Well, it’s been a while, hasn’t it? I’ve been a bit busy. Plus, I’m lazy. Okay, it’s mostly the lazy thing.

I think it’s time for me to revisit the Essentials Project. But before I get started in earnest, here’s a quick round-up of the movies from The List that I just so happened to have watched over the last few months.

Mad Max (1979)
Directed by: George Miller
Starring: Mel Gibson, Joanne Samuel, Hugh Keays-Byrne
First Viewing

It’s kind of odd watching Mad Max for the first time, because it was obviously shot on an exceptionally low budget, and actually has very little of what you’d expect from a Mad Max film (the monstrous, souped-up cars, the outlandish costumes, etc.). In fact, you’d be hard-pressed to describe the setting as post-apocalyptic at all, which is odd considering that this film is considered to be of the essential films in that genre. I think that everything that Mad Max has become known for, aesthetically speaking, actually comes from the sequels — I also watched Mad Max 2, and it’s all there: the desolate wasteland and the memorable cars and costumes. But what about the film at hand? It wasn’t bad. It drags a bit, but it definitely has its moments.

The Thin Red Line (1998)
Directed by: Terrence Malick
Starring: Jim Caviezel, Sean Penn, Nick Nolte
First Viewing

Thus far, my experience with the films of Terrence Malick has been one of admiration, but little more. I liked Badlands and I liked Days of Heaven, but aside from the gorgeous visuals, they weren’t films that stuck with me for very long after the credits rolled. Imagine my surprise, then, that between this, Badlands and Days of Heaven, this was my favourite film by far, despite the fact that it is probably the least regarded of the three. It feels like this material is pretty much a perfect compliment for Malick’s style, which is not necessarily something I’d say about Badlands or Days of Heaven (it’s been ages since I’ve seen Badlands, so another viewing is probably in order, but in Heaven, it’s pretty clear that the fairly routine love triangle is the least interesting thing about that film). Malick isn’t particularly interested in telling straight-forward stories; in his first two films he tried to do that, and in this one he didn’t bother. I think this film is better off because of it. It’s completely plotless, and yet it is absolutely compelling throughout, thanks to Malick’s poetic, oddly hypnotic direction. The same can be said for Malick’s recent The Tree of Life, of which I am also a pretty big fan.

.

The Red Shoes (1948)
Directed by: Michael Powell, Emeric Pressburger
Starring: Moira Shearer, Anton Walbrook, Marius Goring
First Viewing

An exceptionally well directed film. Though it’s a little slow in parts, seeing the inner workings of the ballet company is kind of fascinating, and directors Powell and Pressburger do a really good job of developing the characters and making them compelling — even side characters we don’t necessarily spend much time with. All of the performances are quite good, though special mention must go to Anton Walbrook as the leader of the company; he’s pretty mesmerizing in the role. The film also looks very, very good, with top-notch direction and glorious Technicolor cinematography (the pristine Criterion Blu-ray probably helps in this regard). Highlights include a hypnotic dance sequence in the middle of the film, and a supremely memorable ending, which has to rank up there as one of the best endings ever.

E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
Directed by: Steven Spielberg
Starring: Henry Thomas, Drew Barrymore, Dee Wallace
Second or Third Viewing

What can I say about this movie? It’s a classic, obviously. Many consider it to be Spielberg’s best film, and obviously the man does not have a shortage of great films to choose from. To me, Raiders of the Lost Ark is — and will always be — Spielberg’s best movie, but E.T. is definitely a strong contender. It’s funny, exciting, touching, and downright entertaining; it’s pretty much everything you want out of a movie like this. It also features top-notch direction from Spielberg, and some really great cinematography from Allen Daviau.

The Thing (1982)
Directed by: John Carpenter
Starring: Kurt Russell, Keith David, Wilford Brimley
Second Viewing

This is a stunningly good movie. I remembered this being very good; it’s even better than I remembered. Featuring perfect direction from John Carpenter (this is definitely among his best films), the film always looks good and does a pretty astounding job of building and maintaining tension. It’s also really well acted, and the dynamic between all the characters is always really well done (both before and after shit gets real, and everybody starts questioning who’s still human). Ennio Morricone’s score also suits the material perfectly. Honestly, I’m having a hard time thinking of any flaws in this movie.

Synopsis: In this satire of the TV news industry, an aging anchorman on his way out has a very public breakdown, only to find himself more popular than ever.

Sidney Lumet passed away last week. Tragic, certainly, though it’s hard to deny that the man lead a full life — he was 86 when he died, and directed scads of classic films, including (among many others) 12 Angry Men, Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon, and of course, this movie.

This is a film that came out more than thirty years ago, and yet has hardly aged at all: desperate TV execs ready to do anything for a top-rated TV show, the decline of network news, the rise of exploitative reality TV — aside from some of the outdated technology (and a scene in which Robert Duvall wears a tux with a shirt that looks an awful lot like the puffy shirt from Seinfeld), this is a movie that could have come out yesterday.

There are also some eerily close parallels to the current Charlie Sheen fiasco. It’s very hard to see the Peter Finch character — who has a public breakdown and starts spouting off his own off-kilter world view in a very public forum — and not think of Sheen. When Finch (in a really amazing performance) says stuff like “I’m imbued with some special spirit. It’s not a religious feeling. It’s a shocking eruption of great electrical energy,” it’s very hard not to think of Charlie Sheen. All Finch is missing are references to tiger blood and winning.

This is also a surprisingly funny film. I didn’t realize going in, but there are some pretty memorable moments of dark comedy in this movie. I’m thinking, for example, of a great scene in which a group of revolutionary Marxists attempt to renegotiate their contracts with a bevy of lawyers and TV execs.

There’s definitely a lot to like here, including Lumet’s solid direction, the great performances, and a memorable scene with Ned Beatty that’s downright electrifying. Even if the rest of the movie were terrible, I still think it would probably be worth recommending if only for that one scene alone.

Buy the movie on Amazon

Synopsis: A man and his girlfriend take the opportunity to con a rich farmer who they believe is dying.

After being blown away by the amazing, downright beautiful recent trailer for Terrence Malick’s The Tree of Life (seriously, it’s my favourite trailer of the last little while and probably one of my favourite trailers ever), I decided that it was probably time to check out some of the man’s work. I saw Badlands several years ago (and barely remember it), but aside from that I am a Malick neophyte. Of course, it’s not too difficult to get caught up with Malick’s movies — he has only made four feature films up to this point.

Terrence Malick is best known for making some seriously beautiful looking movies, and on that level Days of Heaven does not disappoint. Seemingly filmed entirely at either dawn or dusk, the film has a strikingly ethereal look, with almost every frame suitable to be enlarged and framed on your wall. It is a very good looking movie.

As for the straightforward plot; it’s fine. It gets the job done, but it’s fairly clear that had this film been directed by a middle-of-the-road director with no flair for visuals, it would have been immediately forgotten. There’s really nothing about the story or about the characters that particularly stays with you for very long after the credits have rolled. It’s really more the mood and tone that Malick manages to sustain that gives this film its power.

I liked this movie, but I can’t help but think that I would have absolutely loved it had the story been even close to being on the same level as the direction/cinematography.

Buy the movie at Amazon

Synopsis: An aging German woman finds herself a pariah after she starts dating an immigrant worker.

This film owes a great debt to All That Heaven Allows. In fact, in many ways it plays like a loose remake of that film; both films have roughly the same plot, and Rainer Werner Fassbinder was certainly never shy about his admiration for Douglas Sirk.

It’s not a bad film. I’m not entirely sure it deserves a spot on the list, but Fassbinder was obviously an important director, and this is one of his most accessible films. It’s well directed and (for the most part) well acted.

My biggest problem with this movie is that there just isn’t all that much chemistry between the older woman and her young lover. There are a couple of reasons for this:

1) Brigitte Mira is just too old — she was 64 when the movie was made, and she looks more like 74. In contrast, Jane Wyman was 38 when she made All That Heaven Allows, and I had no problem believing that Rock Hudson could be sexually attracted to her. That definitely wasn’t the case here.

2) El Hedi ben Salem gives an exceptionally wooden performance, and lacks anything even remotely resembling charisma. This meant that not only was I having a hard time believing that he could be attracted to her; I was having a hard time believing that she could be attracted to him, with his robot-like personality. Apparently Salem was one of Fassbinder’s lovers, which does explain things somewhat. There’s clearly a reason why the man never acted in any films that weren’t directed by Fassbinder himself.

All in all, they’re not a particularly compelling or believable couple, which is kind of an issue when the film is essentially a love story. I can see why the movie is on the list, I guess — it’s definitely well made, and it’s entertaining throughout. If you can buy into the romance, you’ll probably enjoy it more than I did. Oh well.

Buy the movie on Amazon

Synopsis: About the exploits of a strange young boy in World War II-era Germany who decides to stop aging.

Off-putting and kind of unpleasant, I didn’t much care for this the first time I watched it, and watching it again, I still don’t particularly care for it. I don’t hate this film; it’s decently made, the performances are fine, and it’s reasonably well acted. But its status as a classic does somewhat confuse me, as I just don’t find it to be particularly compelling.

As with some of the other films on the list whose appeal goes right over my head, I decided to check the book to see what’s (supposedly) so great about this movie. Even the book can’t really explain it, as the entry for this film simply summarizes the plot and states that the film “shocks and confuses.” And that’s a good thing… how? Yes, the film is different, I will give it that, but I’m not sure if that alone should automatically make it a must-see. I think that the authors of the book realized that they had to include this film (like it or not, it is a classic), but they didn’t necessarily like it themselves (and thus seem to be unable to really explain its appeal).

The film is, in parts, somewhat Fellini-esque, so perhaps the appeal of this movie is just going over my head the way that Fellini seems to go over my head. Who knows. I will say this: if you’re going to watch this movie, I wouldn’t plan on eating any sardines for at least a few days afterward. I won’t spoil anything, but I will say that a can of sardines get eaten in the most off-putting way imaginable. You’ve been warned.

Buy the movie at Amazon

Synopsis: A year in the life of a small town in Italy in the 1930s, focusing mainly on one family.

Hmmm… I guess I just don’t like Fellini very much. Of the handful of his films that I’ve seen up to this point, I don’t think I’ve really liked any of them (I do remember liking Satyricon, but that was a while back, and is far from being one of the man’s most revered films). It comes as a bit of a surprise to me, because Fellini is one of those directors you’re supposed to like pretty much by default, at least as a film geek. And yet I don’t seem to particularly enjoy his movies.

I mentioned in my 8½ post that I remembered liking Amarcord — but I can’t say that I was particularly enthralled this time around. My first viewing was probably around ten years ago, and I’m pretty sure that I liked it. I don’t know why my opinion has seemingly changed; I guess I used to have a higher tolerance for handsomely made, meandering and egregiously slow-paced films.

Like 8½, I was definitely able to appreciate this film on a technical level, but I just didn’t derive all that much enjoyment from it. The movie was essentially a series of vignettes revolving around the inhabitants of a small Italian town; it kind of had a laid-back charm — and Nino Rota’s jaunty, memorable score was a perfect accompaniment to the visuals — but to be perfectly honest, after about fifteen minutes or so, I was sick of it. Almost none of the segments stood out to me as being anything other than a mild diversion. I’m sure they all had some kind of special significance to Fellini (the film is loosely based on his own childhood memories), but to me, watching them wasn’t much more interesting than going through somebody else’s old photo album (albeit an album presented with a fairly high level of visual flair).

Buy the movie on Amazon

Synopsis: Following the lives of two men in Italy — one rich, one poor — from their childhood in the early years of the 1900s to the fall of the Fascist party at the end of WWII.

I’m going to admit that I actually received this movie from Zip.ca way back in January, and it has been sitting on my desk ever since, collecting dust and just waiting to be watched. I’ve seen this movie once before, and I remembered liking it a lot, but how often do you feel like sitting down and watching a five hour Italian epic (five hours and fifteen minutes, to be precise)? Of course, the obvious solution would be to watch it over two nights — it’s even broken up over two discs, which would make deciding when to stop watching remarkably easy. But that just feels like cheating to me, and so the movie sat around unwatched for months, waiting for me to be in the right mood.

The sad thing about my reticence is that this is a really good movie, and I knew that since I’d seen it before — though the only thing I really remembered from my first viewing was the scene in which Donald Sutherland kills a cat by headbutting it (with a running start, no less), in order to illustrate the proper way to deal with the perils of communism. It’s kind of hard to forget something like that.

Yes, the movie is super long. Almost absurdly long. And yet it somehow justifies its length far better than American Graffiti, which was under two hours and still felt way longer than it needed to be. The length allows you to spend such a long time with the characters — from their childhood all they way through to their middle age and beyond — that you really get a sense of knowing them that would simply be impossible from a shorter film. Many of the characters, De Niro’s in particular, undergo transformations that could have easily seemed forced in a shorter movie, but seems completely natural given the scope that Bertolucci chose to work with.

Bertolucci, working with famed cinematographer Vittorio Storaro, creates a film that is really beautiful to look at. And of course, the performances are all quite good; De Niro in particular does a really great job of making his character subtly change as he grows older. Really, I don’t have many complaints about this film. Some of the characters tend to be a bit simplistic, either being clearly good or clearly evil, without many shades of gray (ie. Donald Sutherland’s cat-headbutting Fascist). Also, the actors in this film all spoke their own languages (Depardieu spoke French, De Niro spoke English, etc.) and were dubbed over in post. The DVD has an English track, an Italian track and a French track, which means that it’s impossible to watch the film and hear all the actors speak with their own voices. I chose English because I wanted to hear De Niro speak since he’s the main character, but it wasn’t exactly ideal.

Buy the movie at Amazon

Synopsis: A group of friends, recently graduated from high school, have one last night of fun before moving on to bigger and better things.

Meh. Wasn’t crazy about this one. I guess the streak of really good movies had to end eventually. Not that this was a bad movie, but it’s not exactly something I’m going to run out to add to my collection.

I should note that the original original Star Wars trilogy (ie. the non-adulterated versions) are among my favourite films of all time, so this is a movie that I’ve been meaning to watch for a while. American Graffiti is the last film George Lucas made before moving on to Star Wars, and along with THX 1138, it’s the only feature film that he directed without the words star and wars in the title.

So what was wrong with it? Lucas’ direction is fine, if nothing particularly spectacular. The performances were all good (and it was kind of neat seeing a really young Harrison Ford and Richard Dreyfuss). But the film feels long and meandering, and I just never connected with the characters in a meaningful way. Every scene seemed to go on a bit longer than it needed to, and while I was never all-out bored, I was never particularly riveted, either. Some of the subplots were more interesting than others, but to be honest they all kind of over-stayed their welcome to a certain extent. Meh. That’s really the best way to describe my feelings about this movie.

Buy the movie at Amazon

Synopsis: Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein — reporters for the Washington Post — slowly uncover the details behind the Watergate scandal.

Boy, the list is on fire, isn’t it? This was yet another really great film, and one I can’t believe I waited so long to see.

It’s odd — on the surface, it seems like the movie shouldn’t be that great. It’s very long (almost two hours and twenty minutes), and consists entirely of the minutia of Woodward and Bernstein’s (or “Woodstein,” as their editor calls them) investigation. We never learn anything about either Woodward or Bernstein’s personal lives, or at least nothing that we can’t glean from their fastidious investigation. You’d think that the lack of any significant character development would hurt the film, and yet somehow it doesn’t. It helps, I’m sure, that both Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford are great actors, and are at the top of their game here.

It seems like the movie should be dull, but it isn’t. Woodstein spend an inordinate amount of time chasing down leads over the telephone, visiting with people and running into dead end after dead end. Somehow, director Alan J. Pakula manages to make a scene like someone simply talking on the phone surprisingly tense. There’s something really compelling about watching the pieces of the investigation very slowly fall into place.

Pakula’s direction is definitely top-notch, as is Gordon Willis’ cinematography; from the bustling expansiveness of the newsroom, to the dark, shadowy parking lot where the meetings with Deep Throat take place, this is a really visually compelling film. This is, of course, a movie that not only rewards but demands your full attention — with the sheer volume of names and information being constantly thrown at the viewer, it’s easy enough to fall behind. But assuming you’re in the mood for a movie like this, it’s definitely worth your time. The book calls it one of “the most gripping, deft and utterly compelling of thrillers,” which I definitely agree with, despite the absence of any of the elements you might expect from a typical thriller — there are no car chases, no shootouts, and nothing even remotely resembling a typical action scene. There’s just the investigation, and it’s absolutely compelling.

Buy the movie at Amazon

Synopsis: The crew of a mining ship end up with an unwelcome visitor after stopping at a strange planet to investigate a distress call.

I have mixed feelings on Ridley Scott — on one hand, he made films like this and Blade Runner, which is easily one of my favourite films of all time. On the other hand, the quality of his output has been erratic of late, putting it kindly. But no matter how many mediocre films the man makes, there will always be a place for him among the greats if only for making a film as assured and downright perfect as this one.

I’ve seen this movie a couple of times before, and I remembered it being really good, but wow — this is an absolute classic, and definitely one of the most effective films of its type. For one thing, Ridley Scott’s direction is absolutely perfect (it’s hard to believe that this is directed by the same man who recently made the mediocre and dull American Gangster). I love the pacing of this movie — yes, it’s slow by contemporary standards; the alien doesn’t pop out of John Hurt’s chest until about the 56 minute mark, and we don’t actually see the full-grown alien until well after an hour has passed. But the slower pace helps to establish the kind of tension and dread that otherwise wouldn’t have been possible, and ensures that the audience is familiar with the characters and the layout of the ship. This is a remarkably tense, suspenseful film.

Scott also makes the wise choice to never really give us a good look at the alien, which just makes it creepier (despite the fact that after several sequels, spin-offs, comic books and video games, modern audiences obviously have a pretty good idea of what the alien looks like). I also really like the design of this movie — from the ship where most of the action takes place, to the ruined alien ship, to the alien itself, this is a really visually compelling film. Derek Vanlint’s dark cinematography is also quite stunning (and oddly, at least according to the imdb, the man only has a handful of credits to his name).

Hmmm, what next on the laundry list of superlatives? The performances are really good. Sigourney Weaver is obviously pretty much perfect as a more vulnerable Ripley (at least compared to the grizzled alien ass-kicker she became in the sequels). The other performances are just as good. Also, the special effects have aged remarkably well.

This is one of those rare movies that accomplishes nearly everything it sets out to do with perfection. It’s a classic, no doubt about it.

Buy the movie at Amazon