Those are all terrific, but they're all neo-noirs

I actually do think Casablanca has depth, but no I don't think Some Like It Hot is a "great" film. And North by Northwest is fun, but doesn't Vertigo offer more? As for Jaws, I've watched that movie 300 times ever since I was a kid, so it's hard to view it in an objective light, but isn't it hard to put it on the same pedestal as Schindler's List?

Now there's a caveat here -- I'm not going by "depth," for lack of a better word, alone. I think Munich is deeper than Jaws by far, but I think Jaws is the better film. My point is just that the truly great films should have style and depth

Death Race 2000

I've been hearing about this movie since the start of my teens and curiousity finally got the best of me. It deserves its campy reputation. I probably would have enjoyed this movie with a few friends and more than a few beers in my younger days, but it doesn't do much for the old sober me. Some of the resistance tactics made it a little interesting and even slightly clever at times. 3/10.

OLDBOY

Found this to be a pretty interesting story. I enjoyed the gradual reveal more than the usual sudden unexpected twist that is usually used. The version I watched was voiced in english, which always comes off as somewhat cheesy to me when a movie is based in a non-english speaking location and all of its characters are natives. I know most South Koreans probably do speak english well, but it still doesn't feel right for the environment. Although appropriate for the characters and story, some of the violence was a bit uncomfortable. 7/10

The Sum of Us - a 1994 Aussie dramatic comedy featuring a young Russell Crowe playing (gasp) an attractive but somewhat shy gay man who lives with his supportive (almost to a fault) father played by Jack Thompson. It's very clear that this had it's roots on the stage; the film is very talky (although not in a pretentious manner, the dialogue is mostly intelligent but never obtuse) and the characters very often break the fourth wall. This particular gimmick is entertaining at first but it becomes a little overused by the end of the film. Also, while the film is mostly successful at combining comedy with drama, there are times when some of the humor threatens to cross the line of decency (for example, we find out that the father is so encouraging of his son's sexual preferences that he even goes out of his way to buy porno magazines for him). Still, there is a lot to admire about this film. It certainly gets things right when it comes to its depiction of relationships; I particularly appreciated the interaction between Jeff (Crowe) and his potential partner, Greg (John Polson). The way these two attempt to communicate with each other and break down the walls of shyness that exist between the two of them represent some of the films most touching moments. The interaction between father and son is also believably captured - there is no doubt that these two can get on each others' nerves from time to time (the especially with the father's unintentional meddling with the son's potential love partners) but their relationship is mostly easygoing. It's very clear that these two have always been open and honest with one another; there is none of the discord and dysfunction that comes with many cinematic depictions of families, especially in Hollywood-based productions. The film successfully keeps its tone light even during the most serious moments. There is none of the melodrama and overt manipulation that one would expect from this sort of film; when this film pulls at the heartstrings, it does so very subtly. (*** out of ****)

A Serious Man - This was the Coen Brothers' follow-up to Burn After Reading (which, in turn, was the follow-up to their Oscar-winning success No Country for Old Men) and even for these off-center filmmakers, this is a most atypical effort. I was able to understand most of it but there were moments (particularly, the opening prologue) that didn't seem to have any connection to the main thrust of the story and the ending was even more abrupt than that of the 2007 Best Picture Winner. There are plenty of low-key chuckles and, in true Cohen Brothers' fashion, there are several "didn't see that coming"-type moments that will throw the viewer off-balance. Also, since this takes places within a largely Jewish community during the 1960's, there is plenty of religious nomenclature that is used from time to time although most of it is give ample enough explanation to where non-Jewish viewers will not be completely lost. Still, after finishing the film, I couldn't help but wonder what the hell I had just watched!!!????

About Schmidt- Definitely not the best film on Alexander Payne's resume but it's still a very worthwhile effort that mixes understand drama and humor in a mostly successful manner. More importantly, it proves definitively that Jack Nicholson can do more - a lot more in fact - than just sneer and go over the top. Here in the role of the title character, Warren Schmidt, the actor completely buries his own larger-than-life persona under the skin of the person he is portraying an brings him to life, flaws and all. It's a surprisingly low-key performance and it's all the better for it. Nicholson does as much acting with his facial expressions and his eyes as he does with dialogue. The rest of the cast is fine including a scene-stealing Kathy Bates (who was Oscar-nominated along with Nicholson for he acting here) but it's the work of the leading man more so than anything else that keeps this one afloat. (*** out of ****)

To me, A Serious Man is the Coens' boldest statement to date of one of their favorite themes: that there is folly in assuming that the universe treats us according to what we deserve.

And, as Larry tells himself in a dream, nobody can ever really know anything.

The Rules of Attraction (2002) **

I don't mind movies about loathsome people having sex with each other. In fact, I'm on record for being a big fan of Neil LaBute's most misanthropic films. But there needs to be some angle of approach for the viewer. We don't necessarily have to like all (or any) of the characters, but there needs to be some shred of humanity we can relate to as our window into the film. Otherwise we're simply watching characters we dislike for 2 hours, which is not a terribly pleasant experience. It's why Raging Bull left me cold -- I hated Jake LaMotta and wanted to get away from him.

The Rules of Attraction is adapted from a Bret Easton Ellis novel, which means I had a pretty good idea what I was getting. I've seen both American Psycho and The Informers (in theaters! I contributed to its 300k gross!) and I think I've got a handle on what Ellis brings to the table. Judging from the vast difference in those two films' quality, I think Ellis needs a director who doesn't think much of him. And Roger Avary, who you might recognize as Tarantino's co-writer on Pulp Fiction, is clearly willing to worship at the altar of BEE's 80s excess. And as a result, Avary's film is so completely wrapped up in this world of misanthropy and cultural anomie that it's hard to find that window I need to get inside the film.

I saw this back in college (which feels like forever ago now), and wasn't terribly impressed. I can't remember a whole lot of it, but the A/V Club put it in their New Cult Canon and the writeup is pretty good: here it is.

That's a really good series for anyone interested.

I saw Chinatown in a theater over the weekend, and while I've always loved the movie, I was even more blown away this time. It's tough to really put it into words, but I noticed a ton of religious subtext and I think I'm going to write something up this week.

I also checked out Argento's Deep Red today, and man is it stylish. The story is pretty silly (complete with about 1000 plot holes), but the soundtrack and the way the movie is shot is just so damn...cool.

Rules of Attraction is a movie that took me a while to come around on. It has its charms, but it is most definitely only for certain moods.

Humanity-loathing, dark-night-of-the-soul moods.


Color me envious. This one's definitely on the theatrical screening bucket list.

Thanks for the NCC link Pete: I never would have found that otherwise despite being a devoted AV Clubber, since it's a 4 year old article. I'm so jealous of your Chinatowning, meanwhile. I had a chance to see it in theaters but it was a midnight showing and staying up until 2 am seemed too demanding

Gangs of New York

This is a film that I think got overlooked because of the fact that it came from Martin Scorsese and from him, might have seemed like a bit of a letdown, in spite of the fact that from any other director it would probably be considered their magnum opus.

Granted, this is the sort of film in which expectations are drastically going to impact how people will see it. The characters are not terribly psychologically complex compared to what Scorsese typically deals with. Bill the Butcher is the most complex character and he cannot touch Travis Bickle.

However, as a historical epic about the birthing of America's greatest city, than this is a first-rate do not miss for the love of the irish or god. This is the sort of film that is designed to stir the blood and the heart. It is not a film to tease the intellect, nor is it exactly historically accurate. This is a film of bloody passions and raw Shakespearian consequences.

Few films can lay claim to this combination of larger than life characters, bold acting, and visceral plotting that Gangs of New York captures so perfectly. Daniel Day-Lewis performance alone makes Gangs of New York worth seeking out. Leonardo De-Caprio is less successful but manages not to embarrass himself or bring the film down. I liked Cameron Diaz's performance even if her character is unfortunately a bit cliched.

In any event, this is the sort of film where the flaws don't matter too much because of the overwhelming and relentless flow of the story as history is being made dwarfs them. Afterwards, I found myself reminded of the works of James Michner such as Alaska and Texas, although Scorsese is admittedly only focusing on one generation rather than several. Highly recommended.

4 stars out of 4.

^^^ Excellent writeup. I've often felt that Gangs of New York wasn't given a fair shake for the very reasons you've cited.

Perhaps Gangs of New York is not the cleanest, most surgical approach to this material... but if any movie should be less surgical and more like a ragged puncture wound, it's probably this one.

I love this movie, but I feel it's better at creating a world than creating a story. I love the periphery of this film, but not the leads (excepting Day-Lewis of course)

Diaz was discordantly awful as Jenny, at least compared to Day-Lewis.

I wouldn't say awful, but she was out of place. I think it was just bad casting.

I think Gangs is an underappreciated masterpiece. It's basically Scorsese's attempt to make a sweeping Hollywood epic in the style of D.W Griffith or DeMille, and he succeeds wildly.

Oddly enough, I really liked Diaz's performance but thought the character herself was a horribly written cliche.
-Jeremy

Total Recall

This is basically a campy (yet entertraining) 80's take on metaphysical themes that would later be explored in movies like The Matrix, Dark City, and Inception. I think the gubernator was miscast, and certain lines like "you're whole life was a dream" seem more profound than the delivery they were given. In the end I would say prefer the other films I mentioned, but this will do in a pinch.

3 out of 4 stars.
-Jeremy

I wanted to like this movie, but I think that Scorcese chose a wrong approach to this material. It should have been more realistic and put the politics in the front of the story, rather than the humdrum love triangle. I also thought - perhaps incorrectly - that the set design and costumes make this look too much like a fantasy, rather than a period piece, although I don't mind the Dickensian atmosphere. Further, I never got the praise Day-Lewis received for his performance (the less said about Cameron Diaz the better). He is so wildly over the top that the character of Bill the Butcher is unbelievable. Finally, the story can't carry the excessive length. For me, 'Gangs of New York' is a bloated mess.

Pickpocket (1959)
A character study of a young man, who attempts to pick someone’s pocket out of curiosity and becomes addicted to the thrill of pickpocketing. Despite of being nearly caught by the police on one of his first clumsy attempts, he cannot stop himself – and does not want to either, because he believes himself to stand outside of the society of normal people and, therefore, above the law. He gets so deeply involved into pickpocketing that he cuts off any contact to his mother (whom he doesn’t want to know that he’s a thief), even when she is terminally ill, and he also cannot form meaningful relationships. But his pickpocketing is improving all the time.
Robert Bresson’s austere style would probably alienate many viewers, but I found it entrancing in a strangely hypnotic way. Although I am normally averse to telling a story primarily through voiceovers, it works very well here, because the movie is mostly about the inner life of a character. The actors are actually doing very little “acting”– they act in a matter-of-fact way and have very little dialogue. Because of the way ‘Pickpocket’ is filmed (and the voiceover, of course), the movie still provides a rich portrayal of an alienated character. The best comparison I can come up with is Martin Scorcese’s ‘Taxi Driver’, which is vastly different in many ways, but I still felt that there is a relation. In my opinion, this is a rare masterpiece of a movie and should be checked out by any serious film buff, if only toch check out Bresson’s style. 9/10

Missing in Action (1984)
Apart from Bruce Lee’s ‘Way of the Dragon’, I had never seen a movie starring internet phenomenon Chuck Norris (“Chuck Norris doesn’t flush the toilet – he scares the shit out of it.”). In order to expand my horizon, I watched one of his best known movies on TV: ‘Missing in Action’ - an action war movie about Norris’s character saving American prisoners of war from secret detainment camps in Vietnam. ‘Missing in Action’ obviously is a knock-off of ‘Rambo II’, already a very bad film itself. But ‘Missing in Action’ even manages to limbo under the very low quality threshold established by ‘Rambo II’. It is stupid, boring, badly made and casually racist. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of a worse movie, which I’ve seen. 1/10

Heat (1995)
Michael Mann’s ‘Heat’ enjoys a formidable reputation, presumably because it features Al Pacino as an intense, dedicated cop chasing ‘Godfather II’ co-star Robert De Niro as an intense, dedicated bank robber. It certainly is a well-made action thriller, but it is also overlong and flags a bit intermittently. In my opinion, ‘Heat’ is just a standard (and derivative – the ending is a straight copy of the ending of ‘Bullitt’) cops vs. robbers action movie, which delivers exactly as much as can reasonably expect from this sort of movie and nothing more. I also didn’t like how, in the end, the audience is meant to sympathize with the Val Kilmer character, because he will not be able to see his fiancé after having to go on the run, when he has just machine-gunned dozens of cops on a crowded street filled with innocents. Not a bad movie, but merely an average one. 5/10

The Back-Up Plan (2010)
A neurotic Manhattan pet shop owner (Jennifer Lopez) can’t find her Mr. Right and opts for artificial insemination. Just when she discovers that she is pregnant with twins, she meets a wonderful goat cheese farmer from upstate New York. Blessed are the cheesemakers!
‘The Back-Up Plan’ is a by-the-numbers romcom. I usually don’t like them, but normally just find them bad and forget about them very quickly. In the case of ‘The Back-Up Plan’, though, I got very angry at the movie, because of the way that it treats pregnancy as a pitiable condition, which must be endured to gain trophy babies, and birth as a shocking event, which can only be used for gross-out humour. And the movie doesn’t know a single truth about pregnancy or there wouldn’t be jokes about a heavily pregnant woman climbing into a waste container etc. At one point, I was wondering why J.Lo’s character was supposed to be pregnant with twins instead of merely being pregnant and my wife informed me that Lopez is a mother of twins in real life. Reeks like a vanity project, although La Lopez is never believable as a pregnant woman (it’s a “pillow under your dress” movie pregnancy). In addition, this movie wants its audience to laugh at old people because they are old and have corresponding ailments. This movie also thinks that it is funny to frequently cut to reaction shots of J.Lo’s character’s pinscher, which is paraplegic and has its backside in a sort of wheelchair. On top of that, there are the usual problems associated with a bad romcom, which makes ‘The Back-Up Plan’ one if not the worst examples of its genre. 1/10

The Way of the Dragon (1972)
Bruce Lee saves his relatives’ Chinese restaurant in Rome from racketeers, who wheel in Chuck Norris (see above) so Lee and Norris can square off against each other at the Coliseum.
I used to like this movie much more, but it is actually a pretty bad 70ies Kung Fu movie – apart from the actual Kung Fu, that is, which is the main thing after all. Bruce Lee is at his charismatic best and the final Bruce Lee vs. Chuck Norris fight (including the plucking of Norris’ chest hair – gets me every time) is simply one of the most iconic fights in movie history. Still, everything to do with story or plot is simply not good enough and the good merely balances the bad. 5/10

You're dead wrong aobut Missing In Action, it is NOT a knock off of Rambo 2, it came out in the theaters MONTHS before Rambo did, anyways I thought the film was good cheesy fun, and I fail to see how it was "racist" in any way, I can think of at least a hundred worse films.

I really surprised you saw bBack Up Plan, since you're not big on rom-coms, I didn't expect you to actually see it.