Stagecoach

Stagecoach is the film where John Ford became John Ford. This was his Mean Streets, his Notorious. I know I'm not always on the side of "innovation" and "influence" when it comes to rating movies decades after they were released, but it has to be considered here. Ford revolutionized the genre by himself. All of your favorite westerns would not exist without this breakthrough.

Anyways, to the film itself. At the beginning, I found it to be a little rough around the edges. It is clearly the work of a director with vision who is still developing his skills. He quickly establishes the setting of the frontier town and introduces us to our primary players. Things seem a little unfocused, but we are nevertheless entertained.

As soon as the stagecoach leaves town, Ford surprises us with his first landscape of Monument Valley. The way he captures the sky is mesmerizing. I wasn't sure about this film until I saw this shot. Soon after, we are treated to an equally endearing sequence - John Wayne's entrance. His closeup here is one of the best character entrances I think I've seen. It was a little weird to see him looking so young. I'm used to seeing him as grizzled and aging yet ageless at the same time. As things move along, you forget that John Wayne's character is supposed to be an outlaw. The tone at this point is quaint; you can't help but to feel a sense of nostalgia. I don't think this was Ford's intent, but this is the effect today. Everything is so wondrously simple. It may be a little annoying to some viewers to find that every western trope is being thrown together into one film. However, one has to realize that until this film was made, these tropes were all that Westerns were, and Stagecoach ends up giving us so much more than just cliche.

I had a little trouble with his cinematography at times. For example, during the table scene when the stagecoach has stopped for the first time, things were disjointed. It was difficult to get a sense of what was going on outside of what was on screen. It's odd that this film also has such beautifully framed scenes interspersed. The flow wasn't perfect either. There was a singing sequence about halfway through that served no purpose and went on too long.

This is the best acting I've seen from Thomas Mitchell. He holds the film together. Every film he does after this one is really just an attempt to recapture this character. I'm really surprised no one has made a mention of this. He is the perfect joker - funny when necessary, but it's his serious moments that make it worthwhile. I would also like to point out John Carradine's presence. His character holds weight. He looks like a painting at times.

The "cowboys and Indians" sequence towards the end is remarkably well done. It's exciting and has some great stunts.

Finally, the ending. It's too long. The buildup lacks the suspense needed to make it worthwhile. I think this is because we've never seen the tension between the Ringo Kid and his enemies - we've only been told about it. We don't really know why these people killed his family, and because he is an outlaw, it is hard to justify his motives as "good", which is really the basis of Westerns. I don't think these scenes were meant to be ambiguous, as Ford has spent way too much time depicting Wayne in such an upbeat and honorable light. It may have been better to have him walk away from the whole situation. One thing I did appreciate at the ending was while the outlaws were playing cards, one of them ended with "dead man's hand"... a trick Ford would reuse in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. Sort of a full circle thing.

Overall, you should see this movie if you like westerns or cinematography. It is a landmark in the histories of both. It is a little rough around the edges, but entertaining nonetheless.

3/4

You didn't like There Will Be Blood? At the very least, didn't you like Paul Dano's performance?

I watched Fritz Lang's M a few days ago in preparation for Metropolis. I've been so enamored with the film since then that I haven't been able to watch anything else. It's amazing to think a film like this was made in 1931. The way Lang plays the cops and criminals off of one another is almost operatic. He manages to make a film that's part social commentary and part humanisitc study. And to top it all off, you get an incredible speech from Peter Lorre at the end of the film. Amazingly brilliant film.

The Battle of Algiers

I'm winding down on the top 100. I only have 30 or so left.

I knew nothing about this film going into it. I was encouraged by the inherent excitement of the title. At the beginning, it is clear that this is an underdog story told through the context of French colonialism. Therefore, I was set to root for the FLN. Fuck the French. Sure, they go to some extremes to purge their ranks, but it's pious Muslim Africa, and it's war, man... shit happens. I stuck with that during the police shootings. It was even further reinforced during the bombing of the Casbah.

And then the FLN started bombing public places.

It quickly became clear that this film was challenging me. I had understood the cinematography of gritty closeups to be a romanticized version of the resistance - and then suddenly the same technique was used on the European civilians. The film makes it obvious that these are the tactics of war; the lines between terrorism and rebellion quickly blur, and both sides are equally guilty of gory and monstrous acts. If this was a film by a third party years after the actual events had occurred, I would take it as a lesson in warfare. But it isn't. It was partially written and acted by an actual leader of the real life FLN - the man who played Jafar, Saadi Yacef. Perhaps he wanted to show what is necessary for a successful revolution. Perhaps it is a cautionary tale.

The Battle of Algiers is more essay than film, as Pedro stated. We get to see the faces of those affected. We get to hear from those who are indoctrinated into the cause, those who will die for a cause they don't completely understand, and those who just want to keep their families safe. Above all of this is the leadership of each side, which is used more as a tool to explain the motivations of each faction than as characters. The indoctrinated FLN leader swears that violence is the only solution that will be taken seriously. The French Colonel uses every tactic necessary, including torture. What I found fascinating was that the Colonel admits that he understands both sides of the situation, yet he continues with his methods because he knows it is the only way to achieve victory. At one point, he states that the success of the mission in Algiers rests not on his shoulders, but on those of the French people, and whether or not they can handle the responsibility. There is a sense of tragic realism in this truth, as the French had lost control of Vietnam not ten years previous to this film (and the actor who played the Colonel, Jean Martin, was a veteran of this conflict). But you get the sense that the dialogue and structure of this film was meant to be extrapolated to any and all situations applicable. Today, in 2012, I think of Afghanistan, Iraq. I think of all the helpful lesson this film offers. We can win, we can suppress the rebels - we just have to be willing to cope with the results. And without explicitly saying so, this film implies that no one ever will.

3.5/4

I would like to add a note here about my ratings in general. Lately, as a result of only watching films from the top 1000, my ratings have been significantly skewed right. Obviously, this has to do with the quality of these films and how valuable this list is. The point I would like to make, however, is that the elusive perfect 4/4 for me is not based on the perfection of the technical aspects of the film or the influence it has had. I use a perfect score to show how a film has truly captivated me. It doesn't happen often, and I don't think it should. A 3.5/4 means I appreciate all that the film accomplishes, yet I am not moved by it. For The Battle of Algiers, I acknowledge its authenticity, its effective and humanistic grittiness, as well as its eternal lessons, but it lacks the revelations on the human condition that I so crave. I suppose we all want different things.

God Bless America

While in Philly, I caught this. I've jokingly said that it's the "feel-good movie of the summer," but this film treads on much darker ground, obviously. In short, a man (Frank) loses his job and gets diagnosed with a brain tumor on the same day. In response to this, he decides to kill everyone who's pissing him off.

All of Frank's actions are delivered with a nod and a wink, and I do think that the astute viewer will pick up that director Bobcat Goldthwait isn't endorsing Frank's actions, and in fact pegs the things he does as part of the problem rather than a viable solution. But others will just laugh along and wonder if the world would really be worse off if someone went and offed the Kardashians.

Another plus: The satire on media, entertainment and punditry seen here is dead-on accurate.

Bullitt



If somebody could explain this to me:

Bullitt

I don't get this film. We get countless extended scenes that feature little more than Lt. Bullitt doing his grocery shopping and other details...

You know, I love film-noir, but I don't think I've seen a great pure one. Maybe Double Indemnity, but even that one seems too polished to be a true example. Out of the Past is pretty good, Night and the City is almost there, but ehhh no **** noirs for Mrs. Kunz's baby boy.

what about Maltese Falcon, Big Sleep, The Killing, Touch of Evil, Lady From Shanghai?

have you seen The Killers, Nightmare Alley, Brute Force, or Scarlet Street?

I love those scenes, I really do. The very last scene features Bullitt taking a piss. I think it's one of the greatest endings to any film ever. And no, I'm not kidding.

The Big Sleep is a nice, fun mystery. But does it have the depth I expect of great films? Nah.

The Killing is a darn fine film. Probably my second favorite Kubrick. But again, does it have depth?

I've actually seen all of those films except Nightmare Alley

The Maltese Falcon doesn't do it for me at all. I like Sydney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre, but it doesn't even sniff greatness, as far as I'm concerned.

The Big Sleep is a nice, fun mystery. But does it have the depth I expect of great films? Nah.

The Killing is a darn fine film. Probably my second favorite Kubrick. But again, does it have depth? I don't think so. It's a beautifully-oiled engine, but an engine isn't art.

Touch of Evil has some masterful sequences, but it forgets about its own plot. I think I gave it *** and I would stick to that.

Lady from Shanghai is more on the mediocre side of good. The hall of mirrors sequence is fantastic, but the rest of the film is forgettable. Except Orson's accent of course.

I've seen both versions of The Killers. The original is better, but it's never as good as it is in the first 15 minutes when we're following Hemingway's short story. The rest of the film is satisfying enough, but not transcendent.

Brute Force is Jules Dassin at his best. Terrific film. But more of an action film in many ways than a noir. I think I would even take Night and the City over Brute Force for Dassin noirs.

Scarlet Street showcased another splendid Dan Duryea villain (he's also in the movie that prompted this discussion) and a fun plot, but that was just *** for me. Solid but unspectacular.

Am I being too demanding? I don't know, but it's hard for me to give **** on style alone.