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: A masked killer stalks teenagers in a small town, focusing his energy on one girl in particular.

When Scream came out in the mid-’90s, it was a shot in the arm to the then-troubled horror genre. Its sly deconstruction of slasher films, with characters who are actually aware of horror movie tropes and outright reference films like Halloween and Friday the 13th, was unlike anything people had seen up to that point. Of course, there were imitators (the Urban Legend and I Know What You Did Last Summer franchises spring to mind). For a few years after Scream came out, it seemed that every mainstream horror film was some variation on teenagers being killed by a masked villain. But Scream can hardly be blamed for unleashing a wave of inferior imitators.

Of course, Scream 4 was recently released (which is officially, and ridiculously, called Scre4m — I don’t think a single film has managed to do the numbers-in-the-title thing without looking ridiculous since Se7en), which is why I decided to revisit the original. I have since also rewatched the sequels, as well as heading out to the theatre to see part four. My quick thoughts — part two wasn’t as good as the first one, but it was actually pretty close. Three was vaguely watchable but pretty mediocre and the worst of the series by far. Four was definitely a step up from three, but not as good as one or two.

I think one of the reasons that Scream is remembered so fondly is that it opens so damn well. Even having seen it a couple of times, I was struck by just how effective, suspenseful and downright compelling the opening to the film is. Wes Craven’s direction and Kevin Williamson’s crackling dialogue are pretty much perfect, and make for a scene that I think even detractors of the film would have to admit is quite memorable.

The rest of the movie is good of course, though it does have a hard time living up to that opening (and it never really does). It’s entertaining, suspenseful in parts, and the aforementioned self-aware dialogue definitely sets the movie apart and makes it more than just another generic slasher film. It’s also fairly well acted — in particular, Jamie Kennedy steals every scene he’s in as the film-loving Randy. I remember first watching Scream and thinking “this guy is going to be big!” Sadly, that didn’t quite work out — Kennedy was never able to find another role that fit him quite as well as Randy (which is actually true for much of the cast of this film).

Buy the movie on Amazon

Synopsis: In Videodrome, a TV producer finds himself the victim of strange hallucinations after watching a mysterious, pirated video signal called Videodrome. In Naked Lunch, a writer finds himself losing his grip on reality in a drug-fueled haze after he accidentally kills his wife.

I recently saw both of these films, and I figured it was probably appropriate enough to lump them both into one post. Why? The same thing that motivates pretty much everything I do: laziness.

Actually, aside from the obvious (they are both directed by master Canadian filmmaker David Cronenberg), the films are fairly similar, and so I don’t think it’s an entirely bizarre notion to talk about them together.

Both movies center around men who begin to hallucinate and perceive the world in increasingly strange ways. I found that this worked very well in Videodrome, and not-so-well in Naked Lunch. Videodrome, for all its weirdness, always maintains some semblance of reality amidst the chaos; there is an intriguing element of trying to discern between what is real and what is imagined. Naked Lunch, on the other hand, almost immediately disposes of reality altogether, plunging head-first into a bizarre, dream-like (or nightmare-like) world in which pretty much anything goes (such as the famous image of a typewriter turning into a giant cockroach). Because of this complete disconnect from reality, I found it hard to ever get particularly involved in the film (beyond, at least, marveling at the ingenuity of Cronenberg’s visuals). The movie feels more like a series of loosely connected set-pieces than a cohesive story.

Videodrome, on the other hand, always manages to strike a good balance between the off-the-wall stuff and the real world. There’s also an interesting undercurrent of mystery (what is Videodrome? Who’s behind it?) that helps to keep the viewer interested. There’s no such through-line in Naked Lunch, which basically feels like an excuse for Cronenberg to indulge his penchant for the bizarre, without much pulling it together in any meaningful way. I also thought that James Woods gave a pretty fantastic performance in Videodrome, which is definitely a reason why the movie works as well as it does (Peter Weller is fine in Naked Lunch, but he just doesn’t have all that much to work with).

Basically: Thumbs up for Videodrome, thumbs down for Naked Lunch.

Buy Videodrome or Naked Lunch on Amazon.

Synopsis: A documentary about a filmmaker’s interactions with Aileen Wuornos’ adoptive mother and her less-than-competent lawyer as he attempts to gain access to Wuornos herself.

Well, this is a bit of a puzzlement. The list isn’t exactly doc-heavy (this is the first documentary I’ve watched for this blog thus far), so this seems like kind of an odd choice — it’s interesting enough, I guess, but it’s kind of low-rent and not exactly a shining example of what the medium is capable of. Not that I’m a huge documentary guy; I’ll admit that my interest as a filmgoer lies more with fiction than non-fiction. But even as an unseasoned documentary viewer, it’s pretty clear that this just isn’t all that great.

In fact, I had to consult the book itself to see why this mostly unremarkable doc warranted inclusion on a list of essential films. Apparently, it “[sheds] a piercing light on the underbelly of the American character” and is a “riveting, hop-scotching documentary.” Fair enough on the first count, I suppose, though personally I would disagree that this is anywhere near riveting.

I think the main problem here is that the film is never entirely sure about what it wants to be — is it about Arlene Pralle, a woman who bizarrely adopted Wuornos after she had already been arrested for seven murders? Is it about Wuornos herself? Or is it about director Nick Broomfield’s attempts to get access to Wuornos? The film doesn’t really have a clear focus, which prevents it from being quite as effective as it could have been. Pralle is probably the film’s most interesting figure (well, aside from Wuornos herself, but the film seems to have no interest in exploring her crimes in a meaningful way), but Broomfield sort of meanders around, spending just as much time with Wuornos’ incompetent, guitar-playing lawyer, a thread which doesn’t particularly go anywhere. Ultimately, it’s this lack of any kind of unifying thesis that really prevents this doc from being particularly effective.

Buy the movie on Amazon

Synopsis: Three cross-dressing performers go on a road trip when a job takes them into the middle of the Australian desert.

I’m not sure when I would have watched this film, if it weren’t for the list — maybe in a year, maybe in ten years, maybe never. Despite the fact that I’m definitely a fan of the three stars (Hugo Weaving, Terence Stamp and Guy Pearce), this was just one of those movies that I wasn’t in any particular rush to see. But that’s one of the main reasons I wanted to do this blog — to give me an excuse to watch classics that I wouldn’t have otherwise seen, and to force me to watch films that have been on my “to watch” list for forever (such as 12 Angry Men).

So here we are, The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert… did the list steer me wrong? Not really. Though I’m not going to be adding this to my list of favourites anytime soon, I’m definitely glad that I watched it. Weaving, Stamp and Pearce were all really good (not surprisingly), and the film was quite enjoyable throughout, if a bit slow and meandering in parts (though definitely never boring). It pretty much plays out the way you think it will (they have fun, they bond, they occasionally encounter adversity from small-minded bigots, which they overcome) but it was well made and very entertaining. I’m definitely a fan of road movies, and this is more proof that, with very few exceptions, it’s pretty hard to go wrong with that genre.

Buy the movie at Amazon

Synopsis: After the tragic, unexpected death of her only son, a single mother travels to Barcelona in an attempt to find the boy’s father.

The first thing I should point out is that, although I am attempting to watch the 1001 movies in alphabetical order, this isn’t actually the first film on the list (that would be 12 Angry Men, which I hope to watch in the next few days). Due to the vagaries of getting movies from Zip.ca, sticking precisely to the alphabetical list would be far more trouble than it’s worth. Now (and here’s where things get a bit convoluted) if you go to the official 1001 Before You Die website, you’ll see that they provide a full list of the 1001 movies. The book itself also provides a list, however that one lists foreign movies twice — once by its original title, and once by its translated title in English. This means that the two lists are slightly different, depending upon whether the foreign title appears before the translated title (confused yet?). To simplify things, I’m just going to use the much more straight-forward list from the website (though that list may eventually change when a new edition of the book is released — I’ll simply have to cross that bridge when I get there).

So then, All About My Mother. This is only the third Pedro Almodóvar film that I’ve seen. I saw Talk to Her theatrically, and really enjoyed it, but for whatever reason I was never particularly motivated to seek out more films by the man. I saw Volver a couple of years ago and again, really liked it, and again, didn’t bother seeking out more Almodóvar films. I think it’s probably time that I start paying more attention to Pedro Almodóvar, as it’s fairly clear that he has some serious talent.

Almodóvar is fairly well known for telling stories with very strong female characters, and that is certainly the case here.  The film is pretty much all women, with only a few men on the absolute periphery, and a couple of transvestites thrown in for good measure.  Though there is one main character (a woman who loses her son and who travels to Barcelona to try to find his father), the movie is more of an ensemble, with some really strong performances all around. The film is pretty much plotless, but when the characters and performances are this strong, the importance of having a well-defined plot is significantly reduced.

One of the things that has really stood out for me in all of the Almodóvar films I’ve seen so far is his beautiful use of the widescreen frame. I also like Almodóvar’s bold use of colour. You have to admire a director who can consistently craft visually interesting shots; there’s something about a really well composed 2.35 frame that’s just irresistible, at least to a nerd such as myself. A director with a clear visual sense who also has a strong command of characters and storytelling is definitely something to be treasured. Almodóvar, at least based on the three films of his that I’ve seen, seems to be one of those directors.

Well, I think I’ll leave it at that. It’s nice to have such a good movie be my first; they can’t possibly all be this good, unfortunately. Also, I wouldn’t expect all the entries to be this long. Just sayin’. Up next (hopefully): 12 Angry Men.

Buy the movie at Amazon