MRBB Pt. 4: Very Fine Four Star Films!

Part four of the Mega Rating Blowout Bonanza reviews. For links to the previous posts in this series, and for a primer on how I apply my ratings, click on the links below:

Part 1: Introduction and Three Star Reviews
Part 2: Two Star Reviews
Part 3: One and Zero Star Reviews
Star Review Primer

In this post, I present you the gems, those films that just have a little something extra that really sets them apart from what are otherwise perfectly enjoyable three star experience. Here are the four (and four point five) star movies!


08-16-09: Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003) 4.5 stars:


I love this movie. It drags a tiny bit, which is why its not a five star film, but then again, I don't know what I would cut out. The attention to detail is amazing - few historical films feel this real, and a masterpiece in sound. Not for everyone, but how I wish they would make more of the series.

08-15-09: Before Sunset (2004) 4 stars:


Having watched them both again this year, Before Sunset is the better film. I'm still amazed Linklater was able to make this sequel without destroying the story, but he did. When he is on, nobody can make a conversation as interesting as Linklater. Also, Ethan Hawke's character isn't good enough for Julie Delpy.

08-04-09: Feeling My Way (1997) 4 stars:


Watching this short doc in film school, I was blown away. Its completely subjective, half animated, and simply about the thoughts of a man as he walks home from work. Its also one of my favorite documentary films ever, absolutely captivating, and helped me realize that these films should simply be called "non-fiction" or "essay films." Its on youtube, check it out.

08-03-09: The Lives of Others (2006) 4 stars:


I think I told someone that, ten years from now, I might list this as the best film of 2006. Ulrich Muhe's performance is perfect - he completely sells his character's transformation without ever breaking his character's stoic, subdued nature. An impressive debut by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, here is hoping his films just keep getting better with experience. Finally, with this film and Mostly Martha, I officially have a screen crush for Martina Gedeck.

07-25-09: The Hit (1984) 4 stars:


This early Stephen Frears film has all of the following going for it: (1) Tim Roth's debut as a cocky young hitman, (2) John Hurt as a stoic, experienced hitman, (3) Terrence Stamp being the coolest man alive, (4) the absolutely stunning Laura del Sol, in a magnificent dress, (5) a beautiful flamenco guitar score, and (6) gorgeous shots of the Spanish countryside. Sexy Beast (another great movie), and so many other English crime films, are forever in debt to The Hit. Its a blast.

07-21-09: McCabe & Mrs. Miller (1971) 4 stars:


This is a great movie, and I know that. Its also a perfect example of a great movie not being a five star film for me, because as much as I respect and enjoyed this film, it wasn't the most entertaining movie to watch, and could be a tad slow in places. However, the final shootout is one of the most surreal, beautiful scenes I have ever seen.

07-14-09: MASH (1970) 4.5 stars:


McCabe is better than MASH, but I enjoyed MASH more. Without the final football scene (which drags a little), this is a five star film. Elliot Gould is one of the coolest men alive - I'm so glad he came forward to Altman after this film about Gould and Sutherland's attempts to get Altman fired early in the shooting, because Altman never forgave Sutherland for staying quiet (and never worked with him again), and it would have been such a waste if this was the only Gould-Altman collaboration. After growing up with the TV show, and after hearing all the praise for it, MASH still managed to blow right past my expectations.

06-30-09: Le Cercle Rouge (1970) 4 stars:


If it was a little tighter, a little brighter, or made a little earlier, this would be five stars. Its still an amazing heist film, and Alain Delon is always the man, but Le Samourai and Rififi set an obscenely high bar for a heist film with a cool Alain Delon character, a bar which, quite possibly, no film could meet. I still really loved Le Cercle Rouge, but it will never be the first film I think of for Melville, Delon, or heist films in general.

06-28-09: Major League (1989) 4 stars:


It makes me laugh. If I hadn't seen Sugar earlier this year, I might say Major League is my favorite baseball movie, and even now I think they are tied for me. I still want to know where they found a life-size picture of the team owner in pasties and a g-string.

06-27-09: Dan in Real Life (2007) 4 stars:


This was one of those awesome, surprise gems for me when it came out in 2007. I'm a sucker for the "get the family together for a weekend" plots, and I really enjoy watching the characters interact in this movie. Plus, Steve Carell and Juliette Binoche have great chemistry, and its Juliette Binoche, who becomes more attractive every single year. This has pretty much become my go-to pick for a romantic comedy.

06-27-09: Traffic (2000) 4.5 stars:


I am ready to admit that I was wrong about Traffic. I think the last couple years I have finally accepted Soderbergh on Soderbergh's terms. I used to think Traffic was shallow as all it was telling us was stuff I already knew, but I realize now that is pretty much the point. Soderbergh isn't trying to give answers to the drug problem, he just wants to show how it affects multiple people in many different ways. I still am not the biggest fan of the Michael Douglass and daughter scenes, but everyone else is top notch. On a final note, I think Benecio del Toro's character, and performance, might be the best of the decade - it is masterful that, until the final shot, you don't know what to expect from him, yet his actions and reactions throughout the film are one hundred percent realistic and natural.

06-23-09: Happy-Go-Lucky (2008) 4 stars:


Who would have thought Mike Leigh would make such a warm, loving movie? It still has some darker, Mike Leigh elements, but there isn't a movie this decade with a more apropos title. Sally Hawkins was absolutely snubbed by not receiving an nomination, and she isn't even the best performance in the film; Eddie Marsan gives a clinic in what I think is the best performance of 2008, and a masterfully realized character.

06-23-09: Paranoid Park (2007) 4.5 stars:


This movie is hard to explain in words, partly because this movie is about as close to pure cinema as you are going to get. As much as I like Milk, and Good Will Hunting, I hope someone just writes Gus van Sant a blank check so he can continue to make his little arthouse films for all eternity. Might be my favorite van Sant film ever, and if not, its right up there with My Own Private Idaho. The only reason this isn't a five star film is that I don't think it was meant to be a film that just smacked you senseless as you watch it - it haunts you and grows upon reflection, all by design. Criminally overlooked.

06-15-09: Moon (2009) 4 stars:


My favorite movie of 2009 so far? Not sure, but its right up there. Without saying too much, Sam Rockwell carries this movie and deserves a lot of recognition for his performance, as he is basically the only human on screen. I love the use of practical effects and miniatures, and the score is another haunting Clint Mansell score. This film knows its roots and pays homage while remaining its own work - Bravo Duncan Zowie Bowie Jones!

06-02-09: In America (2002) 4.5 stars:


Powerhouse performances, especially from Paddy Considine and Samantha Morton (two of the best working actors today). It would come off as overly melodramatic if everyone involved wasn't selling their characters at one hundred percent. Its not a perfect film, but I think Jim Sheridan pushes his very personal story to the absolute limits, which is about all you can ask for, isn't it?


That does it for part 4 of the Mega Rating Blowout Bonanza, and I hope you are looking forward to the final installment, because I saved the best for last.

MRBB Pt. 3: Woeful One Star Reviews, and Worse

Part three of the Mega Rating Blowout Bonanza reviews. For links to the previous posts in this series, and for a primer on how I apply my ratings, click on the links below:

Part 1: Introduction and Three Star Reviews
Part 2: Two Star Reviews
Star Review Primer

This is going to be the fun post. There are only two movies to list here, but I couldn't wait to talk about them, especially the latest Mr. Mann Masterpiece.

07-09-09: Choke (2008) 1 star:



This movie feels like it came out about ten years too late and about six months before it was ready. I love Sam Rockwell, he is fine in this movie, as is Angelina Jolie. Brad William Henke was a revelation, and I can't wait to see more of his work. My problem, though, is that this film doesn't go anywhere, or say anything. Its just there. I don't know if this is the fault of Palahnuik's book or Gregg's writing and direction, but after this film ended, all I could think was "so what?" On top of that, the film is disjointed and feels like it was rushed. Part of me wonders if half the movie was left on the cutting table, and if those scenes would have given the film more resonance, but I think the biggest problem with this film is that the film thinks it is meaningful and deep, rather than just a collection of sex jokes, quirky characters and awkward moments.



I didn't want to, but I have to compare it to Fight Club. I know a lot of people were seduced by the ideology of Tyler Durden, but I honestly think that, at least the movie, is a satire of that ideology - I have never believed Fincher for once thought that the characters were anything but idiot losers stuck in arrested development. On the other hand, Fight Club is a technical masterpiece and moves with an energy that I wish all films had.



Choke, on the other hand, is the exact opposite. It has no energy or drive, and shifts between laid back and lethargic. Choke also worships its characters and wants us to sympathize with them. For what reason, I don't know; they are outsiders who don't fit into normal society, work at a historical reenactment camp, and have cool, quirky addictions to sex. Maybe I'm too old, or maybe I'm too dull, but I can't find these characters as anything but laughable and pathetic. Choke is the thirty-five year who had one philosophy class in college and is convinced he knows the truth of the world. He also has a fondness for calling people sheep. For five minutes he is amusing, for ten minutes he is a bore, and after an hour or so, you have already tuned him out.

07-11-09: Public Enemies (2009) 0 stars:



Damn you Michael Mann, you did it again! After swearing you off repeated times, somehow you pulled the sheet over my eyes once more and made me think, "this time will be different, this time it will be a great movie." He was back in his hometown of Chicago, where they had to shut down the city during filming. He was working with an awesome collection of interesting historical characters in a great time period. Look at that cast!!! Most movies would kill to have a supporting roster that deep.

So what does he do with it? He spends an obscene amount of money making a hybrid between an old studio gangster and a $10,000 exploitation film. In no particular order, this film is:



1. Ugly as sin! Yes, you love digital, and you like putting cameras in the corner of a floor so it looks worse than a student horror film. You also seem to hate lighting. I don't care if this is your style, its completely ridiculous for this film. If Scorsese can use a completely static camera in The King Of Comedy because a fluid camera, despite being his trademark, would feel completely foreign in an environment of stilted, arrested characters, then you could learn how to light a shot or hire a cameraman who has legs, a dolly, or at least a tripod. Zodiac was a digitally shot period film, and its beautiful. That shootout in the house in the woods, you know, the big climactic scene, was one of the ugliest, most amateurish, laughably bad looking scenes I have seen in a movie this decade. What the hell did you spend all that money on?



2. Long and boring. Michael Mann, I have finally realized there is no story you can't make unexciting. Hell, you made Ali dull. Ali, arguably one of the most interesting, controversial, energetic, provocative, charismatic people of the Twentieth Century, you found a way to make a movie about this man as entertaining as C-Span. I didn't care a damn thing about any of the characters in this movie. How can John Dillinger, Pretty Boy Floyd, Baby Face Nelson, or J. Edgar Hoover ever bore you? They can all meet in a Michael Mann film, and then go about their motions as if on rails, with zero character development, motive, insight, or even common sense. Mann is more interested in getting from point A to point B than to explain why, how, what, where, or who the hell gives a damn about point B. Its all trip no destination, and sadly, he doesn't even navigate the trip well.



3. Seriously, you shut down Chicago for this???? Name one shot that you go "Oh Wow, way to use the location." It could have been shot on a soundstage, it probably should have - at least then you would have proper lighting.



4. The music and tone suck. I liked the bluegrass guitar, but whenever the love story came on screen, the dialogue got cheesy and the orchestra swelled to MGM proportions. The only saving grace of this, of course, is it helped wake me up a couple times when I caught myself dozing off for a minute or two. This film is completely schizophrenic: it wants to look like a Lars von Trier experiment and ignore classic story conventions, but also wants to be a studio era gangster film with snappy dialogue, over the top glamour shots, and musical queues on every single closeup of the lovebirds. Its a mess.



5. Be accurate, or be fun! I don't expect or demand historical accuracy. Mann, though, obviously feels that is the reason to watch his film: the only answer to most of my complaints about the story structure is that Mann just wants to show us how it was, not explain it. That would be alright, or at least forgivable, if he was historically accurate. He isn't - despite adapting the film from a very good, non-fiction source, this film is very fast and loose with the facts, having people die out of order to provide motivation, or inventing scenarios to show how characters ascended their own career ladders. Hell, Dillinger had like 50 girls, but not in this movie. This would be fine if Mann actually backed up this fantasy by fleshing out the characters or the plot and let us believe the characters would act this way. Instead, he just cuts and dices history to fit some fantasy story and expects the audience to just buy it because "its history." Basically, Mann's story is lazy and insults our intelligence, hiding behind the authenticity of "inspired by a true story." Someday Mann is going to film the Civil War where Lincoln kills Robert E Lee in 1958, which is how he is elected president, only to have Grant kill Lincoln because Lincoln fell in love with General Sherman, with no explanation, and expect the audience to buy it all because its "inspired by a fifth grade history book."



There is more, a lot more, wrong with this movie, but I don't care. I'm done with Michael Mann, you can have him. I want to make it clear that I blame 100% of this movie on Mann. For what they had to work with, the actors were all fine. The sets and costumes appear to be great. Then Mann gets to shoot and edit, and it all goes to waste.



In parting words, I'm not the only one who seems to be done with Mann: he has a history of bringing in films over budget that never make their money back, and there are rumors that Public Enemies was the last straw. I'm actually happy - I think Mann has some talent, and a true arthouse budget might be just what he needs to make a good movie again. At least he won't be able to hire a full orchestra anymore!


There are the dogs. Stay tuned for Part 4 of this series where we get into some true gems!

MRBB Pt. 2: Not Too Shabby Two Star Movies!

Part two of the Mega Rating Blowout Bonanza reviews. For links to the previous posts in this series, and for a primer on how I apply my ratings, click on the links below:

Part 1: Introduction and Three Star Reviews
Star Review Primer

Now, lets get onto the show with the two star films:

08-22-09: Wet Hot American Summer (2001) 2 stars:


I don't have much to say about this film. It has some funny moments and a great cast. I like some of the old summer camp comedies from the 70s and 80s, but I don't have enough fond nostalgia for those films, which I think is necessary to really enjoy Wet Hot American Summer. A forgettable, decent comedy.

08-19-09: Do You Remember Dolly Bell (1981) 2.5 stars:


I see enough in this movie to get excited about Kusturica's later films. There are great scenes that show a true gift with the camera. There is also a lot of filler and Marxist propaganda scenes that run completely against the mood of the film - I'm assuming they were necessary to get the film made. Not bad, but there are enough low points that it just misses three stars.

08-18-09: The Band's Visit (2007) 2 stars:


Cool little movie with great performances but, overall, a little lacking in the story. It might resonate more if I lived in the area, but for being billed as a heartwarming comedy, it wasn't that funny or heartwarming.

08-13-09: Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince (2009) 2 stars:


I think most of the problems I have with this film are from the book itself. That said, I would have liked a much more streamlined plot, excluding everything that wasn't Harry, Draco, Dumbledore and Snape. I wonder if there were scheduling constraints that kept Alan Rickman out of more scenes, but he was way too underused in the film. The kids are becoming better actors (especially Draco), but Ginny is stiff as a board in this film. I'm still looking forward to the final two.

08-09-09: Wanted (2008) 2.5 stars:


This movie is much more fun than it has any right to be. I'm going to ignore everything else about it - the car chases are well done, some of the action shots are cool, and it has Terrence Stamp. Good enough for me.

07-25-09: (500) Days of Summer (2009) 2 stars:


Too cutsey for me - its trying so hard to be a precocious hipster film. I love all the shots of downtown LA, I liked the Hall and Oates scene, but overall I think the film is just trying way to hard to be quirky. Still fun, but completely forgettable.

07-23-09: Zack and Miri Make a Porno (2008) 2.5 stars:


It has some good moments, and it was enjoyable to watch, but a lot of it fell dead, and end the end, its a pretty predictable love story. If it was a tighter film, I would probably give it a three. On a positive note, there were a couple scenes that are easily the best cinematic shots Kevin Smith has ever used - I love his dialogue, but it was refreshing to see him learning how to tell the story without words.

06-25-09: White Dog (1982) 2.5 stars:


I see what its trying to do, I applaud the courage to make it, I even sort of enjoy the complete cheesy, low budget aesthetic. However, Kristy McNichol is awful, and not even campy awful, and in the end, I think I respect Sam Fuller's approach more than I enjoy it. Also, how this film was so controversial to basically be shelved for a decade will always escape me. On the other hand, the church scene alone is enough to earn its half-star.

06-24-09: The Deal (2003) 2 stars:


Interesting, well made, economical. As a made for TV movie, its pretty damn good. As a precursor to The Queen, it just shows all the things that made The Queen that much more special. Great acting though!

06-12-09: Angels and Demons (2009) 2 stars:


Fun and completely ridiculous, with a great, over-the-top performance by Ewan McGregor. Plus, Stellan Skarsdard is always fun, even in a role like this. I'm not going to even get into how much this film relies on coincidences that are completely unbelievable even in this film's own fantasy world - I assume those are all faults of Dan Brown's story. Basically, this film was a fun distraction with great actors chewing the scenery. Plus, Tom Hanks has a glamour shot in the pool - good for him!


That wraps up Part 2 of the Mega Rating Blowout Bonanza. Stay tuned for Part 3, where we tackle the duds and the stinkers!

Mega Rating Blowout Bonanza: Introduction and Three Stars!

Here it is, a mega rating blowout bonanza review post of the "recently seen" movies from the start of this blog to today (August 26th). This is going to be the first of five posts, containing this little introduction and the three star films. I will make separate posts for the two star films, the one star (and zero star) films, the four star films, and finally the five star films. Hopefully I will post them in that order, but god knows how long it will take.

I made a big post (linked here) describing my rating system. In short, its more a gauge of how much I enjoyed watching the film than my overall feelings of how 'great' the film is. Rewatches are a little tricky with this format, so again, I might enjoy rewatching movies I like or love that I don't necessarily consider great.

Basically, if you disagree, remember my rankings are arbitrary, and if you agree, my rankings are the product of an uncanny insight into the magical world of movies.

Without further adieu, here are the three and thee and a half star films:

08-21-09: Run Lola Run (1998) 3 stars:


Watched this as the first movie of our new "Film Club." If you read this blog, you are invited to our next screening, who knows when or where that will be, but you are invited. I don't have much to say about it, this is an impressive little indie film with tons of energy and swagger. The biggest thing I noticed this time around was how bad the film looks in some of the interior shots (notably Lola's father and hussy). The outside shots still look beautiful - its amazing how much lighting affects the look of digital (hint hint Michael Mann!).

08-15-09: About a Boy (2002) 3 stars:


This film dropped for me this time around. I still love the music and some scenes, but it hasn't held up as well as I thought it would. My biggest rewatch impression: The Weitz's direction is way, way too overblown in most scenes, specifically all of the camera movements during conversations. There is nothing wrong with shot-reverse shot, you don't need to try and get creative and do the same thing with a panning camera! Also, we don't need you to all of the sudden have an upside down shot flip right-side up to start the final act, we get it, its a turning point in the film. I think a little more subtlety would have helped this movie age much more gracefully.

08-07-09: Can't Hardly Wait (1998) 3 stars:


This is a five star film if you skip every scene involving Jennifer Love Hewitt or Ethan Embry pining for Jennifer Love Hewitt (leave in the scenes with him and Lauren Ambrose because those two have great chemistry). I spotted Jason Segel in a small role this time around, and I will never get tired of Seth Green's Kenny. One of my true guilty pleasure movies.

08-01-09: My Dinner with Andre (1981) 3 stars:


Its damn good, I don't know how "entertaining" I would call it, but its always interesting and its fair to both characters without preaching to the audience. I have heard Wallace Shawn say that, if they did it again, they would play the opposite characters. I would love to see that - it would be 'inconceivable.'

07-30-09: Waltz with Bashir (2008) 3.5 stars:


Three and a half stars? I still don't know, maybe its a four star film, and I am very glad I saw it. I want to defend this movie as one man's personal journey and thoughts on his own memories. I love movies like that, and am usually there strongest defender. However, he is presenting a famous massacre within some terms of "first person authenticity." Does that impose a sense of duty to not mix in personal ideas that, basically, cloud the message of the movie. In other words, did we need his psychiatrist contrasting Ari Folman's involvement with the holocaust? I don't honestly know, it opens a lot of questions, and in many ways I want to defend his choice to keep it in. I think it might have made it a better film, but it made the viewing experience very difficult, because he opens so many doors that he doesn't explore, and it was the exploration of those doors that would have made this movie a masterpiece for me (whether or not those doors should even be in this film).

07-22-09: Role Models (2008) 3 stars:


I laughed, more than I thought I would. Christopher Mintz-Plasse is the real revelation here, as he doesn't just play McLovin part two. The final act LARP scene is what pushed Role Models into 3 star territory, perhaps solely for the line "Now let us gingerly touch our tips."

07-19-09: The Hurt Locker (2008) 3.5 stars:


Maybe this should be rated higher, but I think its a perfect example of a solid three star film. I liked it, I have a few gripes but nothing major. Its one of the most tense films I have ever watched, but I guess there is just something lacking to really push it into four star territory. However, Anthony Mackie is excellent, as always. I'd give this film five stars if it meant he would finally get the leading roles and the attention he deserves. I think he is the best actor of his generation, and its sad to say this, but if he was white I am almost certain he would have multiple Oscar nominations by now. Hopefully this film finally launches him into superstardom and the recognition he deserves.

07-01-09: Grave of the Fireflies (1988) 3 stars:


Heartbreaking, but probably overhyped. I won't ever watch it again, I can't say I recommend it because its one of the saddest films I have ever seen. However, the actress's voice for Saita (the English dub) drove me mad - I wish it had the Japanese track on the DVD I watched.

06-28-09: Bridget Jones's Diary (2001) 3 stars:


Without the final act (street fight and everything after), this is a four star movie. I still enjoy it, but this time around the flaw stuck out a tiny bit more. I wish it was shot on location as the first two-thirds of the film are so realistic, if fanciful. Again, though, this film has one of the worst "drive off a cliff" turns I can think of, because until then its one of the best romantic comedies of the decade.

06-26-09: Tristam Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story (2005) 3 stars:


A good movie that loses its way in the final act. It has some great scenes, but it was a big letdown after 24 Hour Party People. That might be unfair, but oh well. Its still a good, funny movie and highly recommended.

06-18-09: Encounters at the End of the World (2008) 3 stars:


I could listen to Herzog talk for days. There are two amazing scenes in this doc: the penguin scene, which I will not spoil, but is about as perfect a scene for Herzog as you can ever get, and the scene where he talks over the gardener to call him a hippy idiot who wasted his life studying a dead language nobody can speak. God I love Herzog.


There you go. Stay tuned for the next post, which will presumably be the two star films!

My Journey to Meet Truffaut in 5 Films

In his book The Films of My Life, the French Director Francois Truffaut makes a curious statement. He used to believe, he says, that a successful film had to simultaneously express "an idea of the world and an idea of cinema." But now, he writes, "I demand that a film express either the joy of making cinema or the agony of making cinema. I am not at all interested in anything in between; I am not interested in all those films that do not have a pulse." (Quoted from Roger Ebert's novel Awake in the Dark, from the review of Apocalypse Now).



For as long as I can remember, I have been on a cinematic journey. I didn't always know where it was going to lead, or what I was looking for, but I knew that movies spoke to me, that they somehow lit a fire deep within me, and ever since I first felt the warmth of that fire, I have been striving to discover its source. I do not pretend to think I have found it, or I ever will truly find it, but over the last few years I believe I've come upon a revelation - I might not know why the fire burns, but I have a pretty good idea as to what material provokes the biggest flames.

Therefore, these five movies are all milestones for me, films that opened my eyes and, ultimately, helped me come to understand the question that every movie lover asks themselves: "What movies do I love, and why do I love them?"



This list is not about classic movies I saw in school (Citizen Kane, The Seventh Seal, The 400 Blows, Seven Samurai), movies I saw growing up and fell in love with (Dazed and Confused, Goodfellas, Swingers, LA Confidential), or movies that so many people spoke about that I figured I had to see them to understand what was going on (Casablanca, The Wild Bunch, Double Indemnity). I love every one of those movies, but those are for another list.

This list is about those movies that I approached on my own terms, for my own reasons. Some of these films took multiple viewings, sometimes spanning multiple years, for me to ultimately get a handle on. In that way, these movies are each perfect representations of my journey, because in coming to understand, to appreciate, and to love them individually, I was able to finally answer why I love movies, and what about them I love. I have finally arrived at the same conclusion of Francois Truffaut - these are the films that led the way.


1. Hoop Dreams (1994)



If these other films are about destinations, Hoop Dreams was my departure, where I first stepped on the train to begin my journey. As such, I don't have a whole lot to say about it. I can talk about how this movie first ignited my interest in documentaries, that in college I wrote a 20 page paper deploring the moral and ethical dilemmas presented in such ethnographic docs like Nanook of the North and Hoop Dreams, or about how, a couple years after I graduated, I was able to see past the rhetoric (and my own college-fueled stupidity) and fall in love with this film all over again.



But, here is the simple truth: I can't think of a film I saw before Hoop Dreams that better represents the transition from "I like to watch movies" to "I love movies, and want to learn more about them." I remember seeking out a place to watch Hoop Dreams while it was in the theater (thank you UCR University theaters and your one time a day showing of indie films!). I was able, after a lot of work, to convince one friend to go see it with me. He thought it was alright, but long. I thought it was the best film I had ever seen. Some days I still think that. Hoop Dreams sunk its hooks into me that day, and "the Cinema" opened its door.

2. Boogie Nights (1997)



I saw Boogie Nights in high school. It was a strange experience, and if you know me I'm sure you have heard the story. Basically, I went in expecting something completely different, and because of the people with me I wasn't ever able to relax and accept Boogie Nights for what it was. After that viewing, I had no idea why people kept calling it a great film.

A few years later, in film school, I decided to give it another shot. By this time I had seen Magnolia, and had been unimpressed by that film as well, so I wasn't going back to Boogie Nights with much expectations. I was blown away - at first by the comedy that I was not able to enjoy in the original viewing (due to a friends little sister sitting right next to me), but also with how some scenes just stuck with me (seriously, who doesn't remember the Alfred Molina scene to this day). Further, I kept coming back to the film, and each time I took away more. After a few years and a few more viewings, it became one of my favorite films of all time.



Boogie Nights is on this list for two reasons. First, it started my love for Paul Thomas Anderson, and he continues to reward me for that love (Punch Drunk Love took a while, but I now see it as a little gem). It also either started or cemented my love of all of the following actors: John C. Reilly (who I previously thought of as "the funny guy from Days of Thunder"), Luis Guzman, Don Cheadle, Phillip Seymoure Hoffman, William H. Macy, Ricky Jay, and the amazing Alfred Molina (not that the others aren't amazing, but man what a scene!). In a broader sense, it also introduced me to Robert Altman after hearing all of the comparisons, and for that alone I will always be grateful to Boogie Nights.



However, Boogie Nights is also on this list because, like all of these other films, it helped me learn more about my love for movies in general. For instance, I recognized my love for the focus on characters and their interactions, at (perhaps) the expense of plot, in some of my favorite films at the time, like Dazed and Confused, Pulp Fiction, and The Big Lebowski. Speaking of Pulp Fiction, Boogie Nights also helped me discover what I loved about the "video store" directors such as PTA and Tarantino - it wasn't the stylized violence and homages (per se), but rather their utter love, passion, and encyclopedic knowledge of movies that, consciously or not, become part of the films they themselves made; a passion that comes through the screen and infects the viewers (or at least me), giving these films an excitement that other films seemed to lack.



For a long time I was unable to grasp what this captivating excitement, present in some films but lacking in others, actually was. Boogie Nights didn't totally define it for me (this blog, and post, is full of other examples), but it started me on the path. I loved movies before film school. I learned to love movies after film school. Boogie Nights, though, was how I learned to define, integrate, and perhaps most importantly, explain my raw high school love in connection with the body of knowledge and history to which I was becoming more and more exposed to.


3. Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse (1991)



Is there any film I struggled with longer than Apocalypse Now? I sincerely doubt it. I have gone back and forth, back and forth, so many times. I knew it had problems, big problems. Even today I wonder if the entire final act is pointless. I'm pretty sure both of The Godfathers are about as close to a perfect film as you can come. But, for years, I would ask myself, why was it Apocalypse Now that I remembered so clearly? Why was it the film that was always in the back of my head. Why was it the film that I reach for first every time I have a new television, or new speakers, or just want to be blown away?



A few quick notes about Apocalypse Now and me: it was the first film I remember finding a new video store to get a hold of; it was the first film I ever went to watch by myself in the theaters; it was the first film I can think of that, after watching, I went to a library to look up information about. Long story short, Apocalypse Now and I go way, way back.



So, why did I choose Hearts of Darkness for this list? It isn't because Hearts of Darkness made me immediately understand Apocalypse Now, because I saw Hearts of Darkness in 2001 and I was still struggling with Apocalypse Now until, at least, 2006. No, Hearts of Darkness is on this list for one major reason: it was my introduction to the heaven and hell that is a movie production.



I watched Hearts of Darkness in a film class - but not a film theory class. In this class we had to make a new film every three weeks. On our first day, our professor (a working director and amazing guy) told us one thing: "you are going to have problems, you are going to get into trouble, and you are going to think the world is about to end. So, when you are feeling like nothing is going right and the whole world is against you, remember Hearts of Darkness, and then thank everyone around you, because no matter how bad it will be for you, it won't be as bad as the production of Apocalypse Now."



To this day, when I am feeling beat down, I remember that advice, but there was something more that I found in Hearts of Darkness: that Apocalypse Now only exists because of Coppola's passion (or insanity) for the movie itself. Since then, and with the help of other movies, I have come to understand why I love Apocalypse Now despite its Brando sized flaws, but it was Hearts of Darkness that first made me actually appreciate how much skill, work, love, pain, energy, time, devotion, sorrow, and joy was put into the final product. It was an appreciation that has helped me define my own criteria for what makes a great, or good, or even decent film, and it was an appreciation that finally started shedding light on my own personal tastes as a film lover.



There is often a common bond running through many of the movies I love. They took risks, the filmmakers shot for the stars, and they stood naked, offering their hearts and souls, fears and desires. for public consumption, humiliation and redemption. I will forever love Hearts of Darkness because, more than any other film, it managed to open my eyes enough for me to see the strings tying together my favorite movies.


4. Le Samourai (1967)



By the time I left film school, I had seen samurai films, I had seen French New Wave films, I had even seen Jarmusch's Ghost Dog. I had, therefore, heard of Le Samourai, but other than knowing it was considered a "classic" I didn't know much about it, or have much desire to see it (despite an obvious love of all things "samurai" as anyone who has seen my arm can attest to). So, when I finally watched it a couple years after leaving film school, I was coming to it on my own terms, perhaps somewhat skeptically. Needless to say, I loved every second of it, and it has instilled a passion to see more Melville films, more Alain Delon films, and more films about French samurai (are there any others?).



However, the reason I put it on this list is not for opening those doors, but because this is the film that helped me rekindle my love for movies in general; a love that, quite frankly, was almost extinguished by the time I left college. Specifically, this was the first "classic" film I watched after film school, and I was able to enjoy it all on my own terms - without any knowledge of why I was supposed to love it, or prior knowledge of its significance, importance or influence, I was able to discover all of those things for myself.



As such, Le Samourai reminded me why I love movies again. I didn't just learn what parts of Le Samourai I loved, I remembered the aspects of other French New Wave films I loved (and yes I know Melville isn't really part of the French New Wave), why I loved the "coolness" of some films (Out of Sight and Pulp Fiction immediately spring to mind), even when I didn't like other aspects of the same films (and god knows I am totally split on my feelings towards Tarantino), why I was originally so attracted to samurai culture and samurai films, and why I fell in love with movies in the first place.



Film school introduced me to an entire panacea of movie lore, and I am forever grateful for those four years, but it also buried my own tastes and passions under that panacea. I learned why other people loved certain films, and forgot why I loved them. In the years since, I have found my personal love again, and while that passion has been kindled by many films, it was Le Samourai that relit the fire.


5. Fitzcarraldo (1982)




I saw Aguirre, Wrath of God. I liked Aguirre, Wrath of God. I saw Grizzly Man. I liked Grizzly Man. For months, years (and to this day), I remembered particular scenes from those movies like I saw them yesterday. I had read about Herzog, I knew his legend. But, it was Fitzcarraldo that made me a convert.



I am going to make a bold, sweeping statement with zero authority to back it up: if you have seen this film, there are images you will never forget. The most obvious is watching a steam ship pulled over a mountain, but the first image I think of from Fitzcarraldo is a record player, atop a steam ship, traveling up a river in the midst of a rain forest, blasting Caruso into the jungle. You want to know how much that scene affected me? I went and bought a Caruso album after seeing this film.



As this post, and others like it on my site will attest, I love movies that take risks. They don't have to be perfect, often they are far from perfect, but the movies I seek out, and truly fall in love with, are huge, ambitious, outrageous, made with nothing but passion and pain and misery and joy. With the films above, it took a while for me to realize I loved them despite their (often sizable) flaws. But not with Fitzcarraldo. Once I heard Caruso in the jungle, I knew I was in love, and nothing that came after would affect that. Fitzcarraldo is not a perfect film, but it is truly a great film, and for me it will always be something more.



The closest thing I can equate that viewing of Fitzcarraldo to is receiving a diploma. I didn't have to wrestle with my love for the film - I didn't have to justify it, or seek out other's opinions, I didn't need to read the critical reviews. I knew I loved Fitzcarraldo, I knew why, and I didn't give a damn what anyone else thought. After boarding the train with Hoop Dreams, I had finally arrived at my station, and standing among many others, Francois Truffaut was there, waiting patiently, to help me off the train.