Who Will Win?

And the Oscar goes to. . .

Get a pen handy and mark March 5th on your Snoopy desk calendar. That’s the date for the 79th annual Academy Awards, commonly known to you uneducated masses as the Oscars. Yesterday, the academy woke up super early to announce their nominees. I was misled into thinking they’d do this at a reasonable evening time this year, but whatever. Regardless, for the record, if it matters, which it doesn’t, I want it known that the Dudies were completed before I even looked at this list. The Oscars will not affect the Dudies! Do you hear me?! The only thing that could possible affect the Dudies would be Pia Zadora’s dad. Ask around, Jonathon. Someone will explain it to you. Anyway, let’s take a look at who the nominees are and what my two cents are in regards to ‘em. (By the way, I’ll be looking at each category as they are listed on oscar.com, so it’s a bit of a weird order, but whatever.)

ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE
Philip Seymour Hoffman - Capote, Terrence Howard - Hustle and Flow, Heath Ledger - Brokeback Mountain, Joaquin Phoenix - Walk the Line, David Strathairn - Good Night and Good Luck

This is totally Hoffman’s category and good for him. Who would have thought at the beginning of the year that he’d walk away with an Oscar and a Dudie? That’s where it is though. Hoffman’s Capote is the performance of the year hands down. Otherwise, Terrence Howard has no chance in Hell and poor Joaquin Phoenix will likely have been throttled to death by Johnny Cash’s resurrected corpse before the ceremony (which, I suppose, could get some sympathy votes. . .) Admittedly, Heath Ledger and David Strathairn are in position to upset, but I don’t see it happening. Heath is good, but nothing compared to Hoffman this year and no one knows who the hell Strathairn is. Plus, some voters will likely confuse Philip Seymour Hoffman with Dustin Hoffman and that’ll be that.

ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
George Clooney - Syriana, Matt Dillon - Crash, Paul Giamatti - Cinderella Man, Jake Gyllenhaal - Brokeback Mountain, William Hurt - A History of Violence

Much as I loved William Hurt, he doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in Hell. Neither does Matt Dillon. No, conventional wisdom here, and I’m forced to agree, is that it’s going to be a battle of the consolation prize supporting actor Oscars. Giamatti was snubbed last year for his brilliant work in Sideways and there’s no way Clooney’s winning best director, despite a stellar job on Good Night and Good Luck and bonus points for being well liked in Hollywood. So, one of ‘em will probably get the bronze medal of Oscar, best supporting actor. At least, that’s what people think. I’m not sure though. I think Gyllenhaal did well enough in Brokeback to upset things here. It’s a strong performance, sure to garner a good amount of votes and it voters split to much between Giamatti and Clooney, Gyllenhaal will get the gold. Still, for now, I’m leaning toward seeing Clooney pick this one up.

ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE
Judi Dench - Mrs. Henderson Presents, Felicity Huffman - Transamerica, Keira Knightley - Pride and Prejudice, Charlize Theron - North Country, Reese Witherspoon - Walk the Line

I haven’t seen any of these movies, nor am I really excited about anything here. That seems to be the scuttlebutt, too. Boring best actress category. Right now, Reese has all the buzz and will probably take it, but, from what I hear and what I’ve seen in previews, Felicity Huffman’s work as a transsexual may prove the upset. Plus, Huffman? That’s practically Hoffman and he’s winning best actor. Can the academy resist the Hoffman/Huffman possibilities? Oprah. Uma. Oprah. Uma.

ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Amy Adams - Junebug, Catherine Keener - Capote, Frances McDormand - North Country, Rachel Weisz - The Constant Gardener, Michelle Williams - Brokeback Mountain

I’m hearing it for Rachel Weisz on this one and that sounds about right to me. There’s some chance of Frances McDormand winning a sort of career award here, but not good enough to bet the farm on.

ANIMATED FEATURE
Howl’s Moving Castle, Tim Burton’s Corpse Bride, Wallace and Gromit in the Curse of the Were-Rabbit

Dude. It’s Wallace and Gromit. Everyone loves Wallace and Gromit. They’ve got a solid record winning Oscars for their shorts and their gonna win here. Corpse Bride? Too weird for the Academy. Howl’s Moving Castle? Too Japanese and most of the Academy still hasn’t forgotten Pearl Harbor. Really. It was a bad movie. What was Ben Affleck thinking?

ART DIRECTION
Good Night and Good Luck, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, King Kong, Memoirs of a Geisha, Pride and Prejudice

I have no idea. It seems like Geisha is begging for this one, though, doesn’t it?

CINEMATOGRAPHY
Batman Begins, Brokeback Mountain, Good Night and Good Luck, Memoirs of a Geisha, The New World

As you’ll notice, just like art direction, the Academy really doesn’t give a shit who the cinematographer or art director is. The movie shot itself, damn it. Stupid. And if they do that put all the nominees on the stage at once crap again, I’m gonna lose it. I swear. I’ll go totally Nolte. In the meantime, I’m pretty surprised to see Batman here. Don’t get me wrong, it’s damn well shot, but I didn’t think the academy would be going anywhere near old Bats. After all, academy voters are a cowardly and superstitious lot. Obviously, I think Brokeback Mountain will get this, but I can see Malick’s New World and even Good Night pulling off an upset.

COSTUME DESIGN
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Memoirs of a Geisha, Mrs. Henderson Presents, Pride and Prejudice, Walk the Line

This seems to me to be a fight between Charlie and Geisha. Everything else is pretty much, “Well, the movie is set in the sixties, so. . .um. . . we looked in a book.” Even Geisha really has that problem, its just a little flashier. Charlie at least involved some major effort, designing crap from scratch. So, I’m thinking Charlie, but I can see Geisha. Especially, if a massage is involved.

DIRECTING
Brokeback Mountain, Capote, Crash, Good Night and Good Luck, Munich

Even the director’s don’t get props on the Academy website. I’d remedy this, but I’m way too lazy to go looking for everyone’s name on IMDB. Anyway, is there any doubt that Ang Lee has this bitch wrapped up tight? I didn’t think so. Next!

DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
Darwin’s Nightmare, Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, March of the Penguins, Murderball, Street Fight

Who knows. Really, documentary is always such a crap shoot. Penguins are cute, but Murderball is inspiring, but Enron is political. Whatever. I think I’m gonna give it to Street Fight, either the biography of Sonny Chiba or the true story behind M. Bison’s coup for control of the world through a series of one on one brawls. I’m not sure which it is. I’m kind of hoping for M. Bison. That Chung Li is cute.

DOCUMENTARY SHORT
The Death of Kevin Carter: Casualty of the Bang Bang Club, God Sleeps in Rwanda, The Mushroom Club, A Note of Triumph: The Golden Age of Norman Corwin

No one ever knows. Seriously. Has anyone ever seen any of these? I don’t want to be rude. I’m sure they’re very good. There just isn’t a good venue for these or for the other shorts. Hey, big theater chains, how about showing some of these instead of two back to back Bod body spray commercials?

FILM EDITING
Cinderella Man, The Constant Gardener, Crash, Munich, Walk the Line

Dude. I don’t know. I’ve only seen Crash, which was well edited. I’m giving to Crash. Leave me alone.

FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
Don’t Tell, Joyeux Noel, Paradise Now, Sophie Scholl - The Final Days, Tsotsi

I’m hearing it for Tsotsi, but I don’t really have any idea. I would really like to see like Randy Newman introduce this category and have Tsotsi win. That could really be fun.

MAKEUP
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, Cinderella Man, Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith

Um. . . . . . .Narnia. I’m saying Narnia. That’s got goat dudes and shit. Cinderfella? That’s just Jerry Lewis in a dress. No real make up there. Star Wars? Aren’t all of those guys done with computers now?

MUSIC (SCORE)
Brokeback Mountain, The Constant Gardner, Memoirs of a Geisha, Munich, Pride and Prejudice

God damn it. I don’t know. Okay?! Jeez. Did John Williams do any of these? He did Munich? Well, guess what’s winning.

MUSIC (SONG)
“In the Deep” from Crash, “It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp” from Hustle and Flow, “Travelin’ Thru” from Transamerica

In a huge upset, I’m giving this to “The Glory of Love” from Karate Kid 2.

BEST PICTURE
Brokeback Mountain, Capote, Crash, Good Night and Good Luck, Munich

It’s Brokeback Mountain. We all know it’s Brokeback Mountain. Capote? They’re buying that off with Hoffman’s best actor. Crash? Came out too long ago for anyone to care. Good Night and Good Luck? Too thinky. Munich? If you take out the “i,” the movie is Munch and there’s no way a movie called Munch is winning best picture. Really, I haven’t seen Munch yet, but these are all worthy pictures. The truth is, though, that Brokeback is just that much better and everyone loves it and it’s about gay guys so the Academy can feel like it’s being all liberal and socially conscious. It’s a lock. Put the cat out early and go to bed.

Well, it was a long list and toward the end there. . . what? There’s more? Wouldn’t you end on picture? Jesus.

SHORT FILM (ANIMATED)
Badgered, The Moon and the Son: An Imgained Conversation, The Mysterious Geographic Explorations of Jasper Morello, 9, One Man Band

????????

SHORT FILM (LIVE ACTION)
Ausreisser (The Runaway), Cashback, The Last Farm, Our Time Is Up, Six Shooter

See above comments.

SOUND EDITING
King Kong, Memoirs of a Geisha, War of the Worlds

Good God. Who knows. Did Murch do any of these? No? Crap. Um. . . King Kong. That’s what I’m saying.

SOUND MIXING
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, King Kong, Memoirs of a Geisha, Walk the Line, War of the Worlds

There’s a difference? Seriously. There is. Just don’t ask me to explain it. I’m giving it to Walk the Line on account of all the singin’.

VISUAL EFFECTS
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lions, the Tigers, the Bears, Oh My, King Kong, War of the Worlds

Dude. It’s gonna be Kong. That’s one convincing monkey.

WRITING (ADAPTED SCREENPLAY)
Brokeback Mountain, Capote, The Constant Gardener, A History of Violence, Munich

Again, I don’t really have a feel for a stand out contender here, but I’m going with Capote. I just feel it for Capote. Very well written. Feels like a good adaptation.

WRITING (ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY)
Crash, Good Night and Good Luck, Match Point, The Squid and the Whale, Syriana

Okay. Here we go. Now, this is a different thing than adapted. I don’t need to have also read a book to give an opinion here. Of course, it would help if I’d seen more than two of these. Still, I’m feeling pretty good about Crash. It’s a very complex story and the way the various threads move and weave together is really very nice and anything but obvious, definite definite skill in the writing of this sucker. That said, I can see Match Point as a spoiler, given that Woody wrote it and everyone loves Woody (everyone except Mia! Zing!). The Squid and the Whale also seems to have good cred and it has that whole smaller, indy thing going for it. Still, smart money, or my money at least, is on Crash.

And with that, I’m finally done. Expect the ceremony to run somewhere around seven and a half hours. I’m gonna go get some codine and sack out. I’ll see you kids tomorrow.

The 2005 Dudie Awards

The least prestigious awards imaginable.

Well, kids, here they are: The Dudies. The Dudies are a shameful Oscar rip-off and are awarded in several Oscar-style categories. The Dudies have a long and storied history, dating back as far as yesterday. They are awarded by the Academy of Eric Houston Arts and Sciences in conjunction with The National Brotherhood of Erics Local 247. Each winner receives a statuette, as pictured at right. Without further adieu, here are the Dudies for 2005.

BEST SCORE/ORIGINAL MUSIC
Danny Elfman - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

Yeah, yeah. Just like the Oscars, we’re starting out with the bottom of the barrel categories. Of course, that’s bottom of the barrel as far as the regular man is concerned. To me, all categories are precious. Anyway, our first Dudie goes to Danny Elfman for his fantastic, fun, and oddly haunting score for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Even better are Danny’s original Oompa Loompa songs, done in a variety of styles from sixties pop to disco to classic rock. Each is unbelievably catchy and are a favorite component of what was undoubtedly one of my favorite movies of the year.

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHER
Rodrigo Prieto - Brokeback Mountain

There’s no denying it; Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal are dreamy. Oh to be a teenage girl! I’d have their Tiger Beat posters all over the room. What? Right. Well, dreamy as they may be, the shots that make up Brokeback Mountain, this years major Oscar bait, are positively brilliant and infinitely dreamier. The shot of Heath Ledger with fireworks erupting behind him, the various beautiful vistas and cloud filled skies, wonderful, intimate photography of the major relationships, including, of course, that between Heath and Jake, just beautiful. No doubt, Ang Lee had a hand in these perfect compositions, but Prieto brings a mastery of his art necessary to this films success. It has a terrific plot, wonderful performances, but, what really pushes it over the edge is how good it all looks. Congrats on the Dudie Rodrigo!

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE
Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit
Runner Up: The Corpse Bride

How fun was this movie? Wallace and Gromit have always been great in small doses, but I’m thrilled to see they work just as well in long form. This film has it all: comedy, heart, and giant rabbits. All the gags in the movie work. It’s an absolute joy to watch. The rabbits are great, Gromit’s quiet frustration is perfect, Wallace’s complex contraptions are, well, complex. I loved it. As for the runner up, I don’t want to spend a whole lot of time on these. Suffice to say, these are the nominees that just missed the Dudie. For the record, each runner up does get a Dudie Runner Up medallion, lovingly handcrafted on photoshop.

SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Catherine Keener - Capote
Runners Up: Missi Pyle - Charlie, Maria Bello - A History of Violence

It was a tough call, but I’m giving it to Keener’s performance as Harper Lee in Capote. It’s a really nice performance and her stability, confidence, and, dare I say, even hint of masculinity is a perfect counterpoint to Hoffman’s Capote. Really, even if this sounds kind of stupid, her work wonderfully supports the lead.

SUPPORTING ACTOR
William Hurt - A History of Violence
Runners Up: Ben Kingsley - Oliver Twist, David Kelly - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

Meanwhile, William Hurt is a shameless scene stealer in A History of Violence. He plays Viggo Mortensen’s delightfully cooky, mafia connected brother. He’s a real joy to watch in this, odd, dark, and compelling.

BEST ACTRESS
Naomi Watts - King Kong

Not only is she very human and sympathetic in herself, Watts does the near impossible in making you believe in a giant freaking gorilla that, when she was actually shooting her scenes, wasn’t even there. You completely buy that, not only is she relating to the gorilla, but she deeply cares for him. It’s also a heavily unusual, stylized performance, but one which works so well in the environment that it’s very strangeness adds to the verisimilitude.

BEST ACTOR
Philip Seymour Hoffman - Capote
Runners Up: Mickey Rourke - Sin City, Johnny Depp - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Heath Ledger - Brokeback Mountain, David Strathairn - Good Night and Good Luck, Eugine Hutz - Everything Is Illuminated

Hoffman’s Capote is the stand out performance of the year. I don’t know what it says about the man, but he embodies Truman Capote in a way you only see in the greatest biopics of all time: George C. Scott as Patton or Ben Kingsley as Gandhi. It’s really stellar and complex work that moves far beyond the superficial, cartoonish, and stereotypical about Capote to find the conflicted, contradictory, and, in many ways, deplorable human being beyond.

BEST DIRECTOR
Tim Burton - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Runners Up: Ang Lee - Brokeback Mountain, Oliver Twist - Roman Polanski, Liev Schreiber - Everything Is Illuminated

This is a real tough category for me. It really was between the sheer directorial skill exhibited by Ang Lee with Brokeback Mountain and the deeply joyful, whimsical, and somehow slightly disturbing vision offered by Burton. Anyway, there’s no doubt that Charlie was my favorite film of the year, and Burton was the main reason. There is no doubt that his vision guided the performances and style that all came together so wonderfully in this film. It’s a totally unconventional choice, but I don’t care. This is my call, baby. He’ll never win the Oscar. Never. But for the best work of his career, I’m giving Burton the Dudie.

BEST GENRE PICTURE
Serenity

The film continuation of TV’s Firefly was a spectacular ride. Combining the very best of science fiction and western pictures, this movie is incredibly entertaining and damn smart. It doesn’t seem like a whole lot of people who didn’t already love the property went to see this, but by God, they should. Further, given how much the two have in common regarding their inspiration, this is the sort of film the Star Wars prequels should have been. So, if you were disappointed b y Star Wars, and who wasn’t, give this a try. It’s soooo much better.

BEST PICTURE NO ONE SAW
Everything Is Illuminated

Liev Schrieber’s directorial debut starts out as the funniest thing I’ve seen all year. The film follows Elijah Wood as he travels to the former Communist Block to find his family’s jewish origins. His guide is a young Ruskie, Alex. Alex is also the narrator, speaking to us through a thick, comical accent. There are so many great things early on. Alex’s driver is his grandfather. The grandfather claims to be blind, driving around Russia with sunglasses on, but he isn’t. He even has a “seeing eye bitch” named Sammie Davis Jr. Jr. Neither Alex or his grandfather can understand how Wood can be a vegetarian. They don’t even know what it is and wonder what can be wrong with him. Alex also has a series of brilliant lines, all of which would make the Festrunk brothers beam with pride, such as, “All the ladies are wanting to get carnal with me because of my premium dance moves.” As great as all this is, by the end, it is one of the most touching films you’ve ever seen, deeply human and at least a little depressing. How the film moves, and moves beautifully, from one extreme to the other is something to be seen.

WORST PICTURE
Robots.

God awful. This movie is a war crime, plain and simple.

BEST PICTURE
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Runners Up: Sin City, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, Everything Is Illuminated

While probably not the actual best picture made this year, it was certainly my favorite and that’s what counts for a Dudie. Sadly, it’s no big surprise, but it is the movie that most captured me this year. Great look, great perfomaces, terrific attitude. I’ve already talked extensively about how much I liked it in the regular column, so check that out if you haven’t. Again, it won’t win the Oscar. It probably won’t even be nominated. In all likelihood, Brokeback Mountain will win the day and, in all honesty, it probably is the better film, but, of the two, Charlie is the one I’ll still be watching twenty years from now.

That’s it for the Dudies. I’m off to the after party. Join me tomorrow for an in-depth look at the nominees for the Academy Awards. Ciao!

Oscar, Oscar!

Anticipating the 78th Annual Academy Awards

Sorry, Billy. Not this year. As much as I love you as host, we’re getting Jon Stewart this year. Of course, I love the Daily Show, and, so, I expect Stewart to be a hell of a host. He’ll definitely top Chris Rock and perennial bottom of the barrel host Whoopie Goldburg, but I’ll miss the song, Billy.

What does this have anything to do with anything? Well, it’s Oscar time folks! That’s right, it’s that time of the year when I get all giggly and rant to anyone within ranting distance about my picks for the best pics of the year. The only difference between this year and previous years, though, is that, this year, I have a blog. With nominations announced tomorrow night, I’m kicking off a special Oscar Week for the Production Dude. So, until next Monday, I’m putting the Big List off. We’ll resume with #61 next week, don’t worry. I’m particularly excited about #60 on, too. That’s the real meat of the list folks.

Enough about that, though. What can you expect out of the next week? Well, Wednesday will involve an in depth look at the nominees as I whine and complain about all the nominations Cinderella Man got and how Sky High didn’t get any. Thursday will be a special look at the worst films I saw this year and Friday. . . well, I don’t know yet. It kind of depends. If there’s a good lifetime achievement award, I’ll talk about that guy. Otherwise? Who the fuck knows.

Oh? But tomorrow? Tomorrow will be my own little mini-Oscars. I’ll come up with a name for them later. Maybe the Dudies. Anyway, I’ll be throwing out my own big three picks for best picture of the year, best director, best actor, and best actress. I’ll throw out picks for best supporting actor/actress, cinematography, animated film, and the like too, but probably only the one pick for each of those. I’ll probably even add a couple of categories like best genre film and best film no one else saw. As for the eligible films, I’m opening it up to all of the film I have seen that are eligible for the real Oscars. As such, those films are (in order of having seen them):

Elektra, Sin City, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Star Wars: Episode III: The Revenge of the Sith, Robots, The Adventures of Shark Boy and Lava Girl, The Longest Yard, Batman Begins, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Fantastic Four, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, March of the Penguins, Sky High, Brothers Grimm, The Aristocrats, Madagascar, Crash, The Bad News Bears, The Exorcism of Emily Rose, Serenity, Broken Flowers, A History of Violence, Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit, Goodnight and Good Luck, Everything Is Illuminated, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, The Corpse Bride, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, King Kong, Oliver Twist, Capote, Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World, and, if all goes as planned this afternoon, Brokeback Mountain.

Only 34 films to pick from. Yeesh. Mind you, I saw a couple of these more than once and I saw a few rereleases and a few ineligible films, so my film viewing for the year is still at a good level, thank God.

62. The Royal Tenenbaums

Wes Anderson, 2001

"Well, everyone knows Custer died at Little Bighorn. What this book presupposes is. . . maybe he didn't."

I love Wes Anderson. He is easily the most original young director to show up in a long time and I am certain that he is going to become one of my all time favorites. So far, Anderson has directed four movies: Bottle Rocket, Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, and The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. I love everyone of them, but, while another of these four will appear on the list shortly, Tenenbaums is the one we're discussing today. Part of the reason I like this particular movie so much is that it is the first film to really indulge completely in Anderson's auterist qualities vis a vis production design, a unique design which existed in the margins of Rushmore, but which comes out full force here and works beautifully with Tenebaum's plot. It is a difficult thing to explain and one that I have spent a lot of time thinking about; so I ask that you indulge me as I try to explain. Among other things, Tenenbaums is a film about a family, the Tenenbaums, naturally, that was once rich and famous, but which isn't anymore. They continue to exist in a world surrounded by the faded trappings of that notorious past, living in a massive house with once beautiful wallpaper, furniture, trim, etc. which is now sadly faded and well out of date. The Tenenbaums themselves live lives similar to their home and possessions. They are a family of the once famous: an adopted daughter, Gwyneth Paltrow as Margot Tenenbaum, who was once a gifted playwright, but now shares a hollow relationship with a man she doesn't love, ironically a psychiatrist, played by Bill Murray, a son, Ben Stiller as Chas, who was once a sort of business prodigy and inventor of a new species of mice and a successful family man, now racked with self doubt and despair following the death of his wife (both of which he attempts to compensate for with a ridiculous series of fire drills and the like involving his own two children), and a second son, Luke Wilson as Richie, a former tennis pro who now avoids his family because of his unspoken love for Margot.

All of this sounds like the ingredients for a tragic movie, particularly when you add in Gene Hackman's brilliant work as ostracized family patriarch Royal Tenenbaum, once the proud head of the family, now reduced to a series of ridiculous pleas for his family's attention. Still, Tenenbaums is rarely all that tragic. True, when we meet the family, they have a great deal of growing to do if they are to find happiness, but this is a film that is much more joyous than tragic. It is a story of a family's return to greatness, at least on a personal, emotional level, not their decline. Further, while the film revels in its sort of second hand version of the well to do appearance, the Tenenbaums themselves are not overly self conscious of their fate. They know that they have outlived past glories, but they do not lament it. This is not Sunset Boulevard. The characters do not waste tears over their fading home or past accomplishments. They and Wes Anderson are not interested in those glories or restoring them; they are interested in their interpersonal/familial decline and in repairing that. It is this interest in each other more so than in themselves that gives this movie a very unique identity and avoids a tragedy that we have seen before.

This emphasis on the personal also allows the film to indulge it's characters many quirks, like Margot's wooden finger and secret smoking habit or Richie's insistence on sleeping in a tent inside the house. It also allows the film to be comedic. Now, Tenenbaums is most often referred to as a comedy and I do think it's very, very funny, but it also deals extensively with the themes I've mentioned above. It is no slapstick or screwball movie and it certainly isn't the sort of frat boy comedy so popular today. Instead, and I'm loath to borrow an analogy from Shreck here, but whatever, it is kind of an onion of a film in that it really does have so many layers. If we are going to call it a comedy, and perhaps we may as well, I think that we also need to call it one of the smartest, most emotionally satisfying comedies to come around in a long time. That said, I do think this movie is damn funny. I love how odd the characters are and how odd the production design is. I love just about every line to come out of Gene Hackman's mouth as, time and again, Royal simply doesn't get it, as when a young Margot asks her father what he thought of the characters in her latest play, Royal: What characters? There's a bunch of little kids dressed up in animal costumes. Margot: Good night, everyone. Royal: Well, sweetie, don't get mad at me. That's just one man's opinion. I love Royal's man servant, Pagoda, a former assassin who once stabbed Royal with a shiv and then carried him to a hospital. I love it when Pagoda gets fired and stabs Royal again. I love Owen Wilson as Eli, the Tenebaum's family friend, currently experiencing fame of his own for a series of weird historical fiction books. I love the image of Eli snorting coke with his author friends in front of a big painting of old West style Indians riding ATVs. I love Bill Murray and the weird kid he's studying. I love Alec Baldwin's narration. I love Ben Stiller's paranoia and Luke Wilson's falconing. Most of all, I love the epithet that Royal wants for his tomb stone. It's the same one I'd like to have, "Died tragically rescuing his family from the remains of a destroyed sinking battleship."

63. The Philadelphia Story

George Cuckor, 1940

Now this, sir, is a classic, a great movie with an even greater cast.  Here you have Katherine Hepburn, Cary Grant, and Jimmy Stewart all in one film.   Katherine Hepburn plays Tracy Lord, a real rich bitch and the ex-wife of Cary Grant's likable C. K. Dexter Haven, also rich but significantly less bitchy.   For some reason, Mr. C. K. Dexter Haven regrets his separation from Ms. Lord and conspires to crash her latest wedding along with a pair of reporters from Spy Magazine, your standard gossip rag.   Jimmy Stewart is one of the reporters and a budding short story writer.  Along the way, Tracy falls in love with her fiancé, with Stewart, and, if he gets his way, with C. K. Dexter Haven, but first she's going to have to be "yar," to use the film's terminology, and seek an equal as a mate instead of a "high priest" to her own "virgin goddess."

Every performance in this film is simply amazing and full of a great deal of comedy.  I particularly like the scene, near the end of the film, where a drunk off his ass Jimmy Stewart goes to C. K. Dexter Haven's house to discuss Tracy.  There seems to be a good amount of ad libbing going on in this scene and Grant constantly looks like he's going to loose it in the face of Stewart's hilarious drunk acting.   There is also an excellent bit early on where Tracy decides that she is going to present the Spy Magazine reporters with an exaggerated view of an eccentric rich family.  She and her sister prance into the room speaking French to each other and gliding around like a couple of bimbos.   Tracy's younger sister, herself a very likable character who seems to understand what Tracy needs in a man more than Tracy does, then sits down to play piano, making this the only film on my list to feature the song " Lydia, the Queen of Tattoos."

I suppose this film is best categorized as a comedy, but the reason I like it so much is that it is significantly more complex than that.   The film is a prototypical example of the so-called "comedy of re-marriage," a branch of screwball comedy that concerns the leads falling back in love with each other.  Yet, unlike most screwball comedies, there is a real question here regarding the lead's suitability for each other on a personal level.   Tracy really is a bitch and it's interesting to a see a movie address that, along with various class distinctions, and a much more plausible romantic triangle, or quadrangle I suppose, than usual.   It's a movie with a lot of twists and turns in the plot, but, thankfully, just as many in our perceptions of the characters.  And that's what the story is really all about, the characters, their relationships, and the transformations they have to make for each other.   Great stuff.

64. Ben-Hur

William Wyler, 1959

Charlton Heton is Judah Ben-Hur, Jewish prince! I know. I know. Chuck Heston is hardly a Jewish anything, but it’s certainly more convincing than old Chuck playing a Mexican in Touch of Evil, so stay with me (although, his least fitting role is probably as Sherlock Holmes in an obscure little film called The Crucifer of Blood, but I’m only a couple of lines in and that’s a hell of a digression). Anyway, our boy Ben-Hur pisses of an old childhood friend, Messala, and, as a result, is forced into being a galley slave, after which he is taken on as a chariot driver, where he once again meets Messala, this time in the Colosseum. Along the way, Chuck even meets Jesus a time or two. This baby is the epic of all epics. Based on a novel by Lew Wallace, a Civil War general dude, it is not pulled from the Bible, but features an original story (or more original), with Biblical settings. This helps to set the film immediately apart from twice told tales like The Ten Commandments and Samson and Delilah. Of course, Ben-Hur had been made a time or two before this, back in the silent era, but this is the definitive version. Epic really isn’t even the word. This movie is massive on every conceivable level. Chuck is, of course, great. The sets and costumes are gorgeous and the action sequences are tremendous. The fire on the galley is particularly good.

Of course, I’m not kidding anyone, the big thing this film has going for it is always going to be the chariot race. This baby was done for real. Real teams of horses pulling real chariots around a, well, a set, but still, it’s freaking huge. And, what’s more, it’s not just the action climax of the film, but an emotional climax as well, which is so often missing from today’s big action blockbusters. You see, the reason Messala uses to send Chuck away is that a brick fell of his roof and just about conked some Roman governor in the noodle. This, by the way, is exactly how they talk in the film. Now, Messalah knows it was an accident and Chuckles knows that Mesala knows. Still, Messala uses it as an excuse to send Chuck to the galleys and imprison his wife and sister, who show up later in the picture riddled with leprosy (fun!). So, a big part of this movie is Chuck’s drive for revenge. Not the most Christian of messages, but there you go. It is still his lust for revenge that keeps Chuck alive through his slave days and drives him to become the greatest charioteer since, well, since the previous great charioteer.

Honestly, though, it’s a great movie and the only real word to describe it is huge. This is epic action in the old sense and really just one hell of a movie, from a time when films could take their time and offer a big story just as much about the people in it as about the gigantic happenings which build it.

65. The Invisible Man

James Whale, 1933

No, no, no. Not The Hollow Man. No, not Memoirs of an Invisible Man, either. No, baby, this is the original. This is Claude Rains in the finest film performance you never see. On a cold winter night, the wind howls outside, whipping snow around the tiny English village of Ipping. Suddenly, the door to the inn bursts open and a man enters. He wears a thick coat and hat. Despite the night, he wears dark tinted glasses that cover both fronts and sides. His nose is shiny and bright pink and his face is wrapped in bandages. No one knows his name. All they know is that he is a scientist who suffered a horrible accident. He stays at the inn for many months, experimenting night and day with his chemicals, never seeing anyone. Before long, the curiosity of the townsfolk is piqued. They most know the man’s secret. Badgering him over an unpaid rent bill and a frightened land lady, the people and their constable confront the scientist. At length he screams in his deep, commanding voice, “You’re crazy to know who I am, aren’t you? All right! I’ll show you!” He lifts his hands and begins to undo the bandages, reveal a horrifying nothing underneath. There is no deformity. In fact, there is no head at all. As the scientist removes his clothes, we see the same is true for each body part. The man really is invisible. The year is 1933. We are 44 years before Star Wars, 60 years before Jurassic Park. Hell, The Wizard of Oz won’t come out for another six years. And yet, there it was, a man disappeared on film. It was no simple trick. We see the Invisible One, as he is credited, in several full body shots as he undresses. Of course, there is a trick: rotoscoping, but that trick is incredibly convincing, especially for 1933. The sole flaw in the process is that you cannot see the back of the Invisible One’s collar through his neck, otherwise the illusion is convincing and hardly improved upon in the intervening years. We may be able to make realistic dinosaurs run around, thus improving on movies like The Lost World, but the best we can do for The Invisible Man is fill in the back of his collar. I imagine that the audience reaction was a lot like that of audiences at The Phantom of the Opera, when Chaney finally removes his mask. They had to have gone batshit. This is a movie with incredible effects from a time when movie effects were unheard of, especially effects this good. Oh, we’ve all seen the footage of Rains pulling away the bandages now. We aren’t shocked anymore. But to see that for the first time in a simpler age of film and film effect. That had to be mind blowing.

Of course, the effects are far from the only thing I love about this movie. Claude Rains, in what I understand is his first real screen role, is terrific. You only see his face in the final seconds of the film, as he lies unconscious. The rest of the time he is either bandaged or invisible. Yet, the man has such a command over his voice, which is a damned impressive, commanding voice at that, that he gives a performance dripping with love, hatred, rage, arrogance, and mania. It is an amazing performance and it is done without the aid of his face. The direction is terrific. Everything looks great. The film was directed by James Whale, the director of Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein, and, arguably, one of the two best horror directors of his day, along with Todd Browning. The adaptation of H. G. Wells’ novel is impressive. Really the only change is to add cars to the story. Otherwise, the village of Ipping remains as quaintly English as it does in the novel. The supporting cast is great, check out Clarence from It’s a Wonderful Life as the Invisible One’s old boss! This is easily my favorite of the Universal Horror films.

66. The Last Temptation of Christ

Martin Scorsese, 1988

Jesus Christ! No. Really. Seriously though, this is the best film exploration of the life of Christ I have ever seen. The story is pretty much what you expect. We catch up with Jesus somewhere in his early thirties. He pals around with the apostles, Mary Magdalene, and the like, preaches a bit, is betrayed, and dies on a cross. What sets this movie apart from something like The King of Kings (either version), though, is the portrayal of Christ. Scorsese is not interested in covering the ground covered so often before, giving us a perfect messiah. This is not to say that he does not believe in Christ as God and man; I really don't know what he believes specifically, nor is it really any of my business. What he does do, though, is offer a Christ who, for the first time, we can really sympathize with. In some ways, it's a lot like what Mel Gibson said he was trying to do with The Passion of the Christ: giving us a sense of what Christ went through for us. Yet, while Gibson does this in a rather brutal, explicit way (i.e. look, he's getting the shit beat out of him!), Scorsese takes a different road. The suffering endured by Scorsese's Christ is emotional. It is a suffering of the life he cannot have.

You see, in The Last Temptation of Christ, Willem Dafoe plays Christ's human side. By and large, his divinity is set aside so that we can examine a Christ who is, in many ways, like us. True, Christ performs miracles like water into wine and the raising of Lazarus and he is capable of both beautiful rhetoric and extraordinary compassion, but he is also a man, with doubts and desires. In fact, the sense you get from this film more than any other is that Christ would like a normal life. The human part of who he is wants nothing more than to settle down and raise a family. That, then, becomes his last temptation and the source of the controversy that surrounded the film upon its release eighteen years ago. This Christ understands that what he must do is to die willingly on the cross. Obviously, he would just as soon go on living, but, even though he knows the betrayal from Judas, portrayed by Harvey Keitel as Jesus' best friend, is coming, he does nothing to avoid it and indeed finds himself nailed to a cross. It is at this point that an angel appears to Jesus and tells him that he has done his bit. He can now use his power and step off the cross and lead a normal life. Christ does as the angel asks and is rewarded with that normal life which seems so ordinary to you or I, but which is so special to a man like Christ. So, Christ goes about his life, first marrying Mary Magdalene and then, when she tragically dies, living with Mary and Martha and raising a slew of kids. This is where we start to spiral into It's a Wonderful Life territory, though. Jesus eventually comes into contact with Saul/Paul, Judas, and Peter, but things are not the way they are supposed to be. They preach the tale of a dead and resurrected Lord, but know it to be a lie. They preach not for the betterment of other, but for their own reasons, killing those, including Lazarus, who know the truth of what they say. It seems that without the reality of Christ's saving sacrifice, nothing is as it should be. Eventually, Christ realizes the truth, although part of him has known it all along. This is not his real life, but a glimpse of what could be. The angel is also not what she seems, but is, in reality, Satan. This is his final temptation. All Christ has to do is step off the cross for real and he can have a normal life and the love of a wife and children, but Christ also knows the consequences and that his life up until now will have meant nothing. So, he stays and dies on the cross, sacrificing not just his life, but all of the simple but all too important desires we take for granted. At least, that's where the movie stands for me. Personally, I don't believe in a human Christ, but I believe that part of him was human. I don't know what that would be like. I have absolutely no concept of that. Still, I adore this movie, which does have its flaws, although I haven't really gone into them here, for offering a different interpretation of his life and who he was. Dafoe's Christ is a beautifully compassionate man and the only film Christ I have ever really cared about. This particularly portrayal effects me in a way films like The Passion simply cannot. It shows me not merely Christ, but what he could have had and what he really gave up.

67. The Adventures of Baron Munchausen

Terry Gilliam, 1988

Holy catfish! Two Terry Gilliam movies in a row?! What are the odds? Is he bribing me? Still here it is and, not only is it another Terry Gilliam movie, it is another movie where we’re never quite sure if the main character is who he claims or if he’s just a nut job. The character in question is Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen. The Baron is, apparently, a German folk hero with many adventures and misadventures under his belt. Thus, it is no surprise that a German theater is putting on a play of the Baron’s adventures as a war wages beyond the walls of the town outside. However, the play is quickly interrupted by a man who claims they have it all wrong. You see, he knows the real stories and they were much more fantastic than those on the stage. How does he know? Why, he’s the Baron. The Baron proceeds to the city walls to see what he can do about the war, accompanied by a young girl. This is where we learn what the movie is going to be about and where it gets its heart and soul. Much like The Miracle on 34th Street, this is a story about a child’s faith come to life. Of course, the girl doesn’t believe that this is the Baron, but the look on her face when he is hit from behind by a cannon ball and proceeds to ride it to the enemy lines, where he grabs hold of another cannon ball’s handle for the ride back, is priceless. This sort of thing is what movies are all about. The ability to make you believe implicitly, if only for two hours, that there can be a better, more fantastic world.

The Baron then takes the girl on trips to the moon, the earth’s core, and the belly of a whale in search of his long lost comrades, which is another thing I love. If you haven’t seen the movie, and most of you probably haven’t, think of Jake and Elwood putting the band back together in The Blues Brothers. I just love the idea of finding out what happened to a group of characters after they retired and then bringing them back together for a final adventure. Another example of this is His Last Bow, the short story where we finally learn what ultimately became of Sherlock Holmes (he became a bee keeper in Sussex). Of course, I had no previous connection to these characters, but part of the brilliance Gilliam’s direction and construction of the story, along with John Neville’s engaging performance as the Baron, is that you feel like you knew them right from the start, and, what’s more, that you have missed them while they were away. It’s a damn fun movie that bombed drastically at the box office, but I promise you, it is has aged very, very well.

68. 12 Monkeys

Terry Gilliam, 1995

Ah yes, the story of Davy Jones, Micky Dolenz, Michael Nesmith, and Peter Tork as they quest for eight more men to fill out the band. Oh. Wait. That’s 12 Monkees. Hell, that isn’t even a real movie. It’s one I made up! Damn my eyes! This movie is the excellent Terry Gilliam time travel film starring Bruce Willis. The plot here is that the future is crap, but it’s so crappy and it got crappy so suddenly that they have no idea how it got that way. The only clue they have is a mark reading “12 Monkeys” spray painted around the ruins of New York City. So, future scientists decide to send convicts back in time to find out what the mark means, for which they will earn their freedom. Bruce Willis is Cole, the convict in question. Unfortunately for Bruno, he gets sent back in time a little too far and his insistence on being a time traveler lands him in a mental hospital. The rest of the movie follows Cole’s struggle as he tries to discover whether or not he really is crazy and, if he’s not, then what is going to end the world.

I’m sorry to sound a little glib about this movie as, obviously, I like it a lot. The concept is just brilliant. Is he insane or isn’t he? And the best part is that we’re not sure, at least not for most of the film. For all we know, he could be from the future, but, then again, it could all be a delusion. Terry Gilliam is a brilliant director and one of the things he is best at is making you question the reality he has created. That is not to say that his future is fake, far from it. In fact, his sets are always superbly convincing. However, his future here is even more surreal than usual. It is dark and curved, as if the architects of the future all had a wide angle lens. It is a nightmare and one any man, particularly a convict, would be eager to escape. Further, Gilliam shoots and cuts these scenes with just enough ambiguity to stress that we, like Cole, simply cannot be sure if it is meant to be real.

And Bruce Willis, holy crap. I mean that. Bruce has a public image that is forever going to be a carbon copy of John McClane, his character from Die Hard. To the average guy, Bruce Willis will always be saying “Yipee-ki-yay, motherfucker.” I’m not saying there is anything wrong with that, but what is true is that Cole is nothing like McClane. Cole is, quite simply, an entire world away. Where McClane is a confident, take charge, guns blazing kind of guy and Cole, well, Cole isn’t. Cole isn’t sure of anything. He isn’t terribly likely to pick up a gun and he’s much more likely to follow another man than he is to take the lead. Then, there is one other man who I must single out, although I am loathe to. Brad Pitt is just pretty damn good. Pitt plays the son of a rich scientist. It also so happens that Pitt is crazy, which is how he meets Cole. I have to give it to Pitt; he’s bat shit insane here. Really just bouncing off the walls, frothing lunatic. Who’d have thunk? Finally, big shout outs to co-stars Christopher Plummer, always great, and Frank Gorshin as the head psychiatrist. The Riddler as the head of the asylum? Brilliant. You really can’t trust this movie, can you?

69. Road to Perdition

Sam Mendes, 2002

“None of us will ever see heaven.”

Road to Perdition is a strikingly beautiful film. It is the story of a mob killer named Michael Sullivan, played by Tom Hanks, who takes his son, Michael Jr., on the run after his boss’ son kills his wife and youngest child. The boss is John Rooney, an unquestioned criminal power played by Paul Newman. Michael and Michael Jr. bond on the road as they look for safety, enact a sort of financial revenge on Rooney, and evade Harlen Maguire, a photographer/assassin played to perfection by Jude Law. The story itself can be a little predictable, but is ultimately pretty touching. Really, though, this film shines in two big places. The first is acting. Director Sam Mendes has assembled a truly fantastic cast for his second film. Tom Hanks headlines and while its been a while since he left comedy for more dramatic roles, this is his first real turn as an anti-hero. He is, after all, a killer. Still, Hanks is terrific. He has the father figure aspects of the plot down and you really buy his love for not only Michael Jr., but for the wife and child he lost. He also exhibits a deep, even palpable, emotional connection to his surrogate father figure, Rooney himself. Rooney is an interesting character. He is both mob boss and devout Catholic. One of the film’s most memorable scenes involves Rooney deep in prayer at church when confronted by Michael. What Rooney reminds Michael of is that they are both killers and that, because of what they do and the choices they’ve made, the only thing they can be sure of is that neither will reach heaven. To have a man who is so clearly devout take a job which is so sure to end in perdition itself and to have him both know and acknowledge it is really a terrific thing. It’s a complex aspect of the mob/Catholicism connection that is simply ignored all too often. Of course, Newman is incredible in the role. Despite being about 107, he exudes a power and authority unseen in most actors in the prime of their youths. Jude Law is also a lot of fun, playing an early sort of psychopath.

The other place this film really excels is in the cinematography. Sadly, this was the last film Conrad Hall shot before he died. Among Hall’s other films are such classics as American Beauty, director Sam Mendes’ first film, Marathon Man, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and Cool Hand Luke, but, of all his films, Road to Perdition stands in my mind as his greatest achievement. From the opening snow covered scenes to the haunting beach house conclusion, this film, for me, illustrates the art of the cinematographer like no other. I’m not really sure what else to say about Hall or his contribution here except that I would have loved to see what he had in store next. I’m a big fan of his work on American Beauty and was hoping that he and Mendes would team once again. This year saw the release of Mendes’ latest film, Jarhead, but, sadly, the trailers show none of the visual beauty evidenced in even the earliest shots from Perdition. Ultimately, Conrad Hall has become who I think of when I think of cinematography and while there are films which I think look even better than this, those opening shots of Michael Jr. riding his bicycle through enormous snow drifts will always stay with me.

70. Never Give a Sucker an Even Break

Edward F. Cline, 1941

“I didn’t squawk about the steak, dear. I merely said I didn’t see the horse that used to be tethered outside here.”

Much as with my love for The Jerk, my love for this film is really more about my admiration of the man at its center, W. C. Fields. In this, his last picture as a leading man, W. C. plays his usual grouch/cheapskate/boosehound character. This time, however, the film is a bit more transparent. Instead of hiding behind a ridiculous name or commonplace, family man style role, Fields plays himself, credited as “The Great Man.” The plot, such as it is, revolves around W. C. pitching a film idea to a big wig at Esoteric Studios. The film will star Fields and his costar Gloria Jean, here playing Fields’ niece. Gloria Jean is an excellent foil for fields. Unlike Fields’ other seminal costars, like Mae West (in only one film, admittedly), Charlie McCarthy, or Baby Leroy, you really get a feeling that Gloria loves her “Uncle” Bill and that he loves here. The way he identifies with Gloria is wholly different and much more fatherly. He shows her none of the thinly veiled contempt he shows the rest of the world in his films. Ultimately, Gloria softens our perception of Fields just a bit, making him that much more likable and sympathetic. Of course, we don’t want a Fields who is wholly likable, that would defeat the entirety of his screen persona. Luckily, the trademark Fields wit is aimed squarely at ever other character in the film, which includes Marx Brothers regular Margaret Dumont.

Anyway, the film begins on the studio with Fields pitching his idea. The rest of the film, then, is that idea. Fields and Gloria fly to Mexico to sell wooden nutmegs at a Russian colony. Fields falls out of the plane and meets Mrs. Hemogloben, Dumont, some sort of Vampire/cannibal person. Noticing that she’s rich, Fields begins to woo Hemogloben, while making eyes at her cute daughter. The scenario also involves a gorilla (played by a man in a gorilla suit). It’s all very confusing, but, then, the film really isn’t about the plot, but about showcasing Fields, which the film does expertly. The ape, Dumont, Gloria Jean, a waitress earlier on, they all give Fields ample opportunities to exercise his character and humor. The restaurant sequence is particularly good, giving some excellent bits of physical comedy and witticisms like the one at the top of this post. To be honest, I’m finding this a hard one to write up. It’s such a weird little movie, but also such a perfect showcase that I really just have to suggest watching it. Like I say, the soda fountain scene is great, although Fields clearly doesn’t like having to go to a soda fountain instead of a saloon, “I feel like someone stepped on my tongue with muddy feet,” as is anything in and around Dumont’s castle, and anything with the ape. That said, I’ll leave you with a final line, uttered by Fields after Gloria asks him why he isn’t married, “I was in love with a beautiful blonde once, dear. She drove me to drink. That’s the one thing I’m indebted to her for.”

71. Sin City

Robert Rodriguez (with Frank Miller and Quentin Tarantino), 2005

This was undoubtedly my favorite movie of last year, standing head and shoulders above all the others. Mind you, the film had a little bit of work to do to win me over. I am not a fan of Robert Rodriguez. I haven’t enjoyed any of his previous films, which include, eclectically, the Spy Kids series and From Dusk Till Dawn. In fact, I’m still mad that Spy Kids lied to me, telling me that sharks remain still while sleeping. According to my grandpa, that simply isn’t the case, and if you can’t trust a man who wears a little gold octopus around his neck, who can you trust? Further, I just think he’s kind of an ass. I understand the desire to shun certain Hollywood traditions and techniques, but there is no need to be an ass about it. Ultimately, he strikes me as the sort of ultimately self-indulgent filmmaker typified by his friend Quentin Tarantino. And that’s another thing I didn’t like about this film going in. Special guest director: Quentin Tarantino. The hell is that? I don’t care if you let your friend direct a couple of minutes of your movie, and that’s all he did direct, but it just seems like a bit much to then spread his name all over your advertising. I don’t think I saw a single commercial that didn’t hype Tarantino’s involvement. Then there’s the director’s credit for Frank Miller. True, Miller created, wrote, and drew the Sin City comics and had a huge influence, obviously, on the look of this film, but this is also the guy who wrote RoboCop 2 and RoboCop 3. I would be the first to acknowledge his influence on this film and I do think he deserves more credit than “created by” given how slavishly faithful the film is to the originals, but director? I don’t think so.

Still, this film is #71 on my list of all time favorite films, so, clearly, despite my early misgivings, I have to say, this film kicks ass. It may well be the ultimate pinnacle of everything that is film noir. The image and story are black as night with heavy moral gray areas. The action is brutal and the the whole thing drips with barely realized sexuality, which I think is more effective than if the film were to be more sexually explicit. It is also, and this is where it divides audiences, heavily masochistic. This is a man’s world, in the 1950’s sense of the word. Men are the heroes. Women are victims and they need to be protected. Even the whore army of the second third of the film, set up initially as self reliant, needs the direction of a man, Clive Owen, to be effective and just watch how each of these supposedly self confident/reliant prostitutes jump to his orders from the get go. The story and action are all raw as can be. Brutality is the name of the game. This is a world of crime, where the only real heroes are criminals themselves. All of this, of course, echoes the sensibilities of the finest film noir. The portion of this film which really sets it apart from the noir of years earlier, however, is the look. Sin City is an unbelievably stylish film. Primarily, this is a black and white picture, but certain elements are isolated and colored. Sometimes, it is a woman’s lips or a cars exterior, but it can be several other things, including the yellow skin of a deformed killer. Occasionally, the film moves into two dimensional silhouettes, which are absolutely breath taking. The rain falls in stark white comic book slashes and the blood pours out in a fluorescent white. The tremendous visuals and the three plots, none of which last so long as to beg heavy scrutiny, are assisted by tremendous performances from a who’s who of acting talent: Bruce Willis, Jessica Alba, Clive Owen, Rosario Dawson, Elijah Wood, Benicio Del Toro, Michael Clarke Duncan, Rutger Hauer, and, best of all, in a gangbuster performance, Mickey Rourke. True, even after being arrested by the realities of the film, there are elements that don’t quite work. For instance, the prelude and epilogue never quite work and only prove to be confusing. Despite its flaws, Sin City is an unforgiving, stylish, visceral thrill time and again.

72. Metropolis

Fritz Lang, 1927

This is the first silent film to appear on the list and the oldest. It is also one of the most influential science fiction films of all time, with such films as Blade Runner clearly paying homage to its brilliant design. Ultimately, Metropolis is the last great German fairy tale, taking many of the common tropes of the fairy tale and transplanting them to a modern world. Metropolis is a story of haves and have nots, a society divided into the ultra rich and those who labor in the depths below the city. It has a handsome prince, Freder, reimagined as the son of an industrial baron, and a beautiful damsel, here a machine turned woman by the real villain of the piece, a sort of mad scientist with a mechanical hand. Metropolis is a fable then about man and machine, about how he resists it and fights against it, but how it slowly becomes a permanent and inescapable part of his life, whether that is in a man’s mechanical hand or in the presence of a machine woman made flesh. What I especially like about this film, though, is that, while it offers a fairly standard fairy tale narrative, it does not offer a standard fairy tale resolution. As the film ends one can clearly hold certain people responsible for the downfall of the city and realize the inherent wrong of the sharply divided society, but it is much harder to see where the film stands on the issue of industrialization in general. It neither says that the machine age is wholly bad, like the mad scientist, or wholly good, like the machine woman, Maria. Instead, the film seems to argue for a sort of moderation between two extremes. It recognizes the benefits of the machine age and, in doing so, avoids the standard black and white distinction in favor of something just a little more ambiguous.

Whether he likes it or not, this is probably Lang’s two best films (although Metropolis lost a great deal of favor in Lang’s eyes when he learned that it was Hitler’s favorite film). His eye as a director is perfect and he brilliantly crafts a future world that does not seem for one instant fake. Given the age of this film, I think it easy for most people who haven’t seen it to imagine a sort of Flash Gordon world of spaceships on strings and men with cardboard wings. Instead, Lang’s vision and ever single visual effect is utterly convincing. The city and, indeed, each individual building look wholly realistic, particularly the city’s central spire. It would have been easy for Lang to take an easy road on the production design and dismiss cheap sets as fitting for a fairy tale type story, but instead of offering a children’s theater version of his fable, Lang offers what may be the closest thing to a live action Disney classic. As brilliantly innovative and well designed as any of the earlier Disney films are, Metropolis is able to stand toe to toe with each, despite the limitations of both live action and 20s German film in general. The film is filled with brilliant and eternal visuals. One is Freder descending into the underground world of the workmen and taken the place of a fallen worker operating a machine that resembles a giant clock face. As Freder fights the hands of time, we first see him for the Christ figure he will become, as he appears almost crucified on the hands of the great clock, a brilliant metaphor in and of itself. The other great visual of the film is the machine woman herself, pictured in the poster. There is nothing fake about her costume, which resembles a sexy C-3PO. It appears to be made of rubber and leather and is one of the most convincing costumes of the entire silent era. Of course, that is the key to Metropolis’ power and legacy. It may be a fable, but it is an utterly convincing one.

73. The Producers

Mel Brooks, 1968

Well, the new remake of The Producers, based on the broadway play, which was based on the original film, is set to open in a couple of Fridays, and, by all accounts, really isn’t that good. I can’t say I’m overly surprised, but I am a little disappointed. There was a while there where I was really looking forward to this one. After all, the broadway show was supposed to be great and I live in South Bend, so there’s no way in hell I’m gonna get to see it. Yet, after I saw the trailers I was pretty sure that the movie wouldn’t be worth much. Really, the trailers just show a film which is at once a shot for shot copy and a pale imitation of the original, kind of like the Ann Hache version of Psycho. Hell, the trailers don’t even bother to show the songs so we have some idea of what’s been added. Of course, we haven’t really seen a good film out of Mel Brooks in some time. Let’s face it, Robin Hood: Men in Tights is kind of funny, but is clearly written for an entirely different stable of actors then are present. This Robin Hood was written for Gene Wilder and not Cary Elwes (as much as I love you, Cary. P. S. You’re perfect in Shadow of the Vampire), Maid Marion begs to be played by Madeline Kahn, and it’s a crime that Tracy Ullman plays the creepy old witch woman instead of the sublime Chloris Leachman. After Robin Hood, Brooks gave us Dracula: Dead and Loving It. The less said about that the better.

Still, Mel’s career would be an admirable one if he’d done three or four crappy films (we should really through Life Stinks in here) and a handful of good ones, but the truth is that Mel did more than most filmmakers do with their careers. He made a few crappy pictures, a few pretty good ones, and three perfect films. The first of these is, without a doubt, the original The Producers. This was Brooks’ first film and it works beautifully on every level. The direction is subtle, utilizing camera work that is good, but never overwhelms the comedy or performers. The writing is sharp as a tack and the actors themselves are perfect. In fact, they’re so perfect that I cannot imagine any one else in their stead. Sorry Matthew, Nathan, Uma, and Will. Before we look at the performances though, let’s take a look at the writing. The plot is wonderfully original, centering around a pair of producers who engineer a sure fire broadway flop, Springtime for Hilter, in hopes of absconding with the inflated investment dollars. The characters are brilliant and zany, from Max Bialystock, a washed up producer who now eeks out a living seducing old ladies, the often hysterical Leo Bloom (I’m in pain! I’m in pain, and I’m wet!. . . and I’m still hysterical!), the hilarious spacey lead actor chosen to play Hitler Lorenzo St. DuBious (Lorenzo, baby. But my friends call me L.S.D.), Franz Leibkin, the shell shocked Nazi who wrote the play, Ulla, a swedish sex symbol/receptionist, a mincing director (Der Fuhrer does not say, “Achtung, baby.”), and his even more mincing, er, partner. As for the actors: Zero Mostell embodies Bialystock, from his cardboard belt to his comb over hair. Zero practically sweats greed and desperation, mixed with insane self confidence. Gene Wilder looks like he may shake apart at any second and Kenny Mars is the perfect nutty Nazi. Finally, we get an actor who steals every scene he is in, Dick Shawn as LSD. Dick Shawn played a similar role in It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World and he is absolutely perfect. No one plays a spaced out hippie like Dick Shawn and, consequently, no one has or will ever play Hitler the same way again. “One and one is two. Two and two is four. I’m so upset I’m losing the war!”