Synopsis: In Hollywood at the beginning of the sound era, a director and his cast realize that the only way to save their disappointing film is to turn it into a musical.

I’m skipping pretty far ahead in the list, but I recently had the chance to watch this on the big screen (thanks to the TIFF Group’s “Essential Cinema” series at their brand spanking new movie theatre, the Lightbox) and I figured that I may as well write about it now (rather than when I make my way to the S films, which will be — what… ten years?).

I don’t think it’s particularly bold or unexpected for me to say that I love this film; there’s a reason that it’s one of the most beloved musicals of all time. It’s delightful. If you don’t love — or at least like — this film, and if musical numbers like Make ‘Em Laugh, Moses Supposes and, of course, Singin’ in the Rain (among many others), don’t put a smile on your face, then I think you need to do some serious soul-searching and realize that you may just be dead inside.

This is such a great film; it’s cram-packed with delightful, memorable musical numbers, and it’s surprisingly funny — the audience I saw it with laughed throughout. Every role is cast to perfection; aside from the perfectly matched Gene Kelly and Debbie Reynolds, the supporting players (such as Donald O’Connor and the hilariously oafish Jean Hagen) are just as good. The amazingly choreographed dance numbers are perfectly directed by Donen and Kelly, who wisely just pull the camera back and let the dancing unfold in mesmerizing long takes. The film has aged remarkably well, and even for a contemporary audience, it is enthralling throughout.

I know I’m being ridiculously superlative here, but this film is just such a joy to behold. I’m not even a particularly big fan of musicals (I mean, I like them just fine, but I tend not to seek them out), but this movie is just so perfect, and so enjoyable, it’s hard not to love it.

Buy the movie at Amazon

Synopsis: A couple of resistance fighters try to figure out what to do next after realizing that they’ve botched an assassination attempt on a communist politician.

Well, that was a pleasant surprise. Not that I was expecting this to be bad, but I was unfamiliar with director Andrzej Wajda, and so I wasn’t sure what to expect.

As it turns out, Wajda’s impressive direction was probably the highlight of the film; stylish and filled with intricately-composed, Citizen Kane-esque low angle shots, you can definitely see the influence Wajda has had on directors over the years. I won’t go into spoilers, but there’s a moment towards the end of the film that was as memorable and as visually striking as anything I’ve seen in quite a while. You’ll know it when you see it.

Of course, this wouldn’t have added up to all that much if the film itself hadn’t been up to snuff — the protagonist’s realization, over one long night, that he can’t necessarily do his duty and live a normal life was deftly handled, and though the film wasn’t perfect (it drags slightly in parts) it was definitely quite memorable.

Buy the movie at Amazon

Synopsis: A grizzled, normally-solitary steamship captain in WWII-era Africa takes on a passenger who convinces him to help the war effort.

I’ve been a fan of John Huston’s for a while now, so the African Queen has definitely been on my to-see list (I’m also a fan of Humphrey Bogart’s, but that just goes without saying. There are only two types of people in the world: Humphrey Bogart fans, and people who have never seen a Bogart movie). Up until a few months ago, thanks to some legal shenanigans involving rights issues, trying to see this movie on home video has been surprisingly difficult. But I’m glad that I never made the effort to get my hands on a dodgy import, because the recently-released Blu-ray looks pretty stunning. It’s sharp, vibrant and without a hint of age.

But what about the movie itself? While I wouldn’t quite put it up there with stuff like the Treasure of the Sierra Madre and the Asphalt Jungle (which I will be watching again pretty soon, as it’s on the list), this is definitely a justified classic. A movie like this, which is really just about the interactions between two characters, lives and dies by its performances. Humphrey Bogart and Katherine Hepburn… well, do I really need to finish that sentence? They’re both legendary actors, and their performances here are certainly commensurate with their stature. They also have really great chemistry together, so by the end of the film you’re definitely rooting for them to make it. You’d think that the film might be a bit stagy, but Huston manages to keep things abundantly cinematic, including a few sequences which are surprisingly tense. Good stuff.

Buy the movie on Amazon

Synopsis: The animals at a farm rise up against their oppressive master, only to see their ideal of a collectively-run farm slowly crumble.

Well, this is the second time that I’ve seen Animal Farm, and I definitely liked it a bit better this time around. I still don’t think it’s a classic on the same level of some of the movies I’ve already watched for this blog, but certainly, it is a good film. The first time I watched it, I had just read George Orwell’s classic book, and some of the liberties that Halas and Bachelor took with their adaptation kind of irked me (most notably, the choice to make most of the animals mute, and the tacked-on happy ending). It’s been a few years since I’ve read the book, and now that it’s not particularly fresh in my mind, I was able to appreciate the film on its own merits.

It was actually kind of interesting to watch this so soon after 1900, which had a pretty strong pro-communist message. Obviously, Animal Farm is pretty much the opposite, as it’s well known to be an anti-communist allegory (and in fact, rumour has it that the film was partially funded by the CIA to act as a piece of anti-communist propaganda).

Just speaking as a fan of classic animation, you have to appreciate this movie just based on the visuals alone. The fluid, stylish animation is right up there with the best stuff of the era, and an iffy DVD transfer notwithstanding, this is a must-see for anyone who has any kind of interest in animated film. As for the story, it’s fairly compelling, if not quite on par with the book. The movie does a good job of making us care about the animals, and it’s hard not to get wrapped up in their plight, especially towards the end of the film when things start to really go sour for the embattled denizens of the farm.

The movie certainly has its flaws, but I can’t deny that it’s worth watching.

Buy the movie at Amazon

Synopsis: A few weeks in the life of a rebellious young kid in Paris.

Well, I finally joined the 21st century and got a Blu-ray player (a PS3, to be precise), and this film seemed as good as any to christen the new machine. The movie looked pretty darn spiffy, though to be honest it’s kind of hard to tell the difference on my crappy old 30 inch CRT HDTV (I hate that stupid, tiny, outdated old TV with a passion). The picture was crisp, and Criterion did a great job (as usual) making sure the image was well-restored and without any noticeable signs of aging.

François Truffaut is definitely my favourite director from the French New Wave. I can appreciate guys like Jean-Luc Godard and Alain Resnais, but it’s fairly clear that they were more interested in challenging the traditional notion of what a film can be than actually making something that most people would want to watch. I don’t know how pretentious you’d have to be to really love something like Weekend, but I’m not there yet.

Honestly, I don’t have a whole lot to say about this movie. I’ve seen it a few times now, and I definitely like it, but it’s one of those movies I like and respect but am fairly ambivalent towards. Truffaut does a great job getting really naturalistic, convincing performances from the kids, and the widescreen, black and white cinematography always keeps things interesting on a visual level.

A note: since I don’t have a Blu-ray drive on my computer, I couldn’t capture my own image from the film, so credit goes to DVD Beaver for the picture above.

Buy the movie at Amazon

Synopsis: An ambitious young woman manipulates her way into the life of a legendary theatre actress.

It was interesting to watch this film so soon after All About My Mother, which pays pretty extensive homage to All About Eve. The two films aren’t particularly similar, but Mother outright references Eve at least a couple of times; I’d be interested to watch it again just to see if there were any other allusions that flew right over my head. As for which “All About _____” is the superior film, I’m going to have to go with a tie. Yes, that’s a pretty lame answer, but what can I say? I liked them both.

So yeah, it is definitely a justified classic and deserves its place on the list. Both Bette Davis and Anne Baxter give really compelling, above-average performances. Baxter in particular does a great job of starting out sweet and letting the insidious nature of her character come out really gradually. It’s definitely an impressive performance. The supporting performances are just as good, with the standout being George Sanders as the smug and vaguely sinister Addison Dewitt. The scene towards the end of the film where he completely eviscerates Eve (verbally, of course) was definitely one of the better things I’ve seen in a while. I like Sanders because he’s one of those rare actors who has the ability to liven up even the dullest of material; when he’s given something that’s already good… well then he’s really good.

Buy the movie at Amazon

Synopsis: A widow falls in love with her gardener, and then must deal with her judgmental friends and family.

It’s going to get a bit old if I keep mentioning something along the lines of “I’ve been meaning to watch this film for a while,” but, well… I’ve been meaning to watch this film for a while. One of the reasons that I wanted to do this list is that it would force me to watch films that I know I should see, but that I’ve been too lazy to actually watch. So here we are, another classic to check off the old list.

I enjoyed this movie. This was my first Douglas Sirk film, and of course, Sirk is well known his stylized, vibrant colour palette — even knowing that, I was still unprepared for just how lush the visuals were. The film is almost absurdly colourful. It’s quite striking, and it’s easy enough to see why Sirk has been so influential over the years. Most notably, Sirk’s influence on Pedro Almodovar seems fairly apparent, both in his vibrant use of colour and the emphasis on larger-than-life melodrama.

Yes, this film is quite melodramatic — another Sirk hallmark. Melodrama can be painful to watch when done wrong, but Sirk obviously knew what he was doing. The characters and plot developments are far from subtle, but it all really works. I liked it; list, you’ve done it again! Actually, the list has been pretty good to me so far — out of the 13 films that I’ve watched, there have only been two overt duds. If the good to bad movie ratio can stay at about that level, I’ll be very happy indeed.

Buy the movie at Amazon

Synopsis: A notorious playboy, engaged to be married, meets a woman (also engaged) on a European cruise. They fall in love, and make a plan to reunite six months later at the top of the Empire State Building.

Well, this is movie number ten, which means that I’m just about one percent done with the list — only 991 movies to go! At this rate, I should be done in around eight years or so (just the movies, of course; the books are going to take much, much longer than that).

If you were to make a list of, say, the top ten Hollywood movie stars of all time, Cary Grant would have to be on top, or very close to it. He just epitomizes the classic Hollywood movie star in so many ways, and along with people like Clark Gable and James Stewart, is one of the benchmarks by which most stars are measured. And with good reason, too — though he essentially played a variation on his established persona in pretty much every movie he made, he was so darn good at it, and so charming, that it really didn’t matter.

So it goes without saying that Grant was quite good in this film; his co-star, Deborah Kerr, was just as good, and the two have palpable on-screen chemistry (which is probably one of the reasons why this movie has endured so strongly over the years).

I definitely liked this movie, though there are a couple of things that irked me about it — the main thing being the absurd amount of time that the couple spends apart (essentially the entire second half of the almost two hour film). Now, I think we’re all aware of the unwritten rule of romantic movies — there will always be a part towards the end of the film in which the couple breaks up, usually due to an unfortunate misunderstanding. We as the audience know that the couple will get back together, but we put up with this because there is something inherently satisfying about seeing two people who love each other overcome the odds and find happiness, and because pretty much every movie (and broadly speaking, every story) must contain some sort of conflict for the characters to overcome. However, there is a reason why this section of the film generally lasts about five or ten minutes — since we know for a fact that the couple is going to get back together, there’s not so much interest in seeing the couple apart; the real interest is in seeing them reunite. So, almost one hour of this? A bit much.

The other thing that bothers me about the latter half of the movie is the flimsy (and downright illogical) reasoning that’s keeping the couple broken up. In the film, Kerr’s character is struck by a car on the way to their six month reunion, rendering her unable to walk. She elects to keep this a secret from Grant because she doesn’t want his pity, and because she doesn’t want him to have to take care of her. In the meantime, Grant simply thinks that she didn’t care enough to show up, and is, of course, heartbroken. I find the fact that anyone would be insensitive enough to make that particular decision (or stupid enough to not realize how insensitive it is) a bit tough to swallow, putting it mildly.

Despite all that, I still enjoyed this film — thanks mostly to Grant and Kerr. The first half was definitely better than the second, but I was never bored, and… well, the ending kind of got to me (uh, I mean, I bit into a pepper).

Buy the movie at Amazon

Synopsis: Twelve men enter a jury room to decide the fate of a man accused of murder. Eleven of them think he’s guilty; one thinks it’s not so clear-cut. It’s up to him to convince the others that the evidence isn’t as clear as they think.

I suppose I’m going to be saying this about a lot of the movies that I watch for this blog, but this is a film that I’ve been meaning to see for quite a while. I have a vague memory of being supposed to watch this for a class in high school; for some reason I missed the class and I never ended up seeing it. It’s been on my mental “to watch” list for pretty much as long as I can remember. Whether you’re a hard-core film buff or a casual movie-goer, I think we’ve all got that list of classic films that we’ve been meaning to see but just never got around to (I heard someone refer to this as a “list of shame”). So, here’s one to scratch off that list.

And boy, what a film. Superbly directed by Sidney Lumet (yes, the same Sidney Lumet who just a couple of years ago directed the acclaimed Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead. The man is prolific), this is pretty universally regarded as a classic, and justifiably so. Aside from a couple of brief moments at the beginning and end of the film, we never actually leave the jury room. And yet the film never seems stagey, thanks entirely to Lumet’s assured and breathtakingly cinematic direction. Under a lesser director, the movie may have seemed like a filmed stage play, but Lumet always seems to know exactly where to put the camera in order to accentuate the tension and get the most out of all the great performances.

Those performances… as great as Lumet’s direction is (and it is great), this is definitely a film whose success depends heavily on its actors. All twelve men are equally good, with each creating a distinct and memorable character — an impressive feat, considering there are twelve men and this is only a 96 minute movie. And of course, mention must be made of Reginald Rose’s screenplay. This is just one of those rare cases of every element of a film coming together perfectly, creating a final product guaranteed to become a classic.

So yes, in case you couldn’t tell, I liked this film. Certainly, it deserves its placement on any list of essential films (unlike some movies I can think of…). Good stuff. Up next: Adam’s Rib.

Buy the movie at Amazon