My movie odyssey in 2005
Jan 03 '06 (Updated Jun 23 '07)
The Bottom Line Placed here until Epinions comes out with a 2005 category (Even then, it might still be off-topic)
Note: Stephen Murray came up with a similar list. I did not steal from him, as this list, with some modifications, was taken from from my blog on My Space: http://blog.myspace.com/wruck4life.
These are the movies which stand out for me the most that I saw in 2005. Now these aren’t necessarily the best movies made in 2005, but they are the best movies I was fortunate enough to view for the first time during the year, which was an awful lot (Having taken two cinema classes and with my Dad briefly a member of Netflix). I finally limited it to thirty-one movies. They are unevenly distributed and arranged alphabetically (Since I am a wuss). Some of these selections may please you, or puzzle you or even enrage you. Any constructive criticism is more then welcome. Anyway, here they are (Twelve movies I was able to find things to write about):
The Battle of Algiers (1965)- Resistance fighters combat their oppressors using guerrilla and “terrorist” tactics. No, it was made in 1965, not 2005. And the oppressors are the French in Algeria during the 1950’s, as they attempted to bring ‘independence’ to a region that didn’t really want it. Directed by Gillo Pontecorvo, with strong performances and dazzling cinematography and editing. A movie that, perhaps uncomfortably, has grown more relevant in our modern times.
Ben-Hur (1926)- Over three decades before Charlton Heston took on the role, Ramon Novarro took on the role first in Fred Niblo’s rather impressive silent epic (At $3.9 million, the most expensive silent movie ever, but also the third highest grossing). Ben-Hur adapts Lew Wallace’s story of Judah Ben-Hur, whom is wrongly accused and sent to slavery by his former best friend (Francis X. Bushman) and fights his way out of slavery during the time of Christ (The latter of whom he has a couple of encounters with). The sea battle and chariot race sequences are spectacular, as much, if not more-so, then the similar sequences in the 1959 award winning remake (Trivia bit: William Wyler served as an assistant director on the 1925 version and later went on to win an Oscar for directing the 1959 version). Ben-Hur also makes limited use of early Technicolor in religious sequences. The movie is presently available as part of the Ben-Hur DVD collector set, with a cleaned up print and a great score from Carl Davis.
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1921)- Often considered to be the first horror movie. Caligari is bizarre in its look: The first of the German Expressionistic movies, it has distorted imagery, crooked sets and bright colors. The characters and the plot in general fit this mold as well, with chaos brewing as the result of a mad doctor’s circus show act, told from the perspective of the “hero”, whom recognizes Caligari’s evil deeds. There’s a plot twist along the way, though, that makes things all the more interesting. Despite its obvious age, Caligari remains a fascinating psychological and dream-like study. Fans of Casablanca might recognize Conrad Veidt underneath the makeup as the film’s most sinister, and most sympathetic, character.
F for Fake (1972)- “Don’t believe everything you see” is the moral of Orson Welles’ F For Fake, the last movie Welles’ completed and released before his death (Although he left several projects in various stages of completion). Probably the most abstract, enigmatic and personal of Welles’ movies, it begins as a documentary on a notorious art forger, but it gets deeper when it’s discovered that that man’s own biographer is an even greater fraud. Welles, a man whom also pulled a few pranks in his day, adds in his quirky style to the picture, intertwining these stories and actual footage along with his own story and staged footage. In many ways, it is Orson Welles looking back upon his legacy, along with those of the other great forgers. What makes F for Fake difficult is that it is not a “movie” in the traditional sense: The plot skips around- in fact, a linear plotline is all but non-existent- and even Welles’ himself seems frustrated by a storyline “rotten with coincidence”. But he also utilizes this storyline to his advantage, creating a unique cinematic brew. If one treats F for Fake like an experience, such as a great painting (Or a great forgery, for that matter), they will come off rewarded. Plus, the Criterion DVD is loaded with goodies.
License to Kill (1989)- I enjoy a good James Bond movie much as the next guy, but License to Kill stands separately among the movies of the series, for it’s more violent, gritty and raw then any other movie of the series. The movie contains several spectacular, well done action sequences done in the air and underwater and a great, explosive tanker truck chase at the climax, but it is also the most realistic of the Bond movies, as Bond disobeys MI6 orders and launches his own mission of revenge. Timothy Dalton reprised the Bond role after the success of 1987’s The Living Daylights, bringing in the right amount of seriousness and coldness, but also dark edged humor and charm when he needs to. Too bad he chose not to reprise the role in the 1990’s for, in my opinion, he might have been the best James Bond and still had much to prove. Robert Davi’s drug dealing villain is not as grand a personality as Goldfinger or Blofeld, but he is straight out of the news headlines and is one of the most cerebral and dangerous of the Bond villains. Carey Lowell and Talisa Soto make for sensual and strong Bond girls, while the late Desmond Llewelyn, as usual, provides for great entertainment as Q. Benicio Del Toro also has a small, memorable part from early in his film career.
M (1931)- Fritz Lang’s classic of psychological terror. The story of child murderer Hans Beckert, (Peter Lorre) would be, in any other movie, a purely evil, one-dimensional portrait. Beckert, however, is humanized and three-dimensional, so as to allow the audience to not necessarily relate, but at least pity the character. Nor is the film’s supporting cast any more innocent: They may be even more evil then Beckert.. Neither does Lang reveal the crimes committed by the killer but, rather, has them done off screen, thus making the impact all the greater. Lang is also renowned for his usage of dark, sinister shadows and lighting in his choice of cinematography (M is often considered a predecessor of Film Noir) The film is considered to foreshadow of the rise of Nazism, and it remains powerful and relevant to this day (Watch this and compare to the news coverage of Dennis “BTK” Rader).
Metropolis (1927)- The movie which established the themes and the imagery used in Sci-Fi films for the next 75 years: The Star Wars series, 2001, Blade Runner, Alien, Total Recall and others all ode to this movie. But Metropolis isn’t a great movie because it has been a huge source of inspiration for others: It’s great because it’s great. Fritz Lang’s vision of a futuristic city and the contrast of its workers remains a monumental and awe-inspiring creative achievement, even if it does feel familiar. The themes of social classes have been used often before and since, but they still remain very relevant, especially when compared to the CEOs of today. Nonetheless, the film’s epigram and the resolution are more optimistic then many sci-fi films, and probably more optimistic then our own future [For the best experience, get the Kino DVD edition, which is the most complete restoration yet done (A quarter of the original cut- filled in by title cards and still photos in the special features- remains lost, probably forever) and the print has also been digitally restored and includes the awesome original score and some nice extra features].
Nosferatu (A Symphony of Horror) (1922)- F.W Marnau’s stylistic, expressionistic work was the first “vampire” movie ever made and, many decades after its release, it still retains its fright and power. Max Schreck’s portrayal of Count Orlock (The film’s producers, since they didn’t have the rights to Bram Stoker’s Dracula, had to change the name) remains the most memorable and grotesque, with his thin body, point ears and face, claw-like fingers and sinister supernatural powers. Of course, we’re also familiar with the memorable usage of shadows to portray the fore coming of the vampire and of its “black death” that it spreads into England. Because it was an unauthorized adaptation of Stoker’s novel, the original print was bought up and kept from distribution, with the film being shown in shorter prints. Fortunately, longer prints have been resurfacing and are being redistributed so the public can rediscover this obviously dated but highly influential, important and still entertaining film.
Raging Bull (1980)- Robert DeNiro had wanted to do a film version of boxer Jake LaMotta’s autobiography for years, and was finally able to persuade Martin Scorsese to do the project. LaMotta’s story is not a pleasant one: Violent outside as well as in the boxing ring, we see the deep personality flaws of this man as he falls from fame to obscurity. Scorsese chose to shoot the movie in black & white- with special usages of color- to add to the dramatic effect and mood of the picture, giving it a dream like (Or nightmare like) quality, along with a heartbreaking music score. DeNiro actually gained weight to portray LaMotta as he appeared in later years, and his dynamic, physical and emotional performance won him an Oscar. He’s backed by a perfectly suitable supporting cast in Oscar nominees Cathy Moraity and Joe Pesci. Although well-admired when initially released (Editor Thelma Schoonmaker, along with DeNiro, won Oscars), the film’s reputation grew even more in subsequent years, cumulating at the end of the 1980’s when it was voted the movie of the decade in various critical polls.
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)- Often considered one of, if not the best, Star Trek movies. In this adventure, with a mysterious probe threatening Earth, Captain Kirk and crew have to travel in time to 1980’s San Francisco to rescue a pair of extinct humpback whales to communicate with the probe. Hilarity abounds as they confront life in the 1980’s (Money, keyboards, Nuclear “Wessels”, 20th century medicine, exact change, boom boxes). The cast was starting to show their age a bit (How did James Doonan age so terribly?). Nonetheless, they provide for enough interest and entertainment. Leonard Nimoy, in particular, steals the show in a movie he also directed, as his Captain Spock provides for some of the movie’s funniest moments while he learns more about human emotions. A very unique and enjoyable addition to the Star Trek series.
Star Wars Episode III (2005)- If you hated or were at least let down by Episodes I and II, Episode III is the movie you’ve been waiting for. It isn’t as great as the original trilogy, but it tries to be. For starters, Jar-Jar is given only one very brief scene, and it’s early in the movie. The light saber duels are incredible, although, again, not as good as in the original trilogy. A couple of scenes are a bit weak: I was let down by how quickly Count Dooku was dispatched (He was this unstoppable villain in Episode II, but is defeated in the beginning of this movie in less time then a p!ss break. Then again, his death is important to the movie in other ways as well). And there are melodramatic touches, like when Obi-Wan shouts to Anakin “You were the chosen one!”, or when Anakin as Darth Vader screams “NOOOO!” after learning of Padme’s fate. But at least they brought back James Earl Jones to do Vader’s voice, if only for a couple of lines. George Lucas remains obsessed with special effects, but at least doesn’t damper the movie with them or with C-Span-esque political debates. Episode III is an attempt to return to the formula of the original trilogy, rather then trying to go into politics and what not. Above all, it is a satisfying and entertaining resolution to the disappointing, if not terrible, prequels.
Un Chien Andalou (1927)- The most famous short film ever made, Un Chien Andalou, according to my film teacher, is a story about male and female relationships, particularly marriage. Watching the movie and evaluating its scenes in context, which include one of the most infamous in cinema (The slicing of a human eye), one can see that the interpretation does make sense. You can also watch it if only for that curiosity value, or if you really want to see a movie that’ll definitely make you say “What the…”.
Movies which I also saw and liked, but I’m too lazy to write up on in this review (15 movies):
The Asphalt Jungle (1950)
Billy Jack (1971)
Blue (“Three Colors” Trilogy) (1993)
Fargo (1996)
Freaks (1932)
Good Night, and Good Luck (2005)
The Hidden Fortress (1958)
The Kid (1921)
La Strada (1954)
The Most Dangerous Game (1932)
Sherlock, Jr. (1924)
Sideways (2004)
Stray Dog (1949)
Throne of Blood (1957)
Walking Tall (1973)
As an added, certain to be controversial bonus, here are four movies that let me down: The Aviator- The 2004 biopic of Howard Hughes looks great on paper, with a solid cast (Leonardo DiCaprio, Cate Blanchett, Katie Beckinsale, Alec Baldwin and Alan Arkin, along with Jude Law and William Dafoe in bit parts) and an equally acclaimed, though sometimes overrated, director (Martin Scorsese). Nor is the problem in the film’s production values or visual effects, which are mostly superb. The movie just doesn’t ever come alive. It drags on and on, various plot points are often left muddled or unexplained altogether (Just what did cause Howard Hughes’s obsession with cleanliness?) and it’s just bizarre at times (And I know that Howard Hughes was an eccentric man). Above all, there is no fire or interest: The cast might as well be sleepwalking. A wasted opportunity if I ever saw one.[Macresarf1 writes about it in this review, which perfectly summarizes my feelings about the movie. It is one of the finest reviews I’ve ever read, so I suggest you go read it!]
King Kong (2005)- The review explains it all, but one word summarizes the movie as well: Over-bloated.Napoleon Dynamite (2004)- Now I know that I will get killed for this. Once again, Napoleon Dynamite looked hilarious in the script, and many people apparently felt the same way. However, watching it was like watching an unfunny clown. I found the character of Napoleon obnoxious. Now one could argue that Miles in Sideways is much that same way. However, Miles at least has reasons for his erratic behavior and has maturity, while Napoleon is just an immature retard apparently. Sideways is also not hilarious all the way through, but it at least has deep themes and messages throughout that got to me. Napoleon Dynamite is empty. One bright spot on the picture was John Gries’ performance as Uncle Rico: Napoleon’s eccentric, steak eating uncle whom sells plastic ware and video tapes himself throwing passes, while dreaming about changing time so he could play pro-football. I’ll be sure to give it a second chance with a clearer mind but, for now, I’ll consider Napoleon Dynamite a disappointment.
Schindler’s List (1993)- Now I’m getting into a snake pit…Let me make this very very clear: Schindler’s List is technically superb in terms of cinematography, visual effects and lighting, with John Williams’s moving score arguably being the best he’s ever recorded (And you know those aren’t small words). The performances by Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes and particularly Ben Kingsley are worth accolade as well. Schindler's List is not a terrible movie like Napoleon Dynamite, nor a flop like The Aviator. So what’s wrong with Schindler’s List then? For me, it was too slanted and one-dimensional. Nazis in this movie simply shoot people at random: No remorse, no emotion or anything like that; they might as well be villains from a video game. Fiennes’s concentration camp commandant shoots Jews from his post for no reason except for sport. The Nazis did evil things, I'm not doubting that, but even just a scene where one of them hesitates or a slight, troubled glance from a soldier while shooting would have added something else for me. And there’s saintly Schindler- whom saved thousands of Jews by having them work in his factory- breaking up at the movie’s end, saddened that he wasn’t able to save more Jews (And not thinking at all of the fact that he’s a wanted fugitive by the Russians). The Holocaust was undoubtedly a horrible event in world history, but the Nazis were far from being one-dimensional monsters, either (Indeed, there’s little if any difference between the Nazis in Raiders of the Lost Ark and the Nazis in here). A great movie would be able to explore the deeper causes that lie at the root of the evil surrounding the Holocaust and try to figure out why this could have happened, and it would also create characters that don’t wear white or black hats or any hats at all, if you get my analogy. This project was extremely personal to Steven Spielberg and you can tell that. His efforts were enough for critics worldwide to laud the movie when it came out in 1993 and they granted Spielberg both a ton of money and a ton of awards. As long as he’s happy, I suppose. I definitely do recommend it for the technical values and the strong performances, but it just wasn't the groundbreaking, overwhelming and "important" movie that I'd thought it would be. [Side note: I should probably give Schindler’s List the benefit of the doubt. I may not have watched the movie under the best of circumstances (Late at night and such). As soon as I can watch it again under the best of circumstances- if such a thing is possible- I’ll be sure to give the movie a re-watch, so don’t start hating yet…]
[Update- 1/12/06- Macresarf1, one of the finest reviewers in this site's history, left a comment for me. Here is a part of it which shows what I was also trying to get at in this mini-review:
I tend to agree with you about SCHINDLER'S LIST -- but for different reasons.
Many Nazis did just kill people indiscriminately. They did not believe those they murdered were fully human. They thought they themselves were Supermen, and that they were doing God's Work, "in the name of the Fuhrer."
[Sound familiar these days? It's catching, especially when religion of any kind is used as a justification.]
Spielberg, I think, was trying to say that some Nazis did have a conscience. Oskar Schindler was, after all, a Nazi. But, in typical Spielberg fashion, he overdoes it. He sentimentalizes him. Schindler, though he may have had a conscience, went in whatever direction the wind was blowing -- before, during, and after World War II.
The scene in which he breaks down blubbering ruins the picture, I agree.
Once again, Alex has provided another brillant insight!]
So, as Orson Welles said at the end of F for Fake, “I wish you all a sincere and pleasant ‘Good evening’”
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
weirdo_87
|
|
Location: Nowhere
Reviews written: 114
Trusted by: 33 members
About Me:
What's this?!
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.