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Good. Obviously rubber masks, but nicely designed as obvious rubber masks go.  Great sets and locations.
Acting: Indifferent.
Music: Indifferent.  I actually liked a lot of it, but it's not performed well and the mix is terrible.
Subjective Rating: 6/10 (Okay). It's fine. Apart from a few plot holes, there's nothing terribly wrong with it, apart from the lack of anything terribly right with it. Just not engaging.
Objective Rating: 2.1/4 (Okay).

Doctor Who: Series Five

Data
Title: Doctor Who: The Complete Fifth Series
Year: 2010
Network: BBC
Episodes: 13, at 45-65 minutes each
Creators: Sydney Newman, C.E. Webber, Donald Wilson
Directors: Adam Smith (3 episodes), Andrew Gunn (2), Jonny Campbell (2), Catherine Morshead (2), Ashley Way (2), Toby Haynes (2)
Writers: Steven Moffat (6 episodes), Chris Chibnall (2), Mark Gatiss (1), Toby Whithouse (1), Simon Nye (1), Richard Curtis (1), Gareth Roberts (1); with characters by Terry Nation
Starring: Matt Smith, Karen Gillan
Music: Ron Grainer (theme), Murray Gold



My reaction
Synopsis: a mysterious alien travels through space and time with a human girl
How I saw it: online as it aired (Spring 2010); on video over the past week or two (have on DVD)
Concept: Great.
Story: Good. Most episodes are great. Three of them are kind of bad, and the attempt at a season-long story arc is annoying.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Good. Good design, but the special effects have regressed a few years.
Acting: Good. Smith hasn't got anything on David Tennant's acting chops. Don't get me wrong, though, he's perfect casting for The Doctor. Really great acting is inevitably going to humanize the character. Tennant's performances could move you to tears, but that took the character in a very un-Doctorly direction. This time around, they leave the tear-jerking responsibilities to great directing, writing and guest stars, and let the Doctor be an alien.
Music: Indifferent. I'm getting the feeling that Murray Gold has done what he can do with this show, and they're over-due to bring in somebody new. What he did in the first series was absolutely brilliant, and he's had some fun re-imagining things over the years, but he's kind of failed to adapt to the "new" show. He gets some points for attempting something new, but loses them immediately for putting the Who Wants to Be a Millionaire music in my head.
Subjective Rating: 10/10 (Favorite of my favorites). They had a great opportunity to re-invent the series, to make Steven Moffat's Doctor Who as different from Russel T. Davies' Doctor Who as Davies' was different from the classic show. I mean, they've got a completely new cast, new producers and a new head writer. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure there wasn't ever such a complete, simultaneous change-over in key Doctor Who personnel throughout the classic show's entire history. But at the same time, I don't think a change in Doctor Who personnel has ever had less impact on the feel of the show. I mean, apart from the new Doctor*, the occasional nod and wink to William Hartnell, and the lack of obligatory gay characters, nothing's really changed. It's still as great as it ever was, and the quality of individual episodes might be a bit higher than before, on average (but it's hard to say - the Silurian story brings it down quite a bit). Perhaps, with the ridiculous success of the show, they felt obligated to carry on with the old formula. But the beauty of Doctor Who is that it changes; not just The Doctor, but the entire show. So where's my new era?
Objective Rating: 3.3/4 3.4/4 (Very good).



*This is my first proper New Doctor (when I started watching the show, Tennant had already done a series (and by the time I caught up with everything (or, at least, everything on region 1 DVD), he'd done two series)) which is a big deal so I should comment. So far I like Smith's take on The Doctor. Whatever that take is. Who is the eleventh Doctor? As I noted above, he's alien - probably more alien than even the fourth Doctor was - but what are his other defining characteristics? Doctor Four was alien and witty; Doctor Eleven is alien and... what? Fumbling? Reckless? Goofy? Can you even tell from a single series?

I've noticed that whenever The Doctor regenerates, his new personality overcompensates for his previous personality's major flaws. For instance, the second Doctor was terrified of everything, in place of the first Doctor's reckless curiosity. So I'd like to think that, in place of the tenth Doctor's near-crippling loneliness and tendency to fall in love with humans, the eleventh Doctor is someone who can completely forget that the people around him are there. He's the Doctor who leaves Amy waiting for 14 years while he breaks in the TARDIS, who runs off without ever looking to see if you're following, who lets people get attacked while his back is turned, and who tells a blinded companion surrounded by evil aliens to wait there while he goes to save the day because she would only slow him down. Then again, I could be completely wrong, and he could be the goofy weirdo who eats fish custard, wants to wear a fez, and dances badly at weddings.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

The Top 63 Marathon, part 56 (#8)



Data
Title: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Year: 1975
Length: 133 minutes
Director: Milos Forman
Writers: Lawrence Hauben & Bo Goldman; play by Dale Wasserman; based on the novel by Ken Kesey
Starring: Jack Nicholson, Louise Fletcher, William Redfield, Brad Dourif, Will Sampson
Music: Jack Nitzsche (and non-original music)
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Actor (Nicholson) and Best Actress (Fletcher); Oscar nominations for Best Supporting Actor (Dourif), Best Cinematography, Best Score and Best Editing; currently #9 on the IMDb's Top 250



My reaction
Synopsis: an apparently sane convict is transferred to a mental hospital
How I saw it: on video many times, most recently yesterday (rented from Netflix)
Concept: Great.
Story: Good.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great.
Music: Indifferent. Kind of a schizophrenic soundtrack (no pun intended).
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great). One of my biggest movie pet-peeves is the Nurse Ratched character: the unrelatable villain who exists for the sole purpose of committing gross injustices against innocent characters, thereby uniting the easily manipulated members of the audience with the protagonist in their common hatred of something absurdly easy to hate - the Nazi Commanders or the Wicked Step Mothers of the fictional world. It's really a testament to how great this movie is that even though it's the quintessential example of that type of character device, it still works, and I don't roll my eyes even a little.
Objective Rating: 3.4/4 (Very good).