Recommended: Middleweights, Tier 2
Submitted by jim on Thu, 05/24/2001 - 12:20
Tags:
- Almost Famous (2000) ... A happy combination of a very good script and very good performances. A comic and lightly poignant coming-of-age story.
- Braveheart (1995) ... A pretty darn entertaining revenge picture. The real Wallace may have been more motivated by a desire for freedom, but this Wallace is an avenger. The movie tries to have it both ways, and succeeds if you turn a blind eye to the slight-of-hand. Perhaps Gibson thought revenge as a motive wasn't heroic enough. Still, great battles and a nice cut-and-dry good guys vs. bad guys story, if you dig that kind of thing in our shades-of-grey age.
- The City of Lost Children (1995) ... Visually stunning. Manages to be bizarre, creepy, and touching at the same time.
- Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000) ... "Best movies of the decade?" Hardly. But still pretty darn good. Beautifully shot, and the suppressed romance between Chow Yun Fat and Michelle Yeoh is terrific. If the rest of the story worked as well, this one would have been truly special.
- Delicatessen (1991) ... I remember hearing about this movie - "A travelling clown gets hired at a sinister post-apocalyptic diner." I had to see it, and I wasn't disappointed.
- El Mariachi (1992) ... I still have some clear images from this movie in my head - one as our hero skids (on foot) around a corner. I thought it was visually interesting, and a very good take on the mistaken identity theme.
- Gattaca (1997) ... Science fiction without blasters or explosions. An excellent story. If you could compare books and movies, I prefer this to Brave New World.
- Ghost Dog (1999) ... Forrest Whitaker floats through this movie with such serenity, he makes you want to be a hit man. The assembled cast of characters makes this movie; I especially enjoyed his friendship with the ice cream vendor (they don't speak each other's language, and yet communicate perfectly).
- Gladiator (2000) ... I've flip-flopped several times on this movie. The editing in some of the action scenes really bothers me. And so does the obviousness of some of the CGI. But I love Russell Crowe, and the story of Maximus as a tragic figure rather than an action hero works for me.
- Glengarry Glen Ross (1992) ... Good gravy what a cast: Jack Lemmon, Al Pacino, Ed Harris, Alan Arkin, Kevin Spacey, Alec Baldwin, and Jonathan Pryce. Unsurprisingly Jack Lemmon stands out as he delivers a spectacular performance, especially in the way he just deflates in his moments of defeat. But I was perhaps more struck by how much Jonathan Pryce does with so little. Very impressive, and I think I completely overlooked his performance this first time I watched this. Having dissed Mamet's direction so often, I really have to give him credit here for his faulous script.
- Gone With the Wind (1939) ... I avoided this movie for the longest time. Since so many old movies slip through the cracks of my mind, I didn't think a four-hour long movie made in 1939 and set around the Civil War (mostly) would be anything but a drag. I was so wrong. Truly epic, and involving throughout. And I never would have expected, in a 1939 movie, such moral ambiguity in our main characters (not that I've seen that many movies from the late 30s/early 40s).
- Gosford Park (2001) ... My wife and I have lately been enjoying "quaint English protocol" movies (my phrase, not hers) and this is no exception. This is meatier than most, and I think we invested about an hour in the first 20 minutes trying to figure out who everybody was (even taking a break to review the DVD "whos who"). It was time well-spent, as it made the rest of the movie even more enjoyable than it would have been otherwise. For my money, Altman's best movie since The Player (although I should fully disclose that these two movies are the only Altman movies I have any real affection for). Telling an Agatha Christie movie through the eyes of the servants is a wonderful device, and it's pulled off beautifully here. I love it when a script and a cast come together so well.
- Hero (2002) ... I may move this up after another rewatch or two, but for now I'm still a bit disquieted by the seeming thematic endorsement of peace through subjugation. A good friend of mine, and a student of Asian culture, assures me that I need to understand how important this concept is in Chinese history, not just to the government, but the people as well. Certainly there is no easy answer to the question of what's better: to have many warring factions and chaos, or peace under the heavy hand of the victor, and I think the movie does a good job expressing that problem. But enough politics! While this may have the loftiest ambitions of any kung fu movie I've seen, it's still a kung fu movie. As I've written before I'm not usually a big fan of wire-fu, but the choreography here is so graceful it's entrancing (and befitting of such sumptuous cinematography). Jet Li's rather expressionless performance worked for me nonetheless, and everyone else was terrific, even if the characters were more shallowly drawn than I'm used to in a Zhang Yimou movie (I do wonder even more if the rumors of Miramax pressuring him to cut 20 minutes are true). The color-coded Rashomon structure is anything but subtle, but I loved it. Update: I've been thinking about this more off-and-on. I don't have much to add at the moment, but I did find some interesting reading here, here, and here.
- Hoosiers (1986) ... A great sports movie, and Hackman's coaching style reminds me quite a bit of my high school basketball days, so it has sentimental value as well.
- The Hudsucker Proxy (1995) ... I always kinda though this Coen brothers movie got short shrift. I watch it as a dark screwball comedy, and I can't find a thing to complain about. And it has Paul Newman and Tim Robbins in it, fer cryin' out loud!
- Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) ... I have to see this again before commenting, but I remember really liking it. The Insider (1999) ... This is another movie I passed over at the video store many times, thinking it would be boring. I was wrong to wait. Engrossing as only a well-told true story can be (well, "true" within the limitations of a dramatized account). Rent this on the heels of LA Confidential just to watch Russell Crowe transform.
- The Lady Vanishes (1938) ... Everything about this movie has aged well - the comedy, the suspense, the performances, the direction. The first act is so funny and lacking in suspense I was constantly saying to myself, "this is Hitchcock?" I can't think of another example of an opening act that is so different in tone from the rest of the movie without feeling dissonant. Great fun from beginning to end.
- Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998) ... A series of crimes all converge around our bumbling heros, four buddies find themselves in debt to a notorious gangster. Enjoyable characters, great dialog, villians you love to hate, and shot with almost manic energy. If I could pick a director to adapt Carl Hiaasen's, I'd by Guy Ritchie.
- The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962) ... It's hard to articulate why I liked this movie. I think it was the tension between Jimmy Stewart and John Wayne that really worked for me, but the rest of the cast helped as well. While I certainly like living in a world governed by Stewart's ideals, I couldn't help but admire Wayne more. Interesting. As an aside, my wife and I couldn't really tell why the town didn't just arrest or hang Lee Marvin, since he was nothing but trouble, and was constantly coming into town with only one or two other outlaws for backup. Diffusion of social responsibility, I guess.
- Memento (2000) ... I've read rare complaints that telling a story backwards is just a gimmick, and it doesn't make an uninteresting story interesting. First off, what in movie-making isn't a gimmick? Second off, the story (interesting to begin with) is made more interesting by telling it backward. The story is such that we can start with the finale, and immediately form conclusions, only to have those conclusions undermined as the story unfolds in reverse. A gimmick it may be, but it was highly successful here. I definitely have to watch this one at least one more time.
- Minority Report (2002) ... A fine, fine near-future vision. I never thought I'd see the day where somebody's eyeballs would roll across the floor in a Speilberg movie, but that day has come. It's also a treat to see a movie with beautiful F/X that blends seamlessly into the work rather than distracting from it or overshadowing it. Speilberg has a penchant for throwing false endings at his viewers, and this movie is no exception, but here, as in A.I., it works for me. I may be in the *ahem*... minority in both cases though. Finally, my wife made a funny observation that the transparent computer monitors sure do look cool, but boy what a pain they'd be to use. We joked that if you stocked a real office with such monitors, they'd all have black construction paper taped to the back. Of course, I'm betting in this case the device was chosen because it lets us see the actor's faces as much as for the shiny futuristic look. Anyway, I'm thinking fans of this should seek out A.I. and vice versa. It's been a good decade for Speilbergian science fiction so far!
- Moulin Rouge! (2001) ... I watched the first 40 minutes of this movie with a look of slack-jawed wonder on my face. It took me awhile to figure out if I was enchanted or aghast. After watching the whole thing, and getting sucked into the love story, I've decided it was enchantment. I bet I'd like it even more the second time around.
- Notorious (1946) ... Very enjoyable Hitchcock. I was struck by how suspenseful some of the scenes were, particularly for such an early movie. I did think Cary Grant's character was too much of a jerk for the ending to satisfy me completely, but that's a fairly minor criticism.
- O Brother Where Art Thou? (2000) ... I like all the Coen Brothers comedies except The Big Lebowski , but this one leapt to the head of the class (not counting the noirs). Witty, engaging, and beautifully shot with terrific music.
- The Princess and the Warrior (2000) ... Another (without retreading the same ground) excellent misfit romance from Tykwer (Run Lola Run). Slow to build, but increasingly engaging as the plot unfolds. Excellent performances all around, interestingly filmed without being showy, and some very memorable sequences.
- Red River (1948) ... It's really a shame about the cringe-inducing women characters and their dialog, which cripple the very beginning and very end of this film. Otherwise this would be in contention for the top tier. As it is, I loved most of it. John Wayne's best performance of those I've seen, and Mongomery Clift was very good. His was a surprisingly effective and understated performance considering the era.
- The Right Stuff (1983) ... Another movie that I can't believe I delayed watching. I love true stories told well. And truth trumps fiction, as this movie has it all over movies like Armageddon and Space Cowboys. I do think it waned a bit in the final 20%, but this certainly didn't detract much from this 3-hour movie that felt like 2.
- Rio Bravo (1959) ... I cut my teeth on Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns, and I'm only now starting to fill in the John Wayne hole in my western education. After watching countless Eastwood man-with-no-name entrances that immediate put his prowess on display (Eastwood, perhaps conscious of this, falls face-first into pig-shit when we first meet him in Unforgiven), it's refreshing to see a western where the hero's entrance is decidedly more human (knocked cold by a drunk inside of 10 seconds). A very good western, although quite different than what I'm used to - much more character-driven, and with with greater emotional range than the greed- and revenge-driven plots I grew up on. Everyone was very good, and to my surprise Dean Martin in particular stood out.
- Run Lola Run (1998) ... Hyperkinetic, Groundhog Dayesque, and a fine fine off-kilter romance.
- Sleepy Hollow (1999) ... As more time passes, this one keeps bumping itself up my personal ranking of Tim Burton movies. I have to watch it again to see if I'm glamorizing it, but in my mind's eye it looms large as visually sumptious and a ton of fun.
- Strangers on a Train (1951) ... Nothing kills a movie like this for me quicker than observing our hero's plight and thinking, "why doesn't he just tell the police everything?" This movie handles that plausibly, so instead you wonder "how's he going to get out of this?" I was quite struck by how good the cast was, and while I suspected suspense, I had no idea the movie would end with such a terrific action scene.
- Suicide Kings (1998) ... While there's some violence, this is an enjoyable "gangster lite" movie. Walken is well-cast, as are the preppie-looking actors that kidnap him. And as a bonus, Denis Leary gets to beat people up and be funny at the same time.
- Sunshine State (2002) ... John Sayles is quite amazing. I've seen a good chunk of his movies from Matewan on, and there isn't a bad movie in the bunch. I always wonder what the secret is of those few directors that just never miss (I'm thinking a pact with the devil is involved). Here Sayles again effectively captures a regional tale of intersecting lives and interests, this time centered around some Florida beach front developers are eyeing. We don't see much of the developers, but we expect plenty of sleaze from them, what with one being Miguel Ferrer ("Bob" from Robocop) and another being Sam McMurray ("Glen" from Raising Arizona). That, combined with my Hiaasen-influenced sensibilities led me to believe this would be lopsided David-and-Goliath tale, but it was enjoyably understated--almost as even-handed as you can be when it comes to Florida developers. Edie Falco completely disappears into her role as the small town local who never left, and the rest of the cast is uniformly strong. I must say though, their jobs must be easier with Sayles writing the dialog.
- Twelve Monkeys (1995) ... Having just seen NYC underwater in AI I'm reminded of the animals roaming free in NYC here. I remember this movie fondly as the first time I realized Brad Pitt could act, and Bruce Willis could do more than Moonlight. Not Gilliam's best, but certainly a good showing.
- Twelve O'Clock High (1949) ... Gregory Peck is probably by favorite actor from this era. Loved him here, as the hard-nosed general that, out of necessity, drives his men to the limits of human endurance. Peck's portrayal of General Savage's necessarily-repressed affection for his men is wonderful.
- Witness (1985) ... It's been too long, but I remember liking almost everything about this movie: the performances, the fish-out-of-water dramatic and comedic themes, and the romantic tension. Could this be Ford's best non-SF/swashbuckler/action role? I haven't seen all his movies, but I think so.
- Y Tu Mamá También (2001) ... Impressive; a movie dominated by sex that didn't feel exploitative or titillating. It just seemed real, and not only more frank than I expect in the movies, but more frank than I expect in real life. While sex runs through the whole movie, it's not the raison d'etre here. It's as much about friendship and love and living your life as anything else, and Cuarón manages to make it into a Mexico travelogue at the same time. The leads are excellent, but even characters that are practically extras seem rich, from the women working in the restaurant to the fisherman and his family. Regarding the latter, if Cuarón told me "I bet you $20 I can introduce you to some characters, give them maybe five minutes of screen time, only one of the them will have any significant lines, and then they'll disappear from the movie, their future sketched out in a few lines of voiceover, and you'll care about them", I wouldn't believe him, and I'd be out $20.
- Yojimbo (1961) ... It's easy to see why this movie has been remade twice. In the great Toshiro Mifune/Clint Eastwood/Bruce Willis showdown, Mifune gets my vote. I loved the little touches that showed how village life was affected/disrupted by the violence. And the cooper's fluctuating fortunes were particularly amusing/telling (lamenting, "when the fight gets too big, they don't bother with coffins").
Author Comments:
If you're going to use these lists for recommendations, you really should read how they're organized.
Jim, glad you enjoyed FINAL DESTINATION. I'm eager to read your comments on OCTOBER SKY, THE PEOPLE VS LARRY FLYNT, and SLEEPY HOLLOW. Or have you commented on these elsewhere?
Nope, it's just taking awhile for me to add comments to all my lists. What I'm generally doing is waiting to add a movie to a list, and then while I'm in there overhauling to the new format (for example, last night I added Panic to this list, and at the same time commented on the other movies already there). But this one was too long to do in one sitting, so I only got halfway through. I'll finish it up soon.
I see we agree on Final Destination. My expectations were quite low, and I was pleasantly surprised. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to fans of the genre, and even to those that are indifferent to the genre.
Neat list jim.. I see a few on here I would consider heavyweights however (i.e. People vs. Larry Flint, The Professional..).
You're right. I've moved 'em.
Thanks. You are Johnny on the spot bro. It looks like I'll be on the computer a little more often now. I stay with my sisters boyfriends mother (?). She has a computer that I can use semi-regularly.
Cool - nice to hear we'll be seeing more of you!
Who-hoo! Another Moulin Rouge fan.
And I can completely relate to your comments. The beginning is so gloriously over the top, you're not really quite sure how to take it all. You keep waiting for the eventual deflation any second. Luckily, the film keeps its steam.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I just came up with a theory that most folks that don't like this film are alienated by the opening. After the first 30 or 40 minutes it settles down and is more accessible, but by then, for some, it's too late. But if you're hooked by the opening, you're hooked for life.
Yes, everybody quits right before it gets good. I know of 3 people, 1 singleton and 1 couple that quit around the 30 minute mark. That's right before Ewan goes into the Elephant to meet with Satine which is when it gets really good for me.
I do have another theory (albeit a really weird one) that you have to be in love or falling in love to appreciate this movie, too.
I think I like your theory better.
Jim we seem to be viewing many of the same films. I have Moulin Rouge lined up for a Sunday viewing. My wife very much wants to see it and that is the first time our schedules match up. I will let you know my thoughts
Some of our overlap is coincidence, and some is because I'm stealing recommendations from your "Damn" list. I rented The Claim (which I couldn't get through - almost certainly my fault) and The Grand Illusion (which I loved) after reading your writeups.
Here's where we disagree. Having seen AI last weekend (followed this weekend by a repeat viewing of LOTR, what a contrast!) I can say--as a diehard sci fi fan--that AI was indeed visually stunning but preposterous in so many ways as to insult the viewer's intelligence. What tech firm would entrust such an important new product (David) to an employee and his spouse without carefully preparing everyone in advance, checking up on progress, asking questions, and tracking David's whereabouts? That's just for openers.
SPOILER BELOW
How many endings does one movie need? Perhaps the 'underwater' ending didn't sit well with audiences so the newer ending was tacked on?
This movie was overly long without real purpose, had more holes than a well-aged Swiss cheese, and generally failed to deliver on a wonderful premise The best part was seeing NYC, as Jim rightfully notes. Oh well....when will a good movie adaptation of "Ender's Game" finally come out???!
Where would we be without disagreement? A bunch of complacent sheep, we'd be! So let's disagree . . .
In every computer application I've developed, the product is released as a pilot test before being released to the general population. It's important to see how the product will behave in a real world sample, without oversight. It's the only way to expose bugs. The more you meddle, the less valid your pilot test. So I have no problem with a company doing a "real world" test via as controlled an environment as possible (an employee who ostensibly wants to keep his job).
And they were tracking David. William Hurt says so when they meet up in NY. And he expresses surprise that David was able to "lose" them. Sure, perhaps they should have embedded a tracking device instead of relying on less foolproof surveillance, but this seems like a quibble. And it relates to my next point, namely the blindness and hubris of David's creators...
As for the movie being overly long without purpose, it's clear that David's inventors never truly understood (or cared about) the consequenses for David in making him capable of love (and therefore pain). It's the classic "science doesn't ask if it should, just if it can" theme. This, of course, is one of the major themes of the movie and most SF I know of that deals with artificial intelligence. To say the movie has no real purpose disregards this theme, along with some decent meditations on what it means to be alive. The film is (to me) a fine answer to many classic "how would society treat an artificial intelligence" questions (answer: not well). As for plot holes, the only one I can't fill is the whole "universe providing memory" thing, but again, this seems minor given everything else I thought was well-done and plausible enough.
I'm so glad to see that someone else liked Gattaca. I've been thinking of putting together a list of movies that have affected or articulated my own personal philosophies (if I can ever figure out how to properly define this category), and this movie fits the bill. The part I'm referrin to is when Ethan Hawke's character tells the story of the swimming contests he used to have with his brother and win. When asked how he did it, since he was genetically inferior to his brother, he responded that he never saved anything for the way back. That story has really stuck with me.
Cool. I think Gattaca is generally under-appreciated, and I agree that the "swimming" scene was memorable. I'll be keeping an eye out for your list!
Jim, I'm glad you agree that A.I. is up there with the greats of sf cinema. Yes, it is remarkable how well Speilberg has imitated Kubrick's style. This is a much misunderstood movie, as was Kubrick's 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY; and what people don't understand they denigrate.
Many people have an impoverished concept of what cinema can do; they see it as entertainment, full stop, and they are not entertained by having their cosy mind sets confronted with new ideas.
Btw, in TOMBSTONE Val Kilmer played Doc Holliday. I think it was Michael J. Fox who played Doc Hollywood in the movie of that name.
Bertie, so you are saying that anyone who didn't like A.I. just doesn't understand it and has an impoverished concept of what cinema can do?
No, of course I'm not saying that. Someone who understands the movie (or any movie) might have respectable reasons for not liking it. But I wouldn't respect someone whose criticism is based on the attitude that cinema has no other purpose than entertainment and who denigrates movies that are designed to do more than entertain.
Sounds good to me!
For the record I thought AI had a lot of great concepts in it but it just didn't work for me as a whole, at least not enough for me to give it a "good" (7/10) rating. I ended up giving it an "OK" (6/10) rating.
It's very possible that I am being too hard on it because I had really high expectations going in. Both Kubrick and Spielberg (especially Stanley) are favorites of mine and I thought any collaboration between them would be instantly recognizable (to me at least, if not the general movie going public) as brilliant. Since it didn't "blow me away" maybe that letdown played a part in my impression of it.
I think Spielberg did do a good job of "channeling" Stanley and am sure that he stuck very close to Kubrick's original vision. The problem for me is that I don't think Kubrick's vision cuts it in this day and age. I really think his seemingly agoraphobic nature in later years made him out of touch with the world and filmmaking in general. In some ways that's a good thing but he only directed 3 movies in the last 23 years of his life. For someone who was as consistently good as he was that's a shame.
It is regrettable that Kubrick wasn't more productive in his last two decades. It could be that he had trouble finding prospects that really got him enthused. He was was getting on in years, and the older you get the harder it is to get enthused - or so I understand ;)
Ha! Doc Hollywood. That's quite a gaffe. I should leave it like that. I don't think Tombstone would have been quite the same movie with Michael J. Fox is Doc Holliday. Tee hee. Okay, fun's over. I'm going to fix it now. Thanks for pointing it out!
2001 is, quite unlike AI, a masterpiece of cinema--not only a fabulous exploration of theme and character but much more stunning when you consider the technical constraints compared with the high-tech possibilities open to AI's makers. Even after decades, 2001 holds up on rescreening again and again. AI, in contrast, focuses on an interesting and important topic--yes, David's makers really did fail to understand the emotional impact on him--but the movie stacks the deck so ploddingly and egregiously that it blunts the point, IMHO. Bottom line, for me: bad script, not bad cinema.
Interesting . . . What do you mean by "the movie stacks the deck"? Could you be more specific?
As one example: David finally reaches NYC and meets his maker, who leaves David ALONE while saying he wants to gather the team to hear all about David's travels. A high-tech, sophisticated executive in a high-tech place has to go out of the room to do this? Never heard of phones, intercoms, e-mails, etc.? This is so clearly a moment engineered for plot purposes that it stacks the deck. Lazy scriptwriting…
Perhaps I'm giving the script too much credit, but I thought that scene was intentional, and not merely a plot device. I thought the point was the even Professor Hobby, David's inventor, had no real appreciation of the fact that they have created LIFE, not just a machine that can love without independence or free will. Even though he KNOWS David has exhibited independent thought, and has expressed pain, hurt, and anger in addition to love, he still can't quite bring himself to believe he's not dealing with anything more than a souped-up robot. Years of conditioning has led him to assume that when you tell a robot "stay right here", that's what the robot is going to do. The thought that David might commit suicide rather than wait around for his debriefing is inconceivable to him. Come to think of it, I imagine that's why the professor's last name is "Hobby" - it suggests a certain shallowness of thought or involvement.
Jim, glad you liked Rio Bravo. It is very good but why the surprise at liking Dean Martin? He is definitely one of the most underrated actors in the history of movies. I really hope Scorcese reconsiders and does his Dino biopic someday. A fascinating guy and a real good actor.
I think it is exactly because he is generally underrated that I was pleasantly surprised. Since the only other movie I've seen him in is Cannonball Run, I was relying mostly on reputation in my assumptions. What else of his would you recommend I see?
Off the top of my head, I can say watch Wilder's Kiss me Stupid. This is where the bumbling drunk routine came from. A very funny movie. Also 5 Card Stud is a well done western with both Dean Martin and Robert Mitchum (who will always be linked together for playing the bumbling drunks in John Wayne's Rio movies. Martin in Rio Bravo and Mitchum in the remake Rio Lobo. There is also another pretty good Wayne western called The Sons of Katie Elder.
He was always the best thing about the Martin and Lewis movies and he was also the best thing about The Rat Pack movies. Especially 3 Seargents and Ocean's Eleven.
I wish to correct my earlier statemnt that the Mitchum Wayne movie was called Rio Lobo. The remake was actually called El Dorado. Rio Lobo was another inferior Wayne Western.
Jim, forgive me, I can't remember if we have discussed this before, but have you seen Short Cuts?
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I doubt it, as I'm sure I'd remember the polite chastisement I'm about to recieve. :-)
My wife and I agreed that we were too bored to go on about 20 or 30 minutes in to Short Cuts. Coming on the heels of The Player, which we both enjoyed, we were pretty excited for Short Cuts, so this was a bit surprising. This was almost 10 years ago though, and now that I have a better sense of what I will dub "The 30-Minute Robert Altman Trial by Fire that You Have to Survive at the Beginning of His Movies" phenomenon, perhaps we should give it another shot?
:)
Yeah, for my money, I'll say that Nashville, Short Cuts, and The Player are the three Altmans one must see. I suppose one should see M*A*S*H as well, but as I'm not really a big fan of that one... Maybe I'll rewatch it now that it is on DVD.
The Long Goodbye is also worth investigating.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I just read your Gosford Park review, and I see you liked it although not as much as I did. I can live with that. :-) We definitely see eye-to-eye where The Player is concerned, though.
Of course I'll have to give Short Cuts another try, since you think so highly of it. And I know I've never tried Nashville, so that'll have to go on the list as well.
I could spend a lifetime trying to catch up with you and the other Listology regulars.
Jim, have you ever watched any of Kurosawa's non-period films, like Tengoku to jigoku (1963) (aka High and Low)? Just curious...
Not yet. Have you? Any recommendations?
Yes. I would definitely recommend the aforementioned High and Low.
A few things to keep in mind however. It's long, 143 minutes, not a lot happen in the course of the film, and it has the type of ending that wouldn't sit well with most Western audiences.
Since you are familiar with Kurosawa already, I don't see you having any issue with the ending. It's more of a forewarning for others who might read this.
Definitely recommended!
I'll second his recommendation. Frankly, one of my favorite Kurosawa films!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Thanks fellas! It's now on my "to see" list.
L, do you concur with my comment regarding the end of High and Low?
Absolutely. I can imagine many people loving the first half and hating the second. Which, of course, would be too bad.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Joel Grey's performance in Cabaret is honestly one of my favorite performances of all time. What superb work.
Yeah, he was great! I knew I was in for an unusual treat with that opening shot of his distorted smiling reflection.
On Gattaca:
>If you could compare books and movies, I prefer this to Brave New World.
Seriously, Jim? I'm surprised. Gattaca was a decent movie, but better than Brave New World? Meh, I don't know. I don't consider myself a science fiction fan, so maybe that plays a role? I was just happy that I actually enjoyed a book considered science fiction, so maybe I'm remembering it as better than it was.
Yup, although I expect to be pretty much alone in that opinion, given what a mediocre reception Gattaca received critically, and given that Brave New World is a classic 'n all that. But I've always felt Brave New World was a bit overrated.