Author Topic: The Top 100 Club (Mar 2013 - Aug 2015)  (Read 441659 times)

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: The Top 100 Club
« Reply #480 on: May 12, 2013, 04:38:22 AM »
Tremors (1990)

Being a rewatch, I felt comfortable splitting this into two sittings here and there when I wasn't quite ready for a proper viewing. Still, finishing it up on the day I watched The Fly made for interesting contrast. This creature feature plays much more to standard horror B-movie conventions with our characters in a real state of peril. There is no pretense of deep meaning yet I don't mind in the slightest because I'm having so much fun, even with as dated as everything about the film is. It is amazing how much you can do with tin can alley style effects with a bit of smoke and a thing falling over to indicate position. Or else it's very much like the backlot tour ride at Tremors, everything on a timer, played to dramatic perfection.

Plus, I think the risk of subterranean terror is a perfectly legitimate reason to demand people have the right to a personal arsenal of high powered weaponry.

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36129
  • Marathon Man
Re: The Top 100 Club
« Reply #481 on: May 12, 2013, 09:38:40 PM »
Part 4:

70. Secrets and Lies - I never realized what a big Mike Leigh fan you are. I couldn't find a good pull quote from my review* * *

69. Ronin - "Everybody's your friend till the rent comes due."
Robert De Niro and a slew of recognizable faces in a formula picture that delivers a full action meal where most films get by on the empty calories of a sugar rush. This may be Studio commercialism made for the widest possible audience, but it's well-acted, smartly written and sharply directed. * * * 1/2

68. Happy Gilmore - I'm going to take this as one of your personal picks that give your list charm. Not that I don't think it's funny. But Top 100? I'd say it's just as annoying as it is funny and if I'm going to put in a Sandler, might as well go for Billy Madison, which is even more annoying and funnier and as Bradley Whitford. * * 1/2

66. Before Sunset -
A lot's happened to me in the time between Sunrise and Sunset.  Unfortunately, it's different than what's happened to the couple I used to associate with in a deeply personal way.  There are moments and scenes where I find myself reconnecting with them, still sharing their perspective on the world.  However, in scenes like the cafe stop, I find myself having to focus especially hard to stay engaged. RATING: * * *

65. Million Dollar Baby -
I got caught up in Million Dollar Baby all over again.  This time I even knew the movie was going to put my heart through the f—king wringer.  I still gave in.  Yeah, some of the performances and supporting character beats could and should have been stronger, but I still hold that this one of the Top 100 of the Decade. * * * 1/2

64. Happy-Go-Lucky -
I remembered Sally Hawkins' performance in Happy-Go-Lucky as one very interesting note. Refreshing, unusual but still the same reaction over and over. Nothing got ol' Poppy down. The best thing about this rewatch wasn't being once again cheered up by a character whose sugary disposition drove some people bats, but watching how much detail Hawkins brings to Poppy. There is anger and disappointment. She is aware of the world being a cruel and negative place. She just chooses not to buy into it and let it overwhelm her. RATING: * * *

63. Commando - Stupid should always be this entertaining. So many quotable one-liners. So much action. So much to enjoy. * * * 1/2

62. To Live - I didn't get to rewatch this like I hoped. I saw the film in the theater in 1994 and I loved it. * * *1/2

61. Winged Migration - Initially I confused this with the movie Fly Away Home. I remember liking this. Had to watch the DVD extras because I couldn't believe some of the shots they got. * * *
« Last Edit: May 15, 2013, 07:14:53 PM by 1SO »

Jared

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3492
Re: The Top 100 Club
« Reply #482 on: May 12, 2013, 11:03:22 PM »
Spartan

Val Kilmer plays Bobby Scott, a top notch special agent assigned to rescue a high ranking politicians daughter (played by Kristen Bell) from the sex trade. As he goes through the investigation we see the case take several twists and turns and things are never quite what they seem.

Mamet has a unique style in the thriller genre to me. The movie feels like so many of its genre that are really tightly constructed, but there is a looseness and messiness to the way things unfold. It is kind of jarring in a good way. I wonder in movies like this, or The Spanish Prisoner for example, how much is intentional. I felt pretty confused by some of the missions and who knew what at certain points of this movie, but maybe a little bit of that is on purpose. I cant put my finger on what it is, but everything just seems to stack up oddly and unconventionally.

Overall the movie is a pretty well paced action movie. There are a lot of good small parts (I particularly like Ed O'Neil and William H Macy playing some of the government suits that know more than they let on). Also, when I think Mamet, I often think I am going to get something pretty dialogue heavy, although this movie is actually a little bit sparse in that department. An interesting choice that I think worked pretty well.

oldkid

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 19044
  • Hi there! Feed me worlds!
Re: The Top 100 Club
« Reply #483 on: May 13, 2013, 01:13:34 AM »

73. Commando - Stupid should always be this entertaining.

A perfect review.  I'll have to remember that line to use myself one of these times.
"It's not art unless it has the potential to be a disaster." Bansky

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: The Top 100 Club
« Reply #484 on: May 13, 2013, 12:25:07 PM »
The Fly (1986)

I thought I had seen The Fly. I certainly remembered the arm wrestling scene. Yet beyond that scene and knowing the basic plot, it seemed very new to me. Often filed away under the horror label (though clearly sci-fi as well), the film is not so much scary as grotesque. This certainly counts as horrific but isn't in keeping with the sense of peril that is typical of the genre.

Seth Brundle (Jeff Goldblum) has invented a teleportation system and can't help but use it to impress the attractive journalist Veronica (Geena Davis). It is his feelings for her that ultimately push him to recklessly test it on himself and but for the presence of a little fly, it would have worked perfectly. Instead, we watch his decline.

This film could be a cautionary tale about scientific overreach (Jurassic Park is more focused in that respect), it could be a commentary on genetic engineering and the concept of genetic superiority. It even could double as a particularly gruesome commentary on the nature of reproduction and indeed, this is where it comes closes to depth. Still, it manages to be all and none of these, largely sacrificing any thematic coherence simply to revel in genre-film creature effects. As the film turned further in that direction, I became less invested in it. I suppose the film deserves credit for disgusting me, that's just not what I really want out of a film.

The film has that vaguely B-movie vibe in its production quality as well. Aside from the creature effects, the filmmaking here is kind of rickety and surprisingly Goldblum and Davis come off as a bit stilted with the dialogue. It doesn't really come off as a well crafted film but maybe I'm just judging the 80s too harshly as the film very much feels of its time. Still a lot to like for what it is but apparently nothing too memorable for me if I had in fact seen it before.

3/5

I'm guessing by your luck-warm reaction that the ending didn't make up for all the hiccups along the way.



80. Inception - This almost makes my own Top 100. Sure the snowbound action isn't very well done. Now lets look at everything that's good with the film. Another terrific screenplay and  Nolan's finest directing with his best blend of cool moments and smarts, both in epic doses. I'm still not convinced of one particular interpretation. So many work and I'd hate to forsake a few.* * * *

People don't like the snow sequence? What's the complaint?

That the bad guys are very video gamey. They're indistinguishable avatar guys with no personal involvement, so the action is snippets of a stunt show with very few cool/interesting moments.

Hmm, can't say as I relate to that at all.

Quote
Quote
Quote
73. Shaun of the Dead - So many of the jokes just land, even on repeat viewings.  I love the camerawork that's brash without being overbearing.  (The steadicam shot after zombie infestation and the way it reflects on an earlier matching shot is among my absolute favorite of the decade.)  I love the buddy dynamic between Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, and I love just how rich and touching their friendship is written and played.  The film would not have worked so well without such deep conviction.  The pacing slackens a bit as it rolls along and by the end it plays less like a comedic deconstruction and more like a standard zombie film. The final scene wraps a wonderful bow on things. * * * 1/2

How you gunna go and take a half star off this one? I need to know. :)
Answer in bold. The last third is nowhere near as inventive as the first hour. It becomes more homage than original inspiration.
Oh I see. I guess I didn't read that as a criticism, just an observation.


Quote
Quote
Quote
72. Rumble in the Bronx - A silly film, but entertaining with a couple of Jackie Chan's greatest action sequences. * * *

I don't think it's possible to dislike this movie when it finishes with such an endearing blooper reel. :))

Have you seen Rush Hour? The blooper reel is the most endearing moment.

Seen it many times. :)) Part two also. I own both dvds and have also enjoyed Brett Ratner's dvd commentaries. Solo commentaries by directors are usually SO dry... even directors like Michael Bay. Ratner is a good storyteller, so his commentaries are actually enjoyable. :)

Quote
Quote
Would you say it's fair to call To Live and Die in L.A., Lethal Weapon without the humour? Having just watched the movie I can't help but make the comparison. :)) Both steeped in 80's style (music on down to wardrobe), one cop with some serious demons pulling another one off the straight and narrow...

This better not be the last we hear about Lethal Weapon from you.

I'll give it a few words at some point I guess. I didn't like it as much as might've been expected though. :(



Quote
I was curious how you'd feel about this one. You're no stranger to noir, and you picked up on that vibe early. Myself, I try and stay a safe distance away from the genre. However in this case I must concede to its occasional goodness. I think the ending had a lot to do with that. It surprised me... showed  me something different. Do you think it was totally successful in what it was trying to get across?

Maybe not totally successful, but successful enough.  The turn it takes about 10-15 minutes before the end (anyone who's seen it should know what I mean) was completely unexpected, and I really appreciated that.

I would say the same. :)

Quote
You really covered all the bases. There's not much to add except that I'm glad you had a good time. :)

Yeah, me too!  I lucked out, I think.  There are many others I could have picked that I think I would have liked far less.

I think you're probably right. Go with your gut. :)



Open Range (2003)

I've been accused of reading too far into films before. On the one hand, I like films to be about things and this habit can make films better (even when they don't intend the insights I find) or it can make films worse (when they fail to fully embrace the themes they never aspired to in the first place). At the heart of Open Range is a conflict between free range cattlemen Boss (Robert Duvall) and Charley (Kevin Costner) and the private ranching of Baxter (Michael Gambon). Whether justified or not, I read into this conflict an epic clash of economic ideologies.

The free range ethos that once ruled the West was a rather egalitarian one. The land belonged to no one and everyone and that allowed anyone who could scrape up some cattle to earn a livelihood. They might not make it rich but they'd put together enough that they might enjoy a whiskey in a saloon or an evening in the company of a prostitute on the chance they make it into town. It's not much, but it's a life.

Once the land could be owned, it necessarily played favorites and those were the ones with the money to buy up the land and it concentrated the earnings in those hands. What you've got is a concentration of wealth and power typical of capitalism (and feudalism for that matter) and Baxter is the cold, bottom-line focused type that isn't concerned about those who get ground up in the gears of his machinery, in this case a metaphorical equivalent of the industrial revolution.

One thing about Open Range is that it is a very simple plot yet it is a reasonably long film at 140 minutes. Some of this is valuable, introducing us to the various individuals in the town where Baxter is exerting his force. We see how each is in varying ways kept down or intimidated. The introduction of a romantic sub-plot involving Sue Barlow (Annette Bening) adds stakes to the inevitable showdown. Still, the film does have the tendency to throw in sizable conversations that feel entirely unnecessary, putting into words what is already pretty obvious through the actions.

So is Open Range intentionally a populist, anti-corporate film that creatively uses that most American of genres, the Western, to convey its message? I don't know, but in our present economic times, it certainly strikes a chord. That gives it enough, in spite its flaws, to rise above standard Western fare.

4/5

I'm glad you found an angle that made this one worthwhile. :)



Tremors (1990)

Being a rewatch, I felt comfortable splitting this into two sittings here and there when I wasn't quite ready for a proper viewing. Still, finishing it up on the day I watched The Fly made for interesting contrast. This creature feature plays much more to standard horror B-movie conventions with our characters in a real state of peril. There is no pretense of deep meaning yet I don't mind in the slightest because I'm having so much fun, even with as dated as everything about the film is. It is amazing how much you can do with tin can alley style effects with a bit of smoke and a thing falling over to indicate position. Or else it's very much like the backlot tour ride at Tremors, everything on a timer, played to dramatic perfection.

Plus, I think the risk of subterranean terror is a perfectly legitimate reason to demand people have the right to a personal arsenal of high powered weaponry.

You're a Burt Gummer at heart. :)



68. Happy Gilmore - I'm going to take this as one of your personal picks that give your list charm. Not that I don't think it's funny. But Top 100? I'd say it's just as annoying as it is funny and if I'm going to put in a Sandler, might as well go for Billy Madison, which is even more annoying and funnier and as Bradley Whitford. * * 1/2

That's the thing, I can sit through Billy Madison and not crack a smile. But all I have to do is think of Chubbs Peterson, Shooter McGavin, or Ben Stiller as the orderly, and I can start laughing. And the character Happy Gilmore is Sandler at his least annoying (i.e. best). For me this straight forward comedy has more laughs per scene than most, and has held up over more viewings than things like Dumb & Dumber or Wayne's World. Quotable, memorable... and responsible for more injuries at the driving range than any other film. :)

Quote
75. Million Dollar Baby -
I got caught up in Million Dollar Baby all over again.  This time I even knew the movie was going to put my heart through the f—king wringer.  I still gave in.  Yeah, some of the performances and supporting character beats could and should have been stronger, but I still hold that this one of the Top 100 of the Decade. * * * 1/2

I saw this again over Christmas. I feel like it hits every note just right.

Quote
72. To Live - I didn't get to rewatch this like I hoped. I saw the film in the theater in 1994 and I loved it. * * *1/2
That's awesome :)

Quote
71. Winged Migration - Init
Spartan

Val Kilmer plays Bobby Scott, a top notch special agent assigned to rescue a high ranking politicians daughter (played by Kristen Bell) from the sex trade. As he goes through the investigation we see the case take several twists and turns and things are never quite what they seem.

Mamet has a unique style in the thriller genre to me. The movie feels like so many of its genre that are really tightly constructed, but there is a looseness and messiness to the way things unfold. It is kind of jarring in a good way. I wonder in movies like this, or The Spanish Prisoner for example, how much is intentional. I felt pretty confused by some of the missions and who knew what at certain points of this movie, but maybe a little bit of that is on purpose. I cant put my finger on what it is, but everything just seems to stack up oddly and unconventionally.

Overall the movie is a pretty well paced action movie. There are a lot of good small parts (I particularly like Ed O'Neil and William H Macy playing some of the government suits that know more than they let on). Also, when I think Mamet, I often think I am going to get something pretty dialogue heavy, although this movie is actually a little bit sparse in that department. An interesting choice that I think worked pretty well.
ially I confused this with the movie Fly Away Home. I remember liking this. Had to watch the DVD extras because I couldn't believe some of the shots they got. * * *

I did the same thing. I wish I hadn't. :-\



Spartan

Val Kilmer plays Bobby Scott, a top notch special agent assigned to rescue a high ranking politicians daughter (played by Kristen Bell) from the sex trade. As he goes through the investigation we see the case take several twists and turns and things are never quite what they seem.

Mamet has a unique style in the thriller genre to me. The movie feels like so many of its genre that are really tightly constructed, but there is a looseness and messiness to the way things unfold. It is kind of jarring in a good way. I wonder in movies like this, or The Spanish Prisoner for example, how much is intentional. I felt pretty confused by some of the missions and who knew what at certain points of this movie, but maybe a little bit of that is on purpose. I cant put my finger on what it is, but everything just seems to stack up oddly and unconventionally.

Overall the movie is a pretty well paced action movie. There are a lot of good small parts (I particularly like Ed O'Neil and William H Macy playing some of the government suits that know more than they let on). Also, when I think Mamet, I often think I am going to get something pretty dialogue heavy, although this movie is actually a little bit sparse in that department. An interesting choice that I think worked pretty well.

I keeps moving up my list. It's that strange quality you mention. I keeps me coming back. I'm Glad you took the time to see it. :)

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36129
  • Marathon Man
Re: The Top 100 Club
« Reply #485 on: May 13, 2013, 10:56:03 PM »
Quote
This better not be the last we hear about Lethal Weapon from you.

I'll give it a few words at some point I guess. I didn't like it as much as might've been expected though. :(

It's so perfectly tailor made for you I knew you'd be disappointed. Just want to hear your reasoning.
FYI, It connects with LW 2 in such a way as to make the four hour experience The Godfather of action cinema.

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: The Top 100 Club
« Reply #486 on: May 14, 2013, 04:30:54 AM »
Alone in the Wilderness

I see the possible appeal, watching someone, showing up with a minimum of tools/supplies, crafting a livable situation out of a harsh natural setting. It speaks to the bounty of nature if one has skills. Richard Proenneke is in some ways that antithesis of Farley Mowat from the start of Never Cry Wolf, pure competence rather than pratfall. Unfortunately Alone in the Wilderness is a terribly uncinematic documentary. It bounces along with an erratic pace, dulled under the monotone narration and ultimately did little to keep my attention.

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: The Top 100 Club
« Reply #487 on: May 14, 2013, 05:02:29 PM »
Quote
This better not be the last we hear about Lethal Weapon from you.

I'll give it a few words at some point I guess. I didn't like it as much as might've been expected though. :(

It's so perfectly tailor made for you I knew you'd be disappointed. Just want to hear your reasoning.
FYI, It connects with LW 2 in such a way as to make the four hour experience The Godfather of action cinema.

Your instincts were correct. I'll try and put together some thoughts on it.



Alone in the Wilderness

I see the possible appeal, watching someone, showing up with a minimum of tools/supplies, crafting a livable situation out of a harsh natural setting. It speaks to the bounty of nature if one has skills. Richard Proenneke is in some ways that antithesis of Farley Mowat from the start of Never Cry Wolf, pure competence rather than pratfall. Unfortunately Alone in the Wilderness is a terribly uncinematic documentary. It bounces along with an erratic pace, dulled under the monotone narration and ultimately did little to keep my attention.

That's very Gimli of you, Bondo. :))


"What do trees have to talk about, except the consistency of squirrel droppings?"

I love your observation about Proenneke/Mowat. Similar motivations, different expectations. I understand your complaints though. I suppose the narration is dull, in a sense. His musings are not particularly exciting or complex. I think his credibility lends a lot of weight to what he says though. It's a guy with enough years under his belt to make some conclusions about living. He's walking the walk. For me that buoys it. :)

I'm surprised to see Never Cry Wolf succeed where Alone in the Wilderness did not. Thanks for giving them both a look. Especially a film like this one... second opinions are hard to come by. :)
« Last Edit: May 14, 2013, 05:05:24 PM by smirnoff »

Sandy

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 12075
  • "The life we build, we never stop creating.”
    • Sandy's Cinematic Musings
Re: The Top 100 Club
« Reply #488 on: May 15, 2013, 01:10:58 AM »
Winged Migration




As soon as the movie ends, I google hypnosis. The strange, mesmerizing power this movie has, makes me search for answers. More than once, it's music and wing rhythm lull me to sleep and when I regain consciousness a few minutes later, I go back to where I drifted off. Even awake, I become aware that I'm watching whole segments in a trance--following the formations and studying the feathers as the air lifts them. I'm going to partially blame my sleep deficiency for the nodding off, but only partly since there is a very strong dose of relaxation administered throughout this movie. According to Wiki, there are definite hypnosis properties as well. The description says it's a "heightened focus and concentration with the ability to concentrate intensely on a specific thought." That's it! I've been hypnotized, and I like it. :)


Rating: 9
« Last Edit: May 15, 2013, 12:42:49 PM by Sandy »

BlueVoid

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1841
    • Movie Fodder
Re: The Top 100 Club
« Reply #489 on: May 15, 2013, 02:55:43 AM »
Tremors
I really like that Smirnoff's list includes films like Tremors. So many times top 100 list are overly concerned with highbrow 'great' films and miss the boat completely on being fun. There is always room for fun movies on personal top lists. I appreciate that. I'm always up for a good creature feature, so I was excited to finally get to 'Tremors', one of the most well regarded B movies in the cult cannon. I wanted a mindless good time, and I almost got that.

It was definitely mindless. The entire premise is absolutely absurd. Well, of course it is, its a B level creature flick, its supposed to be. I'm not really sure what I was hoping for, but I didn't get it here. Maybe it's because I just finished rewatching 'The Thing' and am still basking in it's mastery of the genre, but this film just felt like a throwaway. Maybe that's an unfair comparison, but it gets at the heart of the problem. There is nothing to this. It's a lame monster. It's not scary. It's not funny. There is nothing to sink your teeth into. It's not even good action. If you fail to have fun with the camp aspect, as I did, then you are left with nothing. It was mildly amusing watching Kevin Bacon go pseudo-macho commando against a bunch of glorified earthworms, but there isn't anything here to write home about.

It's fine for what it is. I'd watch it again if it happened to be on TV and I wanted to zone out for an hour or two, but it's not one I'm going to hold in any kind of high regard. It's passable.

So, on one hand I know that I'm kind of putting down one of your favorite films Smirnoff. On the other, I want to thank you for including this type of movie. It didn't work for me, but I see how someone could really get nostalgic for movie like this.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2013, 02:58:34 AM by BlueVoid »
Former blog on FlickChart: The Depths of Obscurity
Letterboxd 
iCM
Twitter