Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

There was once a time when I would go to the movies four times during a summer to see films like Independence Day or Armageddon multiple times. I couldn't get enough of the loud explosions, and the lack of any real story didn't bother me. I was able to find humor in the meaningless sex and fart jokes. It was pure escapism. Just grab a bucket of popcorn and a 40 ounce jug of soda and I was happy.

So what the hell happened to me?

Have I really become such a cynical grumpy old man that I can't fully enjoy films like that anymore? Have my tastes changed, or has Hollywood's standards changed?

Whatever the reason may be, I can not endorse Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. I am puzzled that a movie as poor as this garnered applause at the end of the viewing in my theater. I'm even more puzzled at the amount of money this film is bringing in. The success of a film like this can mean only the further dumbing down of the Summer blockbuster.

Now to be fair, I wasn't a big fan of the first film. The first two thirds of that film was enjoyable. It had some good characters and funny moments. Shia LaBeouf is a very charismatic actor with a certain amount of gravitas. The special effects weren't that great and it was hard to make out a lot of the robots during the fight scenes. When the John Turturro character showed up the movie got quite silly and quickly turned sour. It was basically what I would expect from a Michael Bay film.

The sequel wasn't quite the disaster I was expecting, but it wasn't really good either. The actual story isn't bad. The premise is that the Transformers have been to Earth before, long ago in our history, and now an ancient Transformer known as the Fallen has returned to finish what he has started. Along the way there are several battles between the Decepticons and the Autobots who wage war on our planet.

The special effect were much better this time out. The robots were better defined and easier to make out, especially during the fight scenes. Most of the fights were done in slow motion to help make it easier to see, but unfortunately the slow motion scenes filtered out into almost every aspect of the film and was completely overused.

The film was conceived during the writer's strike last year. What I imagine happening is Michael Bay creating a series of action scenes, and once the strike was over and the screenwriters were able to work again he gave them those scenes and said to make a story out of it. It's a backwards way to work and that is ultimately the problem with this film: the writing is just simply lazy.

Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, who wrote the other big Summer blockbuster film Star Trek, are credited along with Ehren Kruger as writing Transformers. I wonder how much of Orci and Kurtzman's work is really in the finished film because Star Trek is a far superior film. There is no character development at all and the humor in the film is just bad.

It is quite possible to write an intelligent funny action film, it's been done several times with great success. Star Trek has several moments of humor that work within the story. Having to rely on crude humor that serves no point to the characters or the story is just cheap. There are about three scenes showing a small dog trying to hump a bigger dog. There's a scene of a small Transformer humping Megan Fox's leg. There are plenty of fart jokes, drug jokes, pussy jokes, and quite honestly inappropriate humor. This is a film that is being marketed towards kids and it is full of language I would not let my kids hear or would I want them exposed to that kind of behavior. It is just embarrassing.

And speaking of Megan Fox, we all know she is a gorgeous person, but we really don't know if she can act, especially with material like this. The extent of her character development in this film is several slow motion shots showing her beautiful figure running while wearing tight skimpy clothes. We get to see lots of her beautifully photographed, but she really doesn't have much else to do beside look good. That's pretty much the amount of effort that was given to characters in this film. I understand it's just a high energy popcorn flick, but I just expect more for my entertainment.

And let's not forget the twin Autobots Wheelie and Skids. I had read briefly about the racial stereotypes in the film before I saw it but I just passed if off to some conservative nuts looking to get people wound up over nothing. Boy was I wrong. They talk as if they are from the ghetto, acting like bumbling idiots and living up to the typical racial black stereotypes. One of them even has a gold tooth. Once again, it's just embarrassing.

Literature is full of the fool characters that act like idiots for comic relief, but they always serve a purpose for the story. From the gravediggers in Hamlet to the peasants in Hidden Fortress to R2-D2 and C-3PO in Star Wars, the characters have brought a purpose to the plot while entertaining with humor. In Transformers they serve no real purpose other than to try and get some cheap laughs with crude and offensive humor.

Most times I really wouldn't care. I got a few minor laughs out of it myself, but mostly I was just left shaking my head. My problem is that this is a film based a line of children's toys and it is being marketed towards children. Maybe more towards older children, but the young ones are definitely going to want to see it too. Quite honestly, it's only real purpose is to help sell some toys. It is irresponsible to just throw in the type of joke you would expect in a teen sex comedy. The movie didn't need all of the bad humor. There is plenty of action and explosions to draw people in to see it. We want and expect humor, but we should want and expect a certain level of intelligence as well.

If the box office is any indication, I am probably in the minority on this. The majority of the population is going to eat this stuff up and love it and not care that a few brain cells were wasted away. It's going to make a ton of money, make a huge profit for the studio, and strengthen their perception that they don't need to spend any time or money on a script. You can dumb it down all you want, the people will come and see it. It's going to help perpetrate a rapidly growing trend of poorly conceived films that rely on special effects and no story. The success of films like Dark Knight or Star Trek, movies that are smartly written and executed perfectly, are going to be outnumbered by the dimwitted fluff that is dominating the box office. Money dictates what the studios will do. As long as people keep buying tickets to these kinds of movies, then they will keep making them.

And I'm a sucker like everyone else. I paid my money. I sat in that theater and did my part to help strengthen the establishment. I usually avoid movies I know are going to be bad, but I held out hope that the critics were wrong and I would be surprised and entertained. I was wrong, they were right. I really thought word of mouth would kill this movie before the weekend, but it seems to have only gotten stronger. I really don't get it, but that's probably because I'm just a cynical old man with a more sophisticated palette.

I am obviously not the targeted demographic. Are you?

My 100 Favorite Films Part 3: #71-80

Here we go with the next set of ten films in the list. I was really hoping to get these out one set a week but life happens and has slowed down my writing lately. I'm going to try to get back on track but things are only going to get crazier in these next 30 days. I'll try to squeeze in a review here and there when I can, but until then I hope you enjoy this next set of films. As always, lets review the list so far.

#100) His Girl Friday (1940)
#99) 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
#98) Adaptation (2002)
#97) Being John Malkovich (1999)
#96) Groundhog Day (1993)
#95) Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002)
#94) Boogie Nights (1997)
#93) Apocalypse Now (1979)
#92) Barton Fink (1991)
#91) The Big Lebowski (1998)
#90) Breathless (1960)
#89) Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)
#88) Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)
#87) Apollo 13 (1995)
#86) Rashomon (1950)
#85) Pink Floyd's the Wall (1982)
#84) The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976)
#83) Rope (1948)
#82) Good Night, and Good Luck (2005)
#81) The Wild Bunch (1969)

And now for your reading enjoyment, let us get started.

#80) Do the Right Thing (1989)


Spike Lee's break out film is a real tour de force. A lot of the themes that would appear in most of his films are showcased here and nothing is held back.

The story takes place in Brooklyn on the hottest day of the year. The heat combined with several character driven situations causes every one's bigotry and hatred towards one another to boil over into a powerful moment of violence. Lee often likes to look at racism in his films and how it is still a lingering driving force behind our society. Every character of all races has their moments to express their fear and hatred towards each other throughout the film. When everything finally explodes at the end you can see the damaging effects racism has on a community and how pointless it really is.

Sometimes Spike Lee can be a bit too forward with his messages, often beating you over the head repeatedly to make sure you get the point. Often times it can distract from the story, but more often then not he balances it just right so that the message is heard clearly and distinctly. Never has that message been more powerfully delivered than in Do the Right Thing. The world was introduced to one of our most important artists. Consider the message heard.

#79) Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)

When you mix two geniuses like Stanley Kubrick and Peter Sellers you come up with a brilliant satire on the true ridiculous nature of war. This film was part of Kubrick's transition period from studio director for hire to making his own personal artistic films as well as his only real attempt at comedy.

The story is a bout a rogue general that goes insane and initiates a launch of nuclear weapons in an attempt to start World War III. The President along with his political and military advisers meet in the War Room to find a solution to stop the attacks and repercussions that will come along with it. Peter Sellers plays three characters in the film: Captain Mandrake, President Muffley, and Dr. Strangelove. His portrayal of the bumbling President is eerie to a certain recent President as far as showing the inept ability to have any control over anyone. The dialogue and characters are very funny in executing the satire. This film is an obvious statement about how absurd a nuclear war would be. When the country was living in fear of an attack from the Russians at any moment Kubrick held nothing back by making fun of this situation and finding humor out of a tense situation. An appropriate film to watch today with what is going on in the world, and hopefully our world leaders can find the same absurdity in the situation that Kubrick did. And remember, there is no fighting in the War Room.

#78) Unbreakable (2000)

Probably the best comic book origin story ever filmed.

M. Night Shyamalan re-teams with his Sixth Sense star Bruce Willis to tell the story of David Dunn, the only man to survive a horrific train accident without a scratch on him. As he tries to make sense of it he comes to realize that he's never been sick, and that he may have super human strength. His son sees the potential to be a super hero and pushes him to explore this ability and to try and do good with it. Along the way he meets Elijah Price, played by Samuel Jackson, who is the opposite of Dunn, born with fragile breakable bones. He has been searching his whole life for someone worthy of being his arch nemesis and with Dunn he finds him and pushes him to realize his powers as well.

There is some great chemistry between Jackson and Willis that help make the characters work. By the end of the film you realize the possible potential stories that could be told about these dueling characters. A sequel has been something that fans often talk about and hope for yet Shyamalan hasn't really hinted at a possibility. There is some experimenting in this film with long drawn out takes to tell the story that makes the pacing of the film feel a bit slow. But for the most part the story works better than most real comic adaptations ever have.

#77) Miller's Crossing (1990)

The third film by the Coen Brothers has them attempting the gangster genre and includes their traditional dark humor laced within this period piece.

Gabriel Byrne stars as Tom Regan, an advisor to a crime boss during the prohibition who tries to keep the peace between feuding mobs but ends up getting caught in the middle and he must make a decision in order to save himself and the woman he has fallen for, played by Marcia Gay Harden. As is typical in a Coen Brother film, the movie is wonderfully shot. This was the third and final film that future director Barry Sonnenfeld would act as the cinematographer. The script is full of great dialogue with some fun banter between Harden and Byrne. There is a great supporting cast as well including Albert Finney and Coen regulars John Turturo and Jon Polito. It's not one of their popular or talked about films but it's a true gem from some great film makers.

#76) The Matrix (1999)

Forget about the horrible sequels, the first movie was an original and innovative film that not only became inspiration for many more rip offs, but it became a cultural and philosophical phenomenon.

Keanu Reeves stars as Neo, a computer hacker that learns his sense of reality is far from real but rather a computer generated world where humans are merely programs and pawns in a world completely controlled by computers. He is able to free himself from the control of the computers with the help of Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne) and Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss) to help wage war against the cyber world and free the human race from their control.

There are several interesting themes presented about man and technology coexisting in our world and who really controls who. In a society dependent on their electronic gadgets it's pretty prophetic in a way showing how we are controlled by technology. We rely so heavily on the Internet and our cell phones and iPods that many would not be able to function without them. So in a way technology has won and is now controlling the human race. Mixed with these powerful themes are some really cool martial arts choreography and inventive camera work, including the introduction of the bullet cam. The sequels were a bit convoluted and relied too much on special effects and action rather than the story and characters that made the original so good. The original still holds up as a really good action and science fiction film.

#75) There Will Be Blood (2007)

A wonderful adaptation of the Upton Sinclair novel "Oil" by Paul Thomas Anderson with a powerful performance from Daniel Day Lewis. I truly believe that over time this film could become a true American classic. There are so many elements of this film that are just top notch and come together to create a flawless film.

Lewis stars as Daniel Plainview, an oil tycoon during the early days of the business who has built himself up from nothing and is so full of greed that he will use anyone and everyone around him to get what he wants. His one true nemesis is Eli Sunday, played by Paul Dano, a young influential town preacher who desires his own power and influence through the use of the church.

At the core of the film are the competing powers of commerce and religion, each looking to gather their own flock of followers so that they can have ultimate control of the town. The true driving force behind these individuals is a common desire: greed. Each man is flawed yet put up a false exterior to make them seem good natured and helpful, but ultimately each man wants power and especially money. The difference between the two is that Plainview has no problem letting down his curtain and admitting what he really wants, while Sunday refuses to expose his true nature and he must hide behind this false demeanor in order to remain in control. It's a strong statement on the flaws and dangers in both capitalism and religion. Each institution is susceptible to corruption as is often the case. Man by nature is flawed and those flaws and weaknesses are magnified when power and influence are introduced.

The film is strongly acted by the entire cast with a great script and direction from Anderson and cinematography from Robert Elswit. Radiohead guitarist Jonny Greenwood provides an eerie and haunting score that enhances the landscapes and actions of the characters. It's a near perfect film that captures an important period of our history while showing how relevant the themes relate to our society today. Greed is something that will never go away and will continue to influence the future of our country.

#74) Fargo (1996)

Hey look, another Coen Brothers film! This is the film that rightfully got them their first Oscars. It's a brilliant blend of humor, drama, and extremely dark and disturbing actions from the characters.

William H. Macy plays Jerry Lundegaard, a car salesman who is struggling financially so he cooks up a plan to have his wife kidnapped so his rich father-in-law will pay the ransom and he will get his money. As you would expect, everything goes wrong. When someone turns up dead pregnant police chief Marge Gunderson, played by Oscar winner Frances McDormand, is on the case and begins to sense something fishy going on.

The Coen's have always had a great knack at righting authentic dialogue. The Northern Midwest accents are immortalised by the characters in this film with accurate and entertaining speech and dialogue straight from the script. There are moments when the characters come off cutesy and fun but then you see the dark side of what man is capable of doing during stressful times. Lundegaard's plan is so full of holes but he is convinced it will work and when it doesn't the lengths he will go to to cover things up is astonishing. This is one of those moments when all of the elements of a film are clicking and it makes for an entertaining film, albeit sometimes disturbing. The things you can do with a wood chipper.

#73) This Is Spinal Tap (1984)

The birth of the mockumentary. Directed by Rob Reiner and written by costars Christopher Guest and Michael McKean, the film tells of the rise and fall of the fictional band Spinal Tap. The movie is mostly improvised but there are some real classic songs written by Guest, McKean, and Harry Shearer with some hilarious stage performances, including "Big Bottom," "Stonehenge," and "Lick My Love Pump."

This film set up the formula that Christopher Guest would use in several of his future mockumentaries such as Best in Show and Waiting for Guffman. The mock documentary has been imitated several times but nowhere near with the amount of success as Guest and especially with Spinal Tap. If you've never seen it do yourself a favor and watch it now and be sure to turn it all the way up to eleven!

#72) Toy Story (1995)

It's so hard to pick a favorite Pixar film when they are all so good, but you can't deny that they started with a bang and never looked back.

Toy Story is about a boy's favorite toy, Woody the cowboy, voiced by Tom Hanks, who is threatened when the newest and hottest toy on the market arrives: Buzz Lightyear, voiced by Tim Allen. Buzz doesn't realize he's just a toy and Woody is too worried about being replaced that they don't realize they get left behind and separated from the boy that loves them both.

It's a heartwarming story that brings me back to my childhood. I'm sure we have all had that one toy or another that we have absolutely loved and have taken with us everywhere. It's a certain joy and innocence that we tend to only experience when we are young and when we become too busy with our grown up lives we forget about those wonderful times as a young kid when all that mattered was getting to play with our toys. It's a universal theme that connects with us all, and that is what has made Pixar so successful after all of these years. They continue to push the boundaries of computer animation, making such beautiful looking films. But more importantly, they focus on creating great characters and great stories. From those stories the visuals will come. Film after film they continue to tell great stories that connect with adults and children. These are the reasons they are the best animated studio out there, maybe even the best film studio period. It's hard to argue with there number of successes.

#71) The Sixth Sense (1999)

It is going to be so hard to be surprised again the way I was when I first saw the Sixth Sense. The experience of seeing this movie for the first time and being totally blindsided by the surprise of this film is such a unique memory and one that makes this film so special.

Bruce Willis plays Dr. Malcolm Crowe, a psychologist that sparks up a unique relationship with a boy Cole, played by Haley Joel Osment. Cole has the gift to see dead people and communicate with them. At first it's a curse for him but Dr. Crowe helps him to find the power in his gift so that he can not only help the dead but help those who have been left behind. The film is masterfully put together by writer/director M. Night Shyamalan. When the big surprise is revealed Shyamalan goes back to show us all of the clues and hints that are blatantly right in front of us that go unnoticed. It's a very clever twist that unfortunately will forever be compared with any film Shyamalan makes from now on.

When I first saw the film there was a lot of buzz about how great and shocking the film was, but luckily nobody was really spoiling the ending. While watching it in the theater about half way through I was thinking to myself that this was nothing special, in fact I thought it was a bit slow. Then when the big secret was revealed I had one of those "Oh Shit!" moments that I could not believe not only what I had just seen, but that I was fooled the entire time. I constantly go to the movies with the hope that I am going to be shocked or surprised but it rarely happens. With the emergence of the Internet information is spread at such a rapid rate it's so hard not to know about the entire film months before it is even released. Spoilers or so easy to come by and often are hard to avoid. Word of mouth spreads so fast through blogs and message boards that a film can gain momentum pretty fast or simply fall flat and be done with before the opening weekend is even finished. I used to be a junky for spoilers but I was finding that knowing what to expect and watching a film waiting for the things I knew about to happen was ruining the overall experience of being surprised and just simply enjoying a good film. I try to avoid them now but temptation can be pretty bad sometimes. Luckily I never had that opportunity with this film. It still holds up with repeat viewings, but nothing will ever beat seeing it for the first time.

Well that's all for now. I'll try to hopefully be back soon with the next set. Maybe I'll even get out to the theater soon to catch a flick so I can write about it. So until next time...

X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Angels & Demons

For some reason I haven't been able to get too excited about the Summer movie season so far. I don't know if it's because of lack of time or lack of interest. Maybe a combination of both.

Usually every summer I use the big event movies as an excuse to get together with a large group of friends. We would meet for dinner and then get in line for whatever the big release is for that weekend. Part of the fun was sticking around afterwards and talking about the movie, but mostly it was just about getting together with some friends that I don't get to see too often anymore.

By now we would have met up for four weeks in a row and I would have seen many of the movies already. With so much going on in my life this Summer it just hasn't happened yet. I got to see Star Trek at an early screening so there went that weekend. But the other films haven't really gotten me excited about going to the movies. It's pretty sad really.

This past weekend I played some catch up and I was able to finally see X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Angels & Demons, both sequels, or rather prequels, to some successful Summer blockbusters. This is what to expect these days.

As a kid I was a huge X-Men fan and it's many spin offs, especially X-Factor. I collected all of the comics and I was infatuated with the characters and themes. If there is any comic franchise I hold dear to my heart it would be X-Men.

I thought the first film was good. It was held back with budget restraints that showed with the special effects and action sequences but that allowed the director Bryan Singer to focus more on the characters and tell a story. Ultimately this franchise was about the many characters and themes and it helped the first film. The most iconic character has always been Wolverine and Hugh Jackman's breakout role as the clawed one was perfect casting and he nailed the part and it's what really made the film.

The second film X2 was pretty much perfect. It had a great story and great action along with some wonderful pacing. Singer started to incorporate what I feel is the greatest storyline in the comics; the Phoenix saga. Singer laid down the ground work for what could end up being a fantastic finale. Then things took a quick turn for the worse. Twentieth Century Fox was determined to rush the film without having a finished script, they cut the budget down to save costs, and finally Bryan Singer left the project to jump over to the competition to direct the new Superman film for Warner Bros. Another director came and went and finally Brett Ratner, director of the Rush Hour films, was brought in to make the movie.

It's hard to put the blame on Ratner for the disaster that was X-Men: The Last Stand. The main plot was pretty weak, the special effects were bad, and it was rushed into production before it was ready. Ratner came on board late and had no time to prepare really and made the best of what he could. The character of the Phoenix was done so poorly. She is supposed to be the ultimate power in the Universe and mostly she just stands around looking menacing, not doing too much until it was convenient to move the plot around. It could have been done so much better but Fox wasn't willing to commit the money to do it right, and what they ended up with was a really bad movie that ruined everything Singer had built up in the franchise.

The decision to do Origin stories for the various characters I thought was a good idea. It would allow them to tell more focused stories on the characters we really care about, and who better to start off with than Wolverine. I had really high hopes for this film, as I'm sure many others did as well. This was a chance for Fox to in a sense redo the last film and bring proper closure, even if it serves as a prequel. Initial reaction to the film has been pretty bad with some horrible reviews so I went into the movie a little timid and worried I was going to see a train wreck.

Now the movie is no X2 but it's really not as bad as many have been making it out to be. I actually really enjoyed it. I have some serious problems with choices they made in the story but that really didn't totally ruin the movie for me like it has for some.

The basic premise of the story is to show how James Logan became Weapon X, or Wolverine. We see that he is really about 150 years old and doesn't age because of his healing mutant powers, he has fought in several wars, and became part of an elite group of mutants that did some bad things before he turned his back on them to try and lead a normal life. Of course that can't happen, he gets dragged back in and all hell breaks loose.

Now I'm no expert in the history and legend of the source character but I do know some basic things. I know that Wolverine's arch nemesis has always been Sabretooth, played in this film by Liev Schreiber, but I didn't know they were brothers. I'm not sure if that is actually true or not, but even if it isn't it did add a certain level of conflict that did help the story. The constant back and forth between the two characters was the best part of the movie. They had a really complex relationship that left them at odds and made for some great moments, not only between the characters in dialogue but also in the action sequences. It was a wonderful dynamic that worked.

I also know that Wolverine was experimented on and that the government covered his bones in the adamantium metal to make him indestructible and they gave him his metal claws. The addition of the bone claws was silly and unnecessary. They looked like bad special effects and were never really used effectively. It would have been better for him to just have them added and have him trying to adjust to his new claws, which they ended up doing in a few funny scenes of him trying to figure them out and doing damage to a room instead. Also part of the operation lead to him having amnesia but since they chose to do the operation early on they left him with his memory and chose a pretty ridiculous way to make sure he lost his memory at the end of the film to keep in line with the timeline. The way they did it felt tacked on and forced. There must have been a better way to do it, but oh well.

The other thing I didn't like was the addition of so many other mutants, it felt like another X-Men film rather than just a Wolverine film. Most of the other characters they showed didn't really do much for the story but it was a way for the film makers to nod to the fans and say "look, here's Gambit!" Especially throwing in Cyclops wasn't necessary at all, it was just distracting. They should have kept it focused on Wolverine, Sabretooth, and Stryker and they could have told a really good and exciting story.

Despite all of my major complaints with the movie, I did actually enjoy it for what it is. Most Summer films are just mindless popcorn fun, and if you go in expecting that then you will be satisfied. As a long time lover of the franchise I just hope for a little more. Maybe because my expectations were dropped so low after all of the early reviews I ended up liking it more, but it was fine for what it is.

As for Angels & Demons I didn't have as much attachment to go on so I went in to the film pretty blind and I thoroughly enjoyed the movie.

I read The Da Vinci Code the summer before the film came out. It was a quick read and a fun adventure story along the lines of Indiana Jones or National Treasure. I love a good conspiracy, especially anything involving the church, so the subject matter was right up my alley.

I enjoyed the movie version of The Da Vinci Code but it felt a bit too clunky and forced at times. Some of the dialogue was campy, as was some of the acting despite a top notch cast, but they made it work. It was a fun puzzle to solve and took some ancient myths and added a new twist in an interesting way.

I never got around to reading the book Angels & Demons so I didn't really know what the story was about, but I knew the process was similar to The Da Vinci Code and I knew that it was also a prequel. The stories really do stand alone so it wasn't necessary to film them in any particular order. It's like a James Bond story, the character and formula are the same you just plug in the particular details.

Tom Hanks returns again as symbolist Robert Langdon who is brought to the Vatican to help with an urgent case. The Pope has died and the Bishops are about to meet for the conclave to select the next Pope, but four of the leading candidates are kidnapped and clues are left by an assassin claiming to be from the Illuminati, a group of scientist wiped out centuries ago by the church because their beliefs contradicted religion's laws. They have returned to exact their revenge and expose the truths of the church. Langdon must follow the symbols and clues to save the Bishops before a bomb of antimatter is detonated and destroys the Vatican and thousands of people.

There are parts of the story that are kind of far fetched, like a bomb of antimatter. It's a clever plot device that adds a sense of danger but you must suspend all disbelief in order to go with it since it's not possible yet to make that small amount of antimatter, or to even carry it around in a canister for that matter. I have no problem doing that, but when trying to instill some historic facts to the history of the Illuminati and add weight to their dispute with the church the bomb becomes a bit distracting. It takes away from the truth of the historic facts that are often buried in most teachings. The church has a history of doing some pretty nasty and out right evil things in order to further it's cause and gain followers. The real history of the California Missions is often left out so that the good of spreading the word of the Bible can be glamorized while the atrocities of the way people were forced to convert is buried and forgotten. During the time period the film refers to of the Illuminati being wiped out, many scientists or free thinkers who questioned the laws of the church were often silenced by unpleasant means. The Middle ages is often referred to as the Dark age for reasons of the horrible things that were being done across Europe as the word of God was being spread and people forced to convert. It's a period of our history that never gets fully taught but fascinates me and has caused some serious questions of not only my own faith but my thoughts on organized religion in general. Does it do more good than bad? Who is in the right in this film? Are the Illuminati, whether real or not, in the right to exact revenge and does the church have a right to defend itself or keep this silent?

These topics are hinted at throughout the story but it mostly takes a back seat to the action and mystery at hand. In a way it works for the film. The Da Vinci Code was full of so much history, myth, and theories that it often weighed down the plot, even though it was fascinating information. The story and dialogue often felt bogged down in so much information that it didn't flow that well. It worked great on the written page but not so much in a two hour film. Angels & Demons had a better flow to the pacing. The plot didn't feel overwhelmed by trying to deliver too much of the mythology, but enough was given to help give purpose and meaning to the situation and characters. I'm sure there may be more information in the book, at least I hope there is, but enough was cut out to make the plot and story work well.

The time constraints of the characters helped enhance the tension and conflict and the suspense was well done. No time was wasted in exposition of the characters. What we needed to know we were able to discover along the journey so that the business of trying to save the Bishops could be gotten to right away. There was a good balance of action and quiet character moments and neither seemed to slow down the pace of the film at all. I did feel that the true threat behind the conspiracy was a bit predictable but it was also handled well enough to give me moments of doubt, but ultimately I knew who was behind the whole thing. That really didn't bother me though because the motives behind it all wasn't as obvious and it still left some mystery to the validity of the history between the church and the Illuminati.

Despite any quarrels I may have with the separation between history and fantasy that are mixed in this film, I totally understand it's a work of fiction and meant more to entertain rather than to educate. On that level this film succeeds. It's a good thriller with plenty of suspense and action mixed together nicely. The theme of religion and science being able to coexist and work together to educate is a worthy idea that needs to be explored more seriously in our culture. There are plenty of ideas expressed in the subtext of the story that peek my curiosity and invite me to further explore the history and mythology behind the plot. I hope it will encourage others to investigate the ideas and themes present in the film so that you can educate yourselves on the history and decide for yourselves what to believe. Like is suggested in the film, it really doesn't hurt to try and accept both ideas.

Overall I really enjoyed the film. There was some fascinating history given about the church, just as in The Da Vinci Code, but the plot seemed more dire and suspenseful in Angels & Demons. It's a good mystery and action film, just what you would expect from a Summer popcorn flick.

So I'm not really disappointed with what I've seen so far this Summer, but I'm also not blown away by anything. So far I would highly recommend Star Trek and The Brothers Bloom. I'm going to try and see Terminator this week and then I'll see if I can keep myself caught up. I highly doubt it, but it doesn't hurt to try. So leave me some feedback, what are your favorite Summer films so far? Is there maybe a small indie film I should check out? Until next time...

My 100 Favorite Films Part 2: #81-90

I'm back with the next group of ten films from my 100 favorite films of all time. Sorry that it has taken me so long to get this up. I hope that you are enjoying reading these articles and I'll try to get them up quicker.

Before we get into it, let's review the list so far.

100) His Girl Friday
99) 2001: A Space Odyssey
98) Adaptation
97) Being John Malkovich
96) Groundhog Day
95) Confessions of a Dangerous Mind
94) Boogie Nights
93) Apocalypse Now
92) Barton Fink
91) The Big Lebowski

Let's just jump right back into it shall we.

90) Breathless (1960)


One of the first films in the French New Wave movement and an important film that helped influence a whole new generation of filmmakers.

Jean-Luc Godard and Francois Truffaut both put their theories to work when they made their first films that started the New Wave movement. Where The 400 Blows is a more personal story to Truffaut, Godard is more style with his first film Breathless.

The story is simple. Michel, played by Jean-Paul Belmondo, kills an officer and needs go on the run, but first he must convince the girl Patricia, played by Jean Seberg, to come with him. There is lots of sexual tension between them that delays any action on Michel's part.

Godard takes the camera into the street to shoot on real locations. He uses lots of long takes and jump cuts to let the actors tell the story. It's a fun movie that detours from typical Hollywood film making of the time and introduces new techniques that seem only natural today. I'm just now starting to discover many of the films from the French New Wave and so far I'm hooked, just as those were who went on to change Hollywood.

#89) Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)

A fun western that works for so many different reasons, but mostly because of the chemistry between it's stars Robert Redford and Paul Newman. The banter between these two, with lots of help from William Goldman's script, is extremely funny and you can't help but root for these two outlaws.

Butch and Sundance are bank robbers finding it hard to adapt to a changing time. As they are hunted down they go on the run and relocate to Bolivia to try to start over, but as is usually the case, they can't deny their true calling in life. The cinematography is beautifully photographed by the great Conrad Hall. It's not a typical western by any means, but it's just a fun and entertaining film. Makes me wish Newman and Redford had made more than two films together because their chemistry shines on the screen.

#88) Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)



Nobody writes dialogue quite like David Mamet. Based on his own play, the film is a hard look at the pressure of working in a competitive sales office where closing the deal is everything.

The film has a great cast, including Al Pacino, Ed Harris, Alan Arkin, Jack Lemmon, and Kevin Spacey. The banter between the characters is written with a certain rhythm that is quick and hard hitting. Dialogue is everything in a Mamet piece. The characters are defined by their speech and nothing is held back in the language. The movie is a wonderful example of what great actors are capable of when given good characters and dialogue to work with.

#87) Apollo 13 (1995)


I have a thing for space travel. Long ago in my youth I wanted to be an astronomer or do something that required working for NASA. Then I realised how much studying that would take and there went that idea. But within that same passion I have a particular fondness for this Ron Howard film.

The movie tells the story of the Apollo mission where everything that could go wrong did. Tom Hanks, Kevin Bacon, Bill Paxton, Gary Sinise, and Ed Harris give great natural performances that bring life to these real people and it draws you into the story. Helping their performances is the use of in camera special effects that helps create a sense of realism that adds authenticity to the movie. They used a special free fall technique in real aircraft's that created short moments of weightlessness for the actors so that they really are floating, no strings attached. It's the little details like this that make the film work. Even though you know the outcome there is real tension and suspense that makes the movie really entertaining. It's just a great heroic story.

#86) Rashomon (1950)


A classic tale from the master Akira Kurosawa. The movie is about a murder and the trial to figure out who did it. We see the incident over and over again from the various points of view from those involved, including the victim's ghost.

Nonlinear story telling had been done before this film in such classics as Citizen Kane, but not to this extent. In Citizen Kane we see various points of the character's life told from differing points of views, but in Rashomon we see the same incident from different points of view. It's a strong example of the influence our own perspectives and experiences has on events in our life. Nobody sees things the same way, just like nobody interprets a film or song the same way.

It's also a strong example on the ways films can tell stories. The plot does not have to be a straight A to B linear story, but structure can be changed to add dramatic effect. It's a style that has been imitated and borrowed for such films as Pulp Fiction, Run Lola Run, and Vantage Point. It's an important film from one of the all time greats of cinema.

#85) Pink Floyd's The Wall (1982)


When I was in the sixth grade one of my brother's friends was playing the tape of The Wall in his car and I was captivated. I made a copy of it for myself and listened to it nonstop for several months straight. My taste in music was changed forever.

The power of the film lies in the strength of the music from which it is based. The album tells a story of isolation and eventual madness, withdrawing oneself from those around you until you are trapped by your own fears and anger. The metaphor for these feelings are played out in the film by Bob Geldof who plays the main character of Pink, a troubled rock star who becomes more and more withdrawn, building an internal wall around himself to shut the world out. His descent within his mind is portrayed through the animation in the film. The odd and abstract characters help to bring to life Pink's own internal demons. It is ultimately a tale of great sadness as there appears to be no help for Pink. It's a feeling of loneliness that I'm sure we have all felt at some points in our lives when you feel completely helpless and the only way to get out of it is to shut everyone else out. I know it's something I have felt and have been able to relate to.

Director Alan Parker brings great pacing and gets a strong performance from Geldof. As wonderful as the movie looks, it is the music that is the strength of the film. Two different mediums, music and film, blend perfectly to make a thoroughly enjoying and meaningful movie.

#84) The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976)


Clint Eastwood's westerns have always had a different feel to them than more traditional westerns. There is a bit more darkness to the characters rather than the heroic types that John Wayne perfected. Of all of Eastwood's westerns, this is one of my favorites.

Eastwood plays a Missouri farmer who's family is murdered by Union soldiers. He goes on the run with some former Confederate fighters before exacting his own revenge against the murderers of his family. There are plenty of good shoot out scenes and the obligatory Eastwood one liners he deals out before opening a can of whoop ass on his enemies. There are hints of the character traits that made Dirty Harry so intimidating and dangerous. It's a fun dark western that was a good precursor to Eastwood's more successful Unforgiven.

#83) Rope (1948)


One of the greats yet under appreciated films from the master of suspense Alfred Hitchcock. It's a bit more style over substance but the technical aspects of the film are totally appropriate and help to enhance the story.

Two young men strangle one of their other friends and hide his body in their apartment just before the victim's friends and family come over for a dinner party. They wish to challenge the perfection of their crime by proving they could not only get away with it but do it right under every one's nose. At the dinner party is a former professor played by James Stewart who grows suspicious of the two men and weary that the victim is not present. The story becomes a chess match between Stewart and the two men to see who can out wit the other.

Hitchcock chose two important film and story techniques to help add to the suspense. The movie is done in real time, which means that the amount of time in the story that passes is the exact amount of time the movie runs. Doing this puts the viewer in a time restraint and you are left to wonder who will out duel who before time is up. It's a clever technique to increase the suspense. Hitchcock adds to this by also filming the movie in one single shot. We are forced with only one perspective by the wandering camera throughout the party. There is no closeups or quick cuts to trick us into when we should be feeling tense. We are observers and it is the story and characters left on their own to thrill us. It's a clever technique that never really feels showy. With today's ability to shoot digital it would be easier to film one long uncut shot, but on film you can only get about ten minutes worth of footage before you need to change the reel. Hitchcock got away with this by picking certain moments where the camera would move and do things like focusing in on the back of a character as they walked, cut, and pull out with a new reel so that it feels seamless. You can catch the cuts and changes if you pay attention. It was something new and different and only something that Hitchcock could pull off. It works for the story and is truly inventive and unique and helps make the movie much more suspenseful. It's not one of his films talked about often but it's really one of his many hidden gems.

#82) Good Night, and Good Luck (2005)


George Clooney suffers no sophomore slump in his second film as a director. Clooney not only directs and costars but he also takes on writing duties in this relevant film about an important phase of our country's history.

David Strathairn plays journalist Edward Murrow who during the 1950's took on Senator Joseph McCarthy and his communist witch hunt. In a time when it was unpopular to speak out and express your opinion against something like he did was very risky but important in maintaining not only our freedoms but our sanity. The country was so crazed over the threat of communist infiltration that anyone who did not agree with the status quo was labeled communist and wrongly shun from society. Several people lost their jobs and lives were ruined for having any hint of a connection to communist ideals and sympathy towards those who were punished. Murrow stood up to the bullying Senator and not only called him out but also the American people, basically saying that we as a nation are better than this and the moment we let fear guide our decisions then all is lost.

The film and it's subject matter are just as important today as it was when Murrow was first reporting on McCarthy. At the time of the Iraq occupation it was extremely harmful for one to oppose the war and the actions of the administration. You were considered un-American or a terrorist if you disagreed with the action. People let themselves be manipulated by fear mongering and let themselves be duped rather than looking at the matters logically. We live in a time where nobody wants to think for themselves but are more comfortable being told what to feel or who to hate or who to fear. This is dangerous and can be detrimental to the success and future of our country. This film reminds us that we must question and stand up to our leaders and always back that which is morally right and just, whether the sentiment is popular or not. We must learn from our history, not repeat it.

#81) The Wild Bunch (1969)

I feel this Sam Peckinpah western is just as important a film in the transition from old Hollywood to the new Hollywood as Bonnie and Clyde is. It stands as a symbol of change from the old standards to the new edgier style.

The movie is about a gang of old outlaws, lead by William Holden, who are looking for one last big score. Their ways of doing things are no longer viable as the old west has changed and grown more sophisticated for their standards. They are no longer able to adapt and find that the world has passed them by. Rather than let it slip away they go for one last big score that could change everything for them.

Just as the old west has changed for these characters, old Hollywood standards changed as well and The Wild Bunch attacked the traditional sense of the western head on. In this film people that got shot actually bleed out. There was much more violence shown on screen than had ever been done in any John Wayne western. The main characters weren't exactly the prototypical western heroes either. They were bad and ruthless men, a sort of anti hero that thumbed it's nose at the establishment. It helped wave in a new era of protagonists that were not typical role models. A new darker and edgier type of story telling was happening in Hollywood and this film helped lead the charge into a new era.

That wraps up this group of films. I'll begin work on the next set right away and try to get that posted as soon as possible. And as always, thanks for reading. Until next time...

Star Trek

Growing up there were two kinds of science fiction fans: Star Wars fans and Star Trek fans.

I'm not sure why the two always seem to be at odds. It's possible to like both, in fact I know people that do. But there has always been a comparison between the two which is a bit unfair. Both have completely different mythologies and styles. The fact that they are in outer space is about the only thing in common between these two franchises.

Personally, I've always preferred Star Wars. I grew up on those movies, playing with the toys and collecting anything I could get my hands on. I never watched any of the various Star Trek television shows. I think I liked maybe half of the movies that have come out. The characters always seemed to be cartoonish to me and no real depth to them. I think that is probably because they have been parodied and lampooned so many times it's hard to separate that from the original source.

Star Wars was always more focused on the spiritual mythology involved with the force and more importantly the journey of the characters of Luke and his father. George Lucas has said what a heavy influence the work of Joseph Campbell has had on his writing for the saga. Lucas borrows heavily from the Hero's Journey that Campbell plotted out that is engraved in just about all of mythology and fables. The structure of the large story that Star Wars tells has always been more appealing to me from a literary perspective. None of that was ever apparent in the Star Trek series for me.

Star Trek was first and foremost a television show. It was designed to be episodic. There was a series of adventures that would be solved each week, and really in each movie, but no real ongoing journey or emotional arc for the characters to grow and advance in. They stayed the same and served the various stories laid out each week. Each character had their own unique traits that made them likable and memorable, but there was never really anything at stake individually for them.

The movies I prefer the most in the series are The Wrath of Khan, The Search for Spock, and The Voyage Home. These three movies are the closest the series came to a so-called trilogy. It was a continuing story that showed true evolution of the characters, especially the relationship between Spock and Kirk. There was a sense of mythology being created that followed Campbell's hero structure with the sacrifice and death of Spock and his eventual resurrection. The formula for the Hero's Journey is something that has worked throughout human history and has always made for good storytelling.

After the failure of the Star Wars reboot I was a bit hesitant when a re-imagining of Star Trek was announced. Like I've said, I was never a big fan to begin with but I had hopes for a good movie, especially when J.J. Abrams was attached. I wasn't so sure about the casting but I decided to reserve judgement and have faith that Abrams could deliver a good movie since I've liked pretty much everything else he has been involved with.

This past Saturday I got to see an advance screening of Star Trek and I am happy to say that the movie was fantastic and it blew me away.

For the first time we get to see some back story of how the characters got involved in the Federation and eventually teamed together aboard the Enterprise. The danger in starting over with a franchise like this is that there are decades of history that has been told for these characters and this universe in general. All of the die hard fans know the back story even though it was never shown in any of the films before. If the filmmakers make any slight changes it could throw the entire universe into upheaval for the fans and ruin any time lines that have already been set and told. Essentially that is what this story is all about.

The movie opens with a Romulan ship coming through a time warp and attacking a Star Fleet ship looking for Ambassador Spock. Nobody on the ship has heard of Spock since at this time he is just a child and many years away from joining the Federation. The Romulan ship attacks and destroys the Federation ship, but not before a heroic George Kirk can safely evacuate hundreds on board, including his wife and newborn son James, and then sacrificing his own life to save the others. This act changes history right away, thus creating a new alternate reality time line for our future characters of the Enterprise. Nothing will be how it once was because history has been changed. This plot device allows the filmmakers to have free reign of the universe and tell any story they want to now. What has happened previously in the different television shows and movies can still happen because what we are seeing and what we will probably see in future sequels will be happening along an alternate time line. I've been reading that this has been upsetting some of the faithful fans but I think it's pretty genius on their part and it works just fine.

The real success of this movie lies with the cast. Everyone has some pretty large shoes to fill in playing several iconic characters. First and foremost is Chris Pine who plays Captain Kirk. The heart and soul of the character is present but Pine finds a way to make Kirk his own. He seems a bit more brash and cocky than the version played by William Shatner. He's not better or worse, just different yet still appealing and charismatic which is essential to making this film work. He plays the character with a certain level of cool and self assurance and he brings another level of confidence in his leadership. I felt that Pine was great in the roll and filled the void left by Shatner just fine.

Zachary Quinto gets the honor of wearing the pointy ears and playing the key role of Spock. He definitely has the look but I feared I would only see him as Sylar, his character from Heroes. I don't feel he owned the character quite like Leonard Nimoy did previously and he didn't do anything to make the character his own. If anything it felt more like an impersonation, which actually turns out just fine because of the presence of another certain actor in the film which I don't think is any big secret but I still don't want to give it away. Quinto was believable enough as the character to make it work.

The rest of the crew just had small moments and nothing to really make them shine. Karl Urban, who plays Leonard "Bones" McCoy comes the closest to offering an impersonation like Quinto has done, but it really didn't bother me. He was funny and believable in his limited role. Simon Pegg, who plays Scotty, had some memorable moments and made the character more his own, similar to Pine's performance. The rest of the crew had little to do other than helping to set up their stories and characters for any future sequels which will hopefully have them more involved. They were all fine in their limited screen time.

If there was anything I would have liked to have seen done different in this movie is for it to be longer and maybe some more action. The pacing is really quick and fluid. There is a lot of setting up and story telling which was really engaging and entertaining. There are plenty of well shot and choreographed action scenes but I think there could have been more. But I'm just being nit picky on this area.

The movie was really fast paced and exciting and I think it has done a good job of setting up the characters and universe for future installments. The producers have an opportunity to take this franchise in a whole new direction and create a new mythology for a new generation while giving the old fans more of what they want which is more adventures of the Enterprise. For a big Summer blockbuster movie Star Trek has lots of laughs, good characters and acting, and plenty of explosions and stunts to keep you entertained. Of all of the movies that have come before this one in the series this is probably my favorite. I hope they can keep the talent together and tell us some exciting stories in the future, because for once in the long storied history of this franchise I would consider myself a fan.

Star Trek opens on Friday, May 8. This could be one of the more successful films this summer. I don't think you will be disappointed.

The Brothers Bloom

Last night I had a chance to see a screening of The Brothers Bloom at the Newport Beach Film Festival.

The movie is the second film from writer/director Rian Johnson, whose first film Brick was one of my favorite films from 2005. With Brick Johnson was able to take a fresh spin on the Film Noir genre by setting it in a high school and creating a slang language that made the world the characters lived in seem unique and original. There was a lot of style present in the writing and direction, and with Bloom Johnson is able to once again create a world that is stylistic in it's own way without feeling like he is repeating himself as an artist.

For his second film, Rian Johnson approaches the genre of the con man, or grifter. Adrien Brody plays Bloom and Mark Ruffalo plays Stephen, brothers who have floated through the foster care system, constantly being returned for bad behavior. It is during this phase of their life that they learn their true talents as con artist. They grow up to become some of the most famous and successful con men.

Stephen is the idea man. He is constantly creating elaborate stories for the brothers to thrive in. They create the perfect situation for their mark so that they can take them for all they have. Bloom is the actor, portraying each character his brother draws out for him with such realism that the targets never know what hits them.

Bloom has become a bit tired of the game. He doesn't feel like anything in his life is real, it's all a world of make believe that his brother has invented. He wants out. He wants to live a normal life and be a part of something that is authentic and true. But like most con men he can't stay away for long.

Stephen brings him back in for one last con, his best yet. The target: a wealthy eccentric recluse named Penelope played by Rachel Weisz. Stephen cooks up a complex game to bring Penelope out of her shell and on the adventure of her life, while at the same time giving Bloom what he has longed for: something real.

The film is really funny and quirky with lots of slapstick moments of humor. The brothers have a great chemistry with each other, and Weisz plays up the lonely odd spoiled kid with great humor and innocence. But it's the brothers side kick Bang Bang, played by Rinko Kikuchi, that steals the show. She barely utters a single word in the entire movie but brings a strong vaudeville type of physical humor to the role. She is mysterious and sadistic and flat out funny and charming. The relationship she has with the brothers and eventually with Penelope is very sincere and funny. All four play off of each other with great ease that it all seems natural.

The plot is quite complex with lots of twists and turns that you would expect from a good con story. I never fully was able to figure out who was conning who and I was left guessing till the very end. And even when I thought I had it figured out, it was wrapped up in a way that was very satisfying.

The film starts out with a lot of laughs and keeps the pace throughout most of the film but some of the laughs did die off near the end as things got a bit more serious. As Rian Johnson explained to the crowd after the film, that was an essential element to telling the story. The characters lived in a fantasy created by themselves so it was necessary to make things light and fun for the audience to be a part of that story as well. As things got away from their story and more real then so did the tone and pacing, which makes sense and actually enhances the meaning of the ending.

The writing was good with sharp snappy dialogue and multifaceted characters. There were a few plot points that I didn't feel were explained well but that could just be editing for timing purposes or maybe I missed something. There are a lot of beautiful locations that are photographed well to share the majesty of the destinations and put you into the scene.

The Brothers Bloom was an extremely fun and entertaining movie. It was originally supposed to be out last year but got pushed back till this summer. I was highly anticipating this film because of my love for Brick and it didn't disappoint. Rian Johnson is now two for two and I'm excited to see what he has next. The movie will open in limited release on May 15 and open in wide release on May 29. It's not your typical summer film but it's good counter programming to have it open against some of the big titles. If you are tired of mindless stories with lots of explosions and you want to see something smart and fun I highly recommend you check out The Brothers Bloom.

My Homework Assignment: My 100 Favorite Movies of All Time

What is it with movie fans, or music fans as well, that we feel a need to constantly make lists of our favorites or least favorites?

Maybe it's a way of justifying to ourselves as well as the rest of the world not only what we like but why we like them. Every year everyone has a top ten list of their favorite movies of the year, or favorite albums, or favorite television shows. Even the awards shows that crowd the airwaves are a list in a way. They pick their five favorites in whatever category and then pick their favorite from that list. We all do it. I know I do at least.

And you can really make a list for just about everything. There is a great film called High Fidelity that deals mostly with music and the characters are constantly making random lists ranking various songs for various reasons. A great example is the character of Barry, played by Jack Black, who blurts out to name "top five musical crimes perpetuated by Stevie Wonder in the '80's and 90's. Go. Sub-question: is it in fact unfair to criticize a formerly great artist for his latter day sins, or is it better to burn out or fade away?"

The same can be done for film. Name the five greatest scenes in which Tom Cruise does his obligatory sprinting scene. Or how about five favorite Al Pacino screaming scenes? It can be fun and challenging to come up with a list, but in the end it doesn't mean too much perhaps.

"Doesn't he look angry?"

As much as I love the AFI's tradition of releasing lists of the top 100 films or quotes or songs from films there are always going to be choices I or anyone else doesn't agree with. The lists are subjective and really mean nothing but to the person that created it. It's a way to define one's taste in a way. It also can lead to great discussions and debates as to the validity of one person's picks versus an other's choices. I love reading critic's choices for their favorite films each year, just as I like analysing the nominated films in the various awards categories. I like to compare my picks as a way of validating what I like, but also to criticize and debate what gets chosen and what doesn't get chosen. It really has no concrete merit but it's all in good fun.

So when we were given a homework assignment at work I actually got quite excited. We have a section in the store that displays all of the AFI top 100 American films of all time from the list they released a few years ago. The big boss decided to create a companion wall: the DVD Planet employee's top 100 films of all time. Each employee was assigned to submit their list of 100 favorite films, then a master list would be compiled from all of the most selected titles and we will vote for our picks from that list to create the ultimate list.

I've always wanted to try to come up with a top 100 list before but I've never felt the need to put in all of that work. I've tried to make a top ten list before but I found it too hard to whittle down all of my favorite films to just ten films. One hundred seemed like a more reasonable number that I could work with. One thing was for sure, I was going to take this seriously and do this right.

There were some that as soon as the assignment was given they had their list the next day. I took my time with it, perhaps too much time and I didn't get my list in till a couple weeks later. I wanted to make sure it was right and that took time and diligence in getting it right.

The first thing I did was started to compile a list off the top of my head of my all time favorite films. I initially came up with a little over 30 titles. I then started going through my DVD collection picking some of my favorites. I was also reading everyone else's lists as they were being turned in, catching titles that I had forgotten about or I didn't own so I didn't think about it. When all was said and done I had a master list of about 225 titles. I now had to eliminate more than half of them.

I decided I would come up with a ranking system and rate each title in several different categories such as the writing, acting, directing, personal relevance, re-watchability, etc. I would take the final tally and rank them that way. I actually started this and decided this was just way too difficult and would take forever. Maybe I was taking this a bit too seriously. Perhaps, but I wanted to make sure it was right.

So what I ended up doing was just studying my list and breaking it down into smaller groups. I started by picking the films that I felt absolutely had to be on the list and I ended up cutting it to 80 titles. I picked my initial favorite films I came up with and worked that to about 20 titles. I then ranked those in my preferred order, meticulously rearranging it until I got it right. I continued to do this for the initial 80 titles I picked, picking between 10-20 and ranking those, then the next 10-20, and so on. I was left with a top 80 list and needed 20 more titles from the close to 150 titles left from my original list.

I continued to narrow it down, scrolling over it and picking the ones that were most crucial to me. I got it to 105 titles so the hard part came of what to eliminate. Even after I got it to my final 100 list I continued to tinker with the order. There were films that were down on the list and after looking over it so many times I felt they needed to be higher so I would judge them against each one before it until I found the perfect spot for it. Some moved up, some moved down, but in the end I came up with a final top 100 list that I could be proud of. How geeky am I sounding right about now?

I must say I was quite surprised by my final list. I've been called pretty pretentious by some friends when it comes to my taste in movies, which for the most part I would agree with. There is definitely a fair share of artsy or indie films on my list, but there is some fluff represented as well. Ultimately these are the films that I can watch over and over again. Many are films that have had a direct influence in shaping not only my tastes in movies, but my life personally. I think there is a direct correlation between the art or music or films we like and the type of personalities we have, and our personality behavior has a direct effect on the choices we make in life. To me that is one of the major powers that film has on not only my life but our society and culture in general.

This list was finalized a month ago but if I were to write it now it would probably be different depending on my mood today. There was a film I had owned on DVD that I just watched last week that just blew me away, and had I written this list now it probably would have made my list, it was that good. If you were to compare this to a list I would have written ten years ago it would be drastically different because my tastes have considerably changed. In a way it can be a time capsule to capture that one moment of your life and what you were like when you wrote it. Maybe half of the list would have been on it ten years ago, and it would have been in a really different order. One film in particular stands out to me as being in a completely different spot now than it would have been ten years ago, and I'm reminded by that quote from Barry in High Fidelity, is it in fact unfair to criticize a once great artist for his latter day sins? I'll let you guess what film I'm referring to.

And as I've said before, these lists are subjective. This list is in no way meant to be the definitive list of greatest films ever made, but just my list of personal favorites. So I figured I would share my list with you my dear readers (or maybe it's just reader) for several reasons. One, because I'm a pretentious geek and I need to validate my list to myself by sharing it with you so I feel important. But really, I figure if I am going to write reviews and offer my own opinion and criticism then you should know where I am coming from as far as my taste in film. If you know what kind of films I like and why I like them then it will help validate to not only the reader, but to myself why I like or dislike a film I may watch or write about.

Plus I hope that it will start a conversation and debate about these particular films and your own opinions of them. And maybe it will get you to think about your own favorites so that we could share, compare, and debate who is right and wrong. Maybe I have some films on this list that you haven't seen and it will inspire you to seek them out and find new films to watch. Whatever comes of it, I hope you enjoy reading this. I'm going to reveal them in groups of ten, working backwards until we get to number one.

So without further adieu, let us begin!

#100 His Girl Friday (1940)

This is one of the best screwball comedies staring one of my favorite actors Cary Grant. Cary Grant could do it all from drama to comedy to thriller. He had a certain charisma to him that made him likable in every roll. The closest we have to him today I think would be George Clooney. They have that certain mix of charm and good looks that just screams movie star.

The story focuses on two reporters played by Grant and Rosalind Russell who are both in the news paper business and about to divorce so that Russell can move away with her new love and leave the business and start a new life. Grant will do whatever it takes to keep her around and ends up putting her on a story that turns out to be the biggest the city has seen in quite some time. Meanwhile Grant's character Walter Burns comes up with all sorts of mischief to try and sabotage Russell's new relationship so he can get her to stay.

The movie is full of quick witty dialogue and slapstick humor. It was directed by Howard Hawks who was one of the original giants of old Hollywood. The screwball comedy is a genre that has often tried to be imitated but hasn't had the same success as it did in the '30's and '40's. It's a film I feel still holds up and worth checking out.

#99 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

Here's a movie that had a drastic effect on the future of special effects and lead to films like Star Wars being possible. Stanley Kubrick's film is definitely an acquired taste and could be difficult to watch. It's more of a visual poem than it is a traditional plot based story, but that is what makes it unique.

The movie follows the mysterious monolith that suddenly appears on Earth during the stone ages, then again in the future buried on the moon. When the moon monolith is discovered it sends a signal to another one located near Jupiter and an exploration to that planet is set to find the origins. Along on the mission is HAL-9000, the on board computer with a mission of it's own. The monotone voice of HAL helps the eeriness created for one of the most sadistic killers ever created for the screen.

The movie is asking questions of our existence. Where did we come from? Where did the universe come from? Is there life besides us out there? The psychedelic solar trip at the end of the film is one of the most unique effects created for a sci-fi film. The innovative camera work and special effects along with the use of classical music helps to tell the story in place of any dialogue, which is used sparingly throughout the film. It can be a hard film to watch, but Kubrick has undoubtedly created a masterpiece that needs to be seen to be appreciated.

#98 Adaptation (2002)

The second teaming of director Spike Jonze and screenwriter Charlie Kaufman along with fictional twin brother Donald Kaufman is a realistic if somewhat insane look at the life of a screenwriter. There are moments in this film I fully appreciate because of the realistic approach it takes to writing. The character of Charlie played by Nicholas Cage will do whatever it takes to procrastinate so that he doesn't have to write. It's nice to know that I'm not alone.

Nicholas Cage plays screenwriter Charlie Kaufman as well as his twin Donald. Charlie has just finished Being John Malkovich and he is given the assignment to adapt a novel about flowers. He struggles with how to tell the story and ends up enlisting the help of his brother who has a more Hollywood sensibility. After many struggles he ends up writing himself into the movie and the story ends up becoming the film within the film. Meryl Streep and Chris Cooper in an Oscar winning role play the characters within the film that Charlie is writing yet end up becoming real antagonists for Charlie and Donald.

The film is a really surrealistic approach to story telling and the writing process. Kaufman has a great sense of story structure that is truly complex and innovative. Cage gives one of the best performances in his career creating two completely different characters and pulling them off with great flare in his Oscar nominated role. Adaptation is a really trippy and fun movie. I would love to see another collaboration between Jonze and Kaufman again.

#97 Being John Malkovich

Speaking of Jonze and Kaufman, not only was this their first collaboration but it was their first film and they nailed it. The movie stars John Cusack, Cameron Diaz, Catherine Keener, and of course John Malkovich. Both Jonze and Kaufman have a unique and odd sense of story telling and their visions mix perfectly to create a fun and creative new story.

Cusack plays Craig, a puppeteer that is struggling to make it big so he is forced to take an office job with a company that is oddly located on the 7 1/2 floor of it's building. While filing away he discovers a portal behind a cabinet that leads into the mind of John Malkovich and while inside you get to see what he sees for a short period of time before being dumped out onto a turnpike outside the city. He shares this secret with his wife played by Cameron Diaz and the woman in the office he is attracted to played by Catherine Keener. An addiction and struggle over sharing this portal is created between the characters that leads to a surprising revelation about it's origins.

Like Adaptation, the story's structure is quite unique and complex. All sense of reality is thrown out and playing under their new rules Jonze and Kaufman are able to create a fantastic fable unlike anything else. It is completely original and inventive with great performances by all of the actors. Some might find it a bit too quirky but it's definitely worth checking out.

#96 Groundhog Day (1993)

What would you do if you were forced to live the same day over and over? That's the premise of this Harold Ramis comedy that stars Bill Murray as a weatherman who gets stuck living the same mundane moment over and over again.

The brilliance of this comedy is the length it goes to explore every possible thing you could do with a single day when you are forced to relive it. The story goes full circle, starting with confusion and anger and then acceptance and taking advantage of it. The set of scenes where Murray explores the different possible ways of dying, only to wake up fine the next morning is pretty damn funny.

There is a real heart and soul present in the story. Ultimately it's about finding a way to make things right in your life. Bill Murray and Andie MacDowell have great chemistry together. It's a clever story that offers a lot of laughs that holds up well. It definite must see every year on Groundhog Day.

#95 Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002)

This is the directorial debut by George Clooney with a script by Charlie Kaufman. Clooney brings an original visual style and gets great performances from his cast.

Sam Rockwell plays Chuck Barris, host to the '70's game show The Gong Show and who claimed to work as a secret agent for the CIA. Whether he really did this or made it all up doesn't matter. Clooney takes the approach that he really did do this to tell the story from Barris' point of view which makes for a more compelling and entertaining story. Rockwell is excellent in the leading roll and Drew Barrymore and Julia Roberts give great supporting roles. There are quite a few cool shots in the film like the long take of Barris taking the studio tour which chronicles the shift in time from his visit to his eventual employment in one single shot. Very clever and well executed. Not bad for a rookie director.

#94 Boogie Nights (1997)

A break through film from one of my favorite film makers, Paul Thomas Anderson. Anderson writes a script full of complex multidimensional characters and he brings out the best from his actors with his direction.

Mark Wahlberg plays Dirk Diggler in this story that is loosely based on the life of porn legend John Holmes. He is a physically gifted kid who is lost in life but finds his calling as well as a new family in the porn industry. He becomes a huge star and eventually lets the fame and power destroy him as well as those around him. The large supporting cast that includes Burt Reynolds, Julianne Moore, John C. Reilly, Heather Graham, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and William H. Macy give outstanding performances. Each character is fully drawn out and have their own story arc that make this film a thoroughly engaging look into the world of porn in the 1970's. It's some dark subject material but the story and direction are really excellent.

#93 Apocalypse Now (1979)

Based on the book "Hearts of Darkness," Francis Ford Coppola transfers the story and characters into the Vietnam War to tell an antiwar story and show the effects war has on man.

Martin Sheen plays Captain Willard, a man on the brink of madness himself who is hired for a secret mission to find another military man who has gone crazy, Colonel Kurtz, played by Marlon Brando, and is given the assingment of assassinating him. Along his journey he encounters a variety of interesting characters and some dark and violent battles. But it is the final interaction between Willard and Kurtz where the true madness of war is expressed.

It's a dark and complex film and can be a bit tough to watch at times, but it really is a remarkable achievement of filmmaking. There is a director's cut that was released in 2001 which I haven't seen yet that adds an hour to the film and fleshes out the characters more, but the original cut stands up just fine on it's own. The story of the production of the film is just as engaging, as documented in the film Hearts of Darkness. The madness of the characters spreads to the cast and crew that was truely cursed and would mark an unfortunate downward trend for director Francis Ford Coppola. Both films are worth checking out.

#92 Barton Fink (1991)

Another great film on the life of a writer. This was also the first of a long line of collaborations between writer/directors Joel & Ethan Coen and cinematographer Roger Deakins. Deakins camera work adds as much to the gloom and torture of the character as the script does.

John Turturro plays Barton Fink, a successful New York playwrite who is brought out to Hollywood to write the next big wrestling picture. He locks himself away in a hotel room and struggles to write the commercial work because of fear of sacrificing his intelectual side to his art. Fink strikes up a friendship with a neighbor in the hotel played by John Goodman, a traveling salesman who has a dark and mysterious side to him.

Fink goes a bit mad during the writing process and slowly begins to lose himself. The hotel room he stays in has a bit of a life of it's own. The wallpaper continues to slowly peel away and bleed out the glue holding it together. It's a strong metaphor for Fink and his struggles with trying to write something he's not passionate about. The lighting and photography of the room and the peeling wallpaper adds a great dimension to the story. The entire cast gives great performances in the usual Coen Brothers quirky way.

#91 The Big Lebowski (1998)

One of the best characters created by the Coen Brothers. I'm of course talking about the Dude.

Jeff Bridges plays "Dude" Lebowski, a drunken unemployed stoner who gets mistaken for a millionaire with the same name and dragged into a kidnapping and ransom ploy. All the Dude wants to do is bowl but his life gets turned upside down by this mix of odd characters he comes into contact with.

This is one of the funnier films from the Coens with many quotable lines. John Goodman, Steve Buscemi and John Turturro give great supporting performances, but it's Bridges who steals the show with his role of the Dude. He nails it perfectly and helps to create a truely iconic character. You don't roll on the Shabbos!

Well that's it for now. Thanks for reading along. I'll be back with the next set of ten soon. Until next time...