Sometimes I struggle to get things done. I struggle to keep up to date, I struggle to stay in the know, and I most definitely struggle to embrace many of the hundreds of cinematic 'masterpieces' that have graced the Silver Screen over the past century. But, as I have now found myself only working 4 days a week instead of the intended 6, I have a monday and a tuesday free each week whilst everyone else is stuck in college. So instead of sitting here at the beginning of each week, waiting for the weekend to come, I am going to spend my time catching up on all of these movies that I have somehow avoided watching all these years.

Some will be obvious and classic (Citizen Kane, Brazil etc) whilst others will be modern works. Let's begin.

http://mimoprostor.files.wordpress.c...of-god2jpg.jpg

I had read the rave reviews by the major publications, saw the trailer and contemplated renting it. I never got round to it mainly because I never found myself in the right mood/frame of mind to watch a 'subtitled arthouse flick'. Now, after watching the movie, I realise that my preconceptions of what this movie was were completely inaccurate.

I was lead to believe that City of God was some sort of foreign, visual metaphor on crime. I was surprised to find that in actuality, it's a straight-up gangster flick. With added sincerity.

City of God follows the path of Rocket, a young, aspiring photographer, unable to live the life of crime as so many of his peers do. However, Rocket is not the films main focus - if anything, he is a bit-character, serving mainly as a narrator and providing us with a light of optimism in an otherwise bleak film. City of God is instead based around Li'l Dice, an insecure, homocidal maniac who is hell-bent on taking over the City of God and striking fear into its inhabitants.

What makes this film so compelling is the way in which it takes an unbiased stance on the criminal activity in the City of God. We understand that crime is necessary for these people to survive, and as a result, we actually feel empathy for these hoodlums. Even characters that do not grace the screen for a lengthy period of time, such as Knockout Ned, are worthy of our emotion as an audience.

The Directors must also be commended on creating one of the all-time GREATEST movie villains, Li'l Dice. Here is a character that we want to see dead from the beginning of the film to the very end. He truly is a masterpiece in his own right, and even though he possesses some of the typical villainous traits (bloodthirsty, insecure) he never verges on cliche. Again, this is because of the large amount of humanity that has been injected into him, and whilst never outwardly explaining to us how he became so utterly insane, we somehow understand the twisted logic within his evil decisions.

If you are against the concept of a movie containing 'kids with guns', then City of God is definitely not for you. There are some extremely upsetting/disturbing scenes that become even more hard-hitting when you discover that the territory City of God is shot in is known for its underage criminal activity and even some of the extras used were notorious criminals in that region. There is one particular scene that involved a child making a decision with a gun that was so realistic it made me donate to charity.

But for everyone else that's a little bit more open-minded and unimpressionable, this is a wonderful example of storytelling and cinematography, and I heartily suggest you watch it.

Rating:

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s...withguns-1.jpg

9 kids with guns.

http://dimbulb.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8...484e970b-800wi

After seeing this film ranked highly in multiple lists of 'greatest independent movies ever', I thought I'd give it a shot. Needless to say, I never missed much.

It seems almost wrong to state that a film with Kevin Spacey at the helm remains entirely forgettable. Of course, this is purely my opinion, and I am under the impression that many would furiously oppose me saying that I found The Usual Suspects to be a fun yet throwaway piece of cinema.

It beggars belief that such a film has garnered as much critical acclaim as it has, when a whiff of mediocrity accompanies almost every scene. The setup is regular crime schtick, the protagonists are given barely any characterisation other than 'this one limps', 'this one talks funny' and 'this ones a bit mad'. As for the twist ending? I fail to see how I could be alone in saying that I saw it coming a mile off.

The plot guided itself into a corner multiple times, and any loose ends that you expected to be covered at somepoint during its 106 minute running time remain loose ends until the rolling of the end credits. The characters, whilst interesting in theory, are completely unexplored and any interesting personality quirks (such as Verbal's habit of incessant conversation) are quickly mentioned and then almost instantly forgotten.

The film does have a certain charm to it, as is the case with most low-budget productions, but this charm is overrided by some inexcusable flaws and the unshakable feeling that The Usual Suspects could have been so much better.

Rating:

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s...sixthsense.jpg

4 predictable twists.

As a music fan, I suppose it could be seen as strange that I have only recently watched This Is Spinal Tap from beginning to end. After doing so, however, I find myself a little disappointed.

As a parody of life out on the road, This Is Spinal Tap succeeds on all accounts. It perfectly mimics the egocentric and absent-minded nature of your average rockstar, and its satirical eye gazes over everything from skin tight stage wear to a John/Yoko romance. You can see that the director has carefully thumbed through 'How To Be a Rockstar 101' and decided that he's going to include everything he possibly can.

So, the floppy-haired goons on the stage are, predictably, the butt of all the jokes. This is in no way a bad thing, as the acting all-round is superb (especially considering that Harry Shearer and Michael McKean aren't actually British), and it's a testament to their skills that the characters still remained endearing and likeable despite their idiotic nature.

The comic-timing is also very spot-on, with each of the set-pieces (stonehenge, the pods etc) being allowed enough time to flourish without ever becoming stale.

So, what was it exactly that disappointed me about This Is Spinal Tap? Well, to put it bluntly; I didn't laugh. Whilst I acknowledged that it was a witty and intelligent piece of work, it never generated the belly-rumbling guffaws that I expected it to, and because of this it didn't leave the lasting impression upon me that I expected it to.

By no means does this make it unwatchable, though. It's inability to make me laugh is probably connected to my lack of understanding of the source material, and I can imagine that for a band just starting out on the road this is a definite must-see. However, as I am not an aspiring rockstar, nor do I know any aspiring rockstars, I found myself unable to connect with the numerous jokes thrust upon me.

I'm sure many, if not all of you have at somepoint seen This Is Spinal Tap. However, if you are one of the very few that haven't, I suggest that you do so. You will almost definitely laugh more than I did.

Rating:

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s143/paulta/Amps.jpg

6 amps (turned up to 11)

Originally Posted by WolfAtTheDoor (Post 747050) The Usual Suspects

Originally Posted by Bulldog (Post 747562) I loved this when I first saw it, but after getting over the ending I started seeing all these little mediocrities in it too. Not a film that exactly benefits repeated viewing. Still a good film, but far from a favourite of mine. A much better crime-centred film that Gabriel Byrne's starred in is Miller's Crossing - being a Coens film it's much more character-driven, which always makes a good film for me. Brilliantly written and shot too, and well worth checking out if you haven't already.

Originally Posted by WolfAtTheDoor (Post 747563) I'll have to check it out, I've never really checked anything out by the Coen brothers though I've always thought that if I did, I'd enjoy what they do.

Originally Posted by storymilo (Post 749189) I love what I've seen by them, that is, No Country For Old Men, Fargo, Raising Arizona, The Big Lebowski (my favorite), Ladykillers (my least favorite), and Burn After Reading They are one of my favorite directors/directing teams.

"This is not a film about Vietnam, this is Vietnam". So reads the infamous quote by director Francis Ford Coppola, a statement so strong that it put me off ever sitting down with the 3 hour war epic. After watching it, I see what he means.

Apocalypse Now, in its 3-hour redux form, is a complete and utter mindf*ck. There is no easier nor better way to describe it. It shines an honest light onto the Vietnam war in all its brutal, unneccesary glory. It is bleak to the point of nearly unwatchable. It is a masterpiece.

Whereas other war movies such as Saving Private Ryan briefly touch upon the horrors of war and the effect it has on its participants, Apocalypse Now focusses on nothing but those issues. We watch each and every perfectly well-rounded character lose a grip of themselves, becoming nothing more than neanderthalic lunatics resorting to their primal urges. It is incredibly satisfying to watch a war movie that is more interested in the psychological than the physical.

The only gung-ho, all-American hero we are treated to is Colonel Bill Kilgore, who in any other action-er would have slotted perfectly into the role of badass patriot, but here he is shown for exactly what he is - unsympathetic, bloodthirsty and blinded by power. Coppola maintains this unbiased approach throughout. The heroes and villains are never outlined, and even though we view the war through the eyes of protagonist Captain Willard, it becomes apparent that he is just as morally unstable as the rest of them.

However, even masterpieces are not without their faults. The screentime shared between Sheen's Willard and Brando's fascinating Colonel E. Kurtz is far too brief, and it leaves the film feeling somewhat unfinished as Kurtz' demise is brought about too quickly considering the amount of build-up and characterisation we were put through prior to the characters unveiling. My only other complaint would be that the Redux version (I have not viewed the original as it is incredibly difficult to get a hold of) is perhaps too bleak for its lengthy runtime. Even though Apocalypse Now isn't intended as light-entertainment, the point remains that it made for an incredibly tough viewing experience.

Nonetheless it is an incredible piece of work and, if in a particularly level-headed state of mind, it is absolutely essential that you sit through it.

Rating:

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s...efishburne.jpg

8 'wtf happened to Lawrence Fishburne's face's

http://bowlbyspeaks.files.wordpress....ted-away-1.jpg


Spirited Away is a film that I have placed high on my 'things to do' list countless times, yet somehow never got around to actually viewing it. Since seeing the above image and being intrigued/disturbed by the faceless, erm, 'No Face', I came to the conclusion that it was a film that I would no doubt enjoy. Fantastical story combined with beautiful artwork; how could it possibly go wrong?

The problem with my preconceptions of Spirited Away is that I have thus far read no negative reviews. It was a crossover sleeper hit, therefore attracting no scathing cynicism or hype backlash, meaning that my expectations for it were horrendously high. Upon viewing it, I am a little disappointed and not nearly as captivated as I assumed I would be.

It begins with a wonderful introduction to the surreal Spirit World, full of charming and imaginative characters that are given just enough screen time to capture our imaginations yet retain their mysteriousness. The artwork is gorgeously detailed, and is one of the best-looking films I have ever seen. The first 40 or so minutes continue in this delightful and charming manner. However, after we are introduced to all the bright characters Spirited Away has to offer, it is revealed that there is very little substance to this stylish adventure.

The plot, for the most part, is completely irrelevant. It only serves as a reasoning behind our hero Sen's meeting of the various inhabitants of the Spirit World. Likewise, Sen is completely irrelevant. She offers nothing new or original to the child-protagonist format, always approaching life with complete selflessness as is the case for most of these young do-gooders. It can be argued that Sen's goal of rescuing her parents and the confusing sub-plot between her and boy-dragon Haku is not what we as viewers are supposed to focus on; that Spirited Away is not about the destination, it is about the journey to reach that destination. This would be completely acceptable if the film continuously paced itself as it did in its first half. But that is not the case, and as Sen's adventure finds itself unable to lead us to any new locations or meet any new characters, the breathtaking creative streak displayed previously simmers down until it is merely a pretty shell of its former self.

In terms of Visuals, Spirited Away could not be improved. It is a glorious sight to behold, and if you can forgive it for its shortcomings as an adventure then your eyes are certainly in for a treat. However, as a story, there are too many plotholes and under-developed characters for Spirited Away to be considered a great movie. It is a flawed, dense, beautiful creation that is perhaps a little too well-loved for its own good.

Rating:

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s...ulta/frogs.jpg

7 cartoon frogs.

Originally Posted by WolfAtTheDoor (Post 747546) This Is Spinal Tap

Originally Posted by WolfAtTheDoor (Post 751088) I don't think it deserves the amount of credit it receives because of its leanings towards British humour. Even though the acting is applaudable, the fact that the cast is mainly comprised of Yanks portraying Brits does not make the gags any funnier.

http://www.thecaptainsmemos.com/wp-c...hog-731047.gif



Upon hearing the premise of Groundhog Day, I found it to be an unappealing pitch. The inclusion of Bill Murray was somewhat intriguing but the thought of repetition being an occuring theme in a comedy was too bland to warrant any further interest. However, after finding the time to sit down and embrace it for what it is, I have finally succumbed to its charms.

Groundhog Day manages to successfully do the unthinkable - combine genuine humanity with a romantic comedy. Although it begins as a foray into modern life and the routine that accompanies it, the story steadily reveals its true colours as the bond between Phil Connors (Murray) and Rita, played by an excellent Andie MacDowell, begins to emerge. This love story is both heartwarming and deeply grounded in reality, with Phil's initial attempts to pursue her leading to a hilarious slapping-montage and a date in the snow that showcases Murray at his most sarcastic and cynical.

As you would/should expect, Murray elevates Groundhog Day from a good film to a great film. His understanding of the subtleties of comedy perfectly merge with the dark humour of the script, and as Phil Connors plunges further into a downward spiral, we watch Murray's playfulness with the character escalate. He's on the screen every minute, and every minute you cannot take your eyes off of him. Although the role isn't particularly a stretch for Murray considering the vast repertoire of similiar characters that he has portrayed over the years, it should be argued that when the character in question is this entertaining, the formula needn't be altered.

Groundhog Day exceeded all of my expectations and instead of being a farcical comedy wrapped in a bland gimmick, it is instead an intelligent visual metaphor for the trials and tribulations of the working man stuck in a bottomless pit of routine and responsibility. It is an absolutely essential watch and increases my belief in the theory that Bill Murray is the finest actor of his generation.

Rating:

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s...groundhogs.jpg

8 lovable groundhogs.

With the sexual awakening of another batch of pre-pubescent girls just around the corner (or, as some call it, 'New Moon') Twilight is firmly unavoidable, handsome vampires embedded into our culture as much as binge-drinking and First Class Stamps. It would be extremely easy to write Twilight off without ever having actually viewed it, based upon the criticisms it received upon release by every publication that didn't aspire to be Heat Magazine. The sight of those 14-year old lips quivering just as they did when High School Musical first reared its incredibly beautiful head was enough to put anyone off, especially those of us who didn't claim ownership of a vagina.

So, the good news and the bad news. The good news is that after sitting through 120 minutes of ripped abs and Robert Pattinson's hair, I have managed to maintain my heterosexuality. The bads news is that not only did I sit through the whole 120 minutes of ripped abs and Robert Pattinson's hair whilst maintaining my sexuality, I also actually enjoyed it.

Although Twilight never excels into greatness and remains a distinctly mediocre piece of film-making, the fact that it even managed to slightly exceed my expectations is commendable. Granted, the plot was wafer-thin and the central lovestory was devoid of charm, but as a forgettable piece of popcorn-fodder it was entertaining.

As the two leads, Kristen Stewart and Pattinson do a good job squeezing likeability out of two characters that are relatively unlikeable. However, Pattinson falters somewhat in portraying the mystique and magic that would be expected of a vampire, and his haunted 'look' is easy to mistake for a menacing scowl. This makes the chemistry between Bella and Edward seem a little awkward and forced. Twilight is definitely at its most entertaining when it finds itself combining reality with fiction. Bella's introduction to the Cullen's at the hands of a typical American high-schooler is a highlight, along with the field trip with a vampire. The cinematography is also good, perfectly capturing the gloomy aesthetic of the village.

As you know, Twilight is now officially a global phenomenon. Whilst it lacks the credentials to truly be a cinematic success, its cult fanbase will ensure that it continues penetrating the pop-culture consciousness. Even though it will always have its detractors, it is admittedly refreshing to see an original entry into the overcrowded chick-flick genre.

Rating:

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s...ghtfangirl.jpg

5 Twilight fangirls.

Originally Posted by WolfAtTheDoor (Post 755971) Twilight... yes, really.

The theory of time travel is as intriguing as it is ambitious, instantly conjuring up fantastical images of hovercars and spacesuits. The concept of our planet's unknown future and its incredible past meeting with the present is one that is sure to capture imaginations, so it is somewhat surprising that a film entitled 'Back To The Future' would refuse to stray from one particular era. It would have been incredibly easy to throw protagonist Marty McFly into various time periods of historical relevance and then let the adventure run its natural course, but by grounding itself in 1955 amidst Marty's parents' blossoming relationship, Back To The Future makes the concept even more interesting and not only did it keep me thoroughly entertained throughout its duration, but it also had me longing for a Delorean of my own.

The introduction of Marty McFly reeks of 80's cheese, but somehow manages to retain an element of cool even after watching him skateboard to school soundtracked by 'The Power Of Love'. He is reminescent of Ferris Bueller, a character that is tame by todays standards (skipping school? I mean, c'mon!) but still has that likeability factor that allows you to accept the fact that he might not be as Han Solo as he thinks he is. Christopher Lloyd is also superb as Doc Brown, exuding charm and wackiness but also retaining emotion - notably in his and Marty's knowing confrontation before he sets off in exploration of the future.

However, it is not without its faults. Even though any 'family film' requires imagination from its audience in order for it to work, sometimes Back To The Future pushes the boundaries too far and delves into farcical territory. This is most apparent at the High School dance scene, in which Marty plays a rendition of 'Johnny B.Goode' and the lead singer of the band he performs with just so happens to be the cousin of Chuck Berry. This sort of unnecessary knowing wink to the audience happens regularly, and adds nothing to the overall experience. Another gripe would be the character of Biff, who offers nothing as an antagonist other than disliking Marty's father, George McFly. His motives are non-existant and his main contribution to the proceedings is a scene involving him attempting to rape Marty's mother... with this knowledge it is somewhat disturbing that in the future George McFly would hire him to wax his car.

Fortunately none of this detracts from the movie too much, and Back To The Future still remains a heartwarming and lighthearted watch. It is unlikely that I will revisit it, but as a movie-going experience it was an enjoyable blast from the past that left me with that warm feeling of nostalgia. I give it;

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s...a/delorean.jpg

7 deloreans.