#7 12 Angry Men:

This movie is without a doubt, the most interesting boring movie I have ever seen. The whole thing takes place basically in one room. Only 8 minutes of the film transpire outside of the Jury Room, and most of these are in the bathroom. Not a single thing bursts into flames or is shot repeatedly by Bruce Willis. On paper, it’s hard to grasp why this movie was able to keep my attention and even go so far as to intrigue me. It was certainly made in a different time, when dialogue, camera angles and lighting were used to set the tone and relay the plot. Interesting fact, no screen time is devoted to back stories other than setting up the court case. The only details we get about the jurors is their jobs, which in 1954 might as well have served as personalities, and whatever else we glean from appearance and behavior during deliberations. The time this movie was made was a time for people that are so different from my generation, I’m not even sure I have the right to review this movie. Point of fact, that’s sort of something that I gleaned from the film itself. The themes of doubt and respect are so prevalent I get a little wobbly of conviction when analyzing it with my skewed, 21^st century perception. I mean, where do I get off? Ignoring that for the sake of a compliment, this movie is damn good. In fact, it rocks. Michael Bay has never seen anything like it. Someone should make sure he’s aware of non-exploding plot lines. I love the fact that it begins with one man of conviction standing up for the simple thing of deliberate consideration. All he wanted was a thought-out decision, nothing more. I’m not even sure where he decided that the kid wasn’t guilty. One by one, the other jurors are shown that acting hastily almost resulted in a grave injustice. By far my favorite part though, was when Henry Fonda baited Juror #3 into screaming “I’ll kill you”, just as was testified too during the trial.

So, this is a keeper. You should watch it at home and decide for yourself whether you agree with the one man, or the original 11 that stood against him. Even now, at the end, I’m not convinced that the kid was not guilty. One other thing, I’m glad this was a short one. Most of these are almost 3 hours long if not over and I’m glad to have an in-and-out movie once in a while.

Off Topic Rant #1

Alright, that’s it! I’m pissed. I was hoping not to have to bring this up, but it just won’t go away. The more time passes, the more I hear about how great The Hurt Locker is. It isn’t. It really isn’t. It’s a crappy movie. I am tired of hearing about how great this thing is. It’s the emperor’s new clothes all over again. The acting is good, but that’s about it. The characters are shallow and frankly stupid. Who cares about a bunch of dogs who don’t know their place in the world?

Now, I’ve recently become quite critic of the modern US military, so I can see that I’m probably jaded. It’s not the soldier’s fault. It’s the military’s. The people who volunteer are by and large, the dregs of modern society. Addicts, drop outs and generally about as intelligent as a 14 year old. And there’s no shame inherent in that. But then the army comes along and tells them all sorts of bullshit about being the top 1% and type A and gives these people a sense of false superiority. And that’s great, on the battlefield. But when they come home, get drunk, and are challenged, they can’t handle it and get all shooty and stabby. Acting basically like their favorite dog, the pit bull.

But, I digress. The movie actually does a decent job of portraying this lost soul thing. Maybe it’s just that I am not sympathetic? But on another note, this movie still sucks. The military aspects are all so stupid. I lost count of the times that one of these soldiers did something that should have killed them. A good soldier wouldn’t waste their life like that. Or at least shouldn’t. I actually have a friend who fought in Iraq and got shot through the knee. So he knows a little more about what’s going on at the front than I do, and he saw this movie. He told me that for the most part, the soldiers are that dumb and prone to dying stupidly. So I guess I’m just mad at the situation. But despite all the holes I am putting in my own theory, I still don’t think this movie is anywhere near worthy of so many accolades. And in no way should we celebrate stupidity like this, even if it’s in the form of bravery.

#6 Schindler’s List:

I know more about World War II than you do. I say this with complete confidence, barring the occasional scholar. But I only make this note to make clear that nothing presented in this movie is new to me. I am able to write casually about such a terrible occurrence simply through studying it for 15 years. That out of the way, this is a great re-telling of the horror through the lens of a simple German business man. Early in the film, there’s a character-defining moment between Oskar Schindler and his wife where he reveals his greatest desire is to be remembered. Suffices to say, he succeeded. This movie is about a man who saw the opportunity of a lifetime in the Nazi desocialization of Jews in Poland and turned it into one of the most heroic and uplifting stories of the Holocaust. He started out nearly penniless, made the right connections, made the right deals and made a fortune selling pots and pans to the German army using Jewish forced labor. As time went on, the Nazi treatment of the Jews began to take a toll on Schindler and he changed his agenda. He spent all of the fortune he had made saving his workers from extermination. In the end, he was broke again. It’s a special sort of person who can do all that in the span of 6 years. And it’s a special actor to convincingly play a man of such depth. Liam Neeson does just that. He transforms as the movie progresses. At the beginning, the atrocities are just background to the opportunity at hand. Schindler only sees dollar signs. The movie itself doesn’t linger too long on the deaths of the innocent. But the tone and the character and the man all changed when the relatively comfortable ghetto changes into the cold and stark work camp. The German brutality is increased several fold during the “liquidation” and the internment. In this, I find my only criticism: Goth’s sociopathic tendencies were a little much for me to believe. There’s no human in the character Ray Fiennes portrays. Just a brutal, murdering animal. I felt that was too easy a juxtaposition to make. That being said, I am fully aware that most of the depictions of brutality are historical. But by the end, even I was desensitized to the violence. Humans are adaptive by nature. And the survivors of the camps know this better than anyone else possibly could. The actors did well to show this facet of humanity and so to did the direction.

Now one thing I have to give credit to; it is tough to insert laughs into this movie without blaspheming, but Speilberg managed to do it at least three times. Once is quite literally the definition of “gallows humor.” Hats off to you sir. As so many people of my generation are only vaguely aware of the specifics of the Holocaust, I recommend that anyone under the age of 30 watch this movie.

#241 Anatomy of a Murder (1959)

Anatomy of a Murder (AM) features 'old-time' acting names I recognize immediately - George C. Scott, as slick big-city lawyer Claude Dancer, and James (Jimmy) Stewart, as down-home friendly country lawyer Paul Biegler.

This is my 2nd straight review of a film from pre-1960. Once again, I am left entertained and thoroughly impressed. AM did not need special effects or tasteless crude humor (there is some "crude" humor at times in AM, but nothing compared to modern films) - many of the eye-catching things modern movies so heavily rely on to cover up sub-par acting, poor writing, or sloppy plotlines - in order to hold my attention for 2 hours and 40 minutes. I never found myself bored or looking at my watch. Now, on to the review.

You've seen similar plots before - a slick lawyer painted as the bad guy with the equally-slick-but-in-a-nice-way good-guy lawyer duking it out back-and-forth in a court room regarding a case with twists and turns leaving the verdict up in the air until the end. See: Runaway Jury and to a lesser extent Erin Brockovich. I submit that AM is likely the first to do so, definitely at such a high level.

What defense can be offered to murder? Certainly self-defense is a righteous reason. It might also be an accident, or lacking just cause and straight up criminal murder another. There is only one other - plead insanity. The temporary insanity murder defense gets cast in a light that leaves doubt both ways.

I could not help but notice the similarity between the defendant (an army Lieutenant) and what is a commonly held stereotype of soldiers in today's world: rule-bending, jealous, angry at the drop of a hat, overly-protective of their lady in harmless situations, and somewhat hypocritical when it comes to actions and when certain actions are right and just.

Finally, I have to admit (perhaps showing my lack of 'older' movie knowledge and experience? perhaps not) that the issues confronted and dialogue in AM at times caught me off-guard. The words 'slut' and 'bitch' are used (albeit only once each to my count) similar to the way modern movies do, but here it was natural conversation. I am also quit sure that I will never hear the words 'panties' or 'sperm' spoken more in one sitting than during AM. The topics of murder, insanity pleas, and rape are necessarily involved in most every bit of the plot. However, none of these words or topics are used flippantly or out of context of reality.

I highly recommend watching Anatomy of a Murder the next time you find yourself in the mood for a quality movie in black-and-white.

#5 Pulp Fiction:

I’d like to dedicate this entry to Captain Phil Harris who dies today of causes linked to the life he didn’t know how to live without. I wish you good fishing. On to the movie. I’d seen Pulp Fiction probably around 30 times by this viewing. It’s probably Tarantino’s best movie he’ll ever make. Perfectly laid out and awesomely intertwined. If you’ve ever seen his latest and worst movie to date, Inglorious Basterds, then you’ll know the man has a flair for dialogue. Only in Fiction, it stays interesting to hear the banter or threats from the main characters. I’ve always loved the opening monologue between Vincent and Jules, and the fact that it’s only a few cuts makes it all the more entertaining. Although it’s still hard to believe that it’s this high on the list. There aren’t any other good movies in the top 20 of the “Fuck” list. I know Goodfellas is, but I don’t like Goodfellas. But anyway, this movie is probably as good as that ugly bastard Quentin is going to get. Christopher Walken does the absolute best Christopher Walken impression I have ever seen. Bruce Willis and John Travolta are extremely fun to watch. The sword was a great choice. Apart from the acting, it’s the movie’s background/environment that builds the feel of it into something different from the other movies in the top 5. Its scenes are perfectly constructed and laid out with a certain theatrical quality. And don’t forget the violence. There is plenty of blood to laugh at. Dirty, violent and fun to watch. What more can you ask? You can ask what’s in that damn case. I liked the Marcellus-Wallace-soul theory, but I guess the band aid was a coincidence because Ving Rhames has a scar there. Tarantino fed some BS about it being the loot from Reservoir Dogs. Maybe. Last thing, this has always bothered me. Jules is not holing a 9mm in the diner as he says, it’s a .45. I hate it when movies fuck up weapons.

#244 His Girl Friday (1940)

I'm sure my first thought was the same as most - a movie from 1940?! That means no special effects, no sex appeal, and no cursing - how can a movie be good enough to make the top 250 without any of those (it's black and white too!)?

How about by having a plot and witty dialogue? Honestly, there are no action scenes, no scantily clad women, and no foul language in 'His Girl Friday' (HGF); however, it kept my attention for all 92 minutes of run time. Every scene seemed to have some new quirky artifact from the past - dime poker, old-style telephones, expensive $12 hats. I really do believe the false anachronisms are what kept me involved (no real anachronisms - they all fit HGF's time of production and plot, but to me watching it in 2010 they felt out of place) waiting to see what peculiar-ness would come next.

A particular bit that made me laugh - really, I did... out loud - is part of a scene with Walter Burns (Cary Grant) describing Bruce Baldwin (Ralph Bellamy) to an accomplice to pick him out on the streets. He misses nary a beat in mentioning Bruce's striking resemblance to an actor, Ralph Bellamy. If you hear a faint bell ringing reading the name "Ralph Bellalmy", that is probably because you have seen Trading Places - and that you are old. I cheated and used the DVD's accompanying Filmography sections to discover this little gem: Ralph Bellamy is one of the scheming Wall Street'ers wagering on human nature in 'Trading Places'! *BAM* Take that to the trivia bank!

It boiled down to this: does the tired-of-the-same-old-run-you-ragged-job damsel decide to keep her new life with the boring insurance salesman or does she realize the non-stop pace of the news business is where she belongs?

#4 The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly:

Let me start by saying that I am a little bit drunk this time around. Spell check is keeping this coherent. This is a long, and slightly boring movie. It took about an hour and ten minutes to really tie the story into something other than the rambling events of different guys in 1865. Once it got going though, it was all right. A truly brutal depiction of the West in that era of near-end-of-war. There was so much symbolism though. I hate symbolism. The landscape of a war-torn American west is clearly an allusion to the bombed out cities of Europe in 1945.But other than that, I didn’t get it. The drunk captain, the pursuit of wealth from the dead, of the connection of The Ugly to the Union army. The movie felt like it was very pro-Confederacy. And I’ve never seen a man so happy in a cemetery. That has to mean something. In all, I guess, it’s a good movie, but I hate it when a movie is made in the context of the times. It makes it so hard for future generations to know what the sam hell is going on. That and Clint Eastwood’s a dick.