Fantastic Four


The filmgoer who heads to a theater where “Fantastic Four” is projected can only be disposed (at least if he is consenting) in one of two ways. At best, if he didn’t see the trailer, he’s hoping for a “Spiderman” or “X-men”, while secretly fearing a “Hulk” or “Daredevil” [Ed.note-Affleck was da bomb in Daredevil!] . In the worst case, i.e. if he did see the trailer (suggesting a film without texture nor relief), he counts on effective special effects, astonishing demonstrations of super-powers and harmless humor, the whole crafted without genius but with an honest know-how. After viewing the film, it turns out that the second provision was in fact a divination, because “Fantastic Four” isn’t and does not claim to be anything more (the great modesty of the feature prohibits any attack of an aesthetic or thematic nature) than this last description.

On the other hand, for the viewer the least bit critical, the first surprise (and maybe the only one) delivered by the movie comes from an astonishingly paradoxical interrogation: how does a succession of images, characters and dialogue this banal and naive not provoke boredom? Indeed, in spite of its obvious mediocrity, “Fantastic Four” isn’t a drag; in fact it can be entertaining. This singular phenomenon inspires a whole reflection on the intrinsic nature of comic books versus their transposition to cinema. Here is a short outline.

We often hear about the mythology of superheroes, i.e. the parameters defining the universe, the quest and the identity of a comic book character or another. However, when a studio considers the adaptation of the adventures of a superhero in particular, the guards of the temple, in other words the fans, are alert and watch for any hint of treason with maniacal scruple (honoring their passion, but not always their reason). When Raimi or Del Toro manage to satisfy such expectations, appropriating this mythology by giving it a cinematic frame, we forget too often that they’re not adapting a single isolated comic (twentysomething pages and a handful of panels and dialogue balloons) but the spirit of an entire series spanning a number of years. Consequentially, the mythology of Spiderman, for example, is not attributable only to creators Lee/Kirby but to the series’ entire history, fluctuating from good issue to bad issue and so on.

Thus, while it is undeniable that a series taken as a whole can be considered a great oeuvre and, through the ignited rhetoric of a fan or under a sharp analyst’s magnifying glass, reveal treasures of various mythological evocations, the fact remains that one shouldn’t observe comics from this viewpoint to understand the inner workings of the genre in itself. Moreover, when brilliant auteurs like Frank Miller or Alan Moore tackle superheroes, we’re given great graphic novels that honor the medium in general more than the comic book genre specifically. Likewise, when Singer and Nolan adapt the “X-Men” or “Batman” for the big screen, they’re making excellent films first, faithful comic book adaptations second.

Starting there, what is the primary element on which is erected any basic comic (or almost, Batman being the exception confirming the rule)? Super-powers and the adventures that result from them. While these aren’t enough to make a great comic book or a great film, they’re enough to make a simple comic or a simple comic book movie. Tim Story, the director of “Fantastic Four”, and his screenwriters (Michael France and Mark Frost) stuck with this axiom, not with brio, sure, but with effectiveness. Not delivering the extraordinary adaptation of a plentiful mythology (something the famous superhero family, created in 1961 by Lee/Kirby to save Marvel from bankruptcy, could have aspired to), but a mediocre film, representative of countless mediocre comic book issues, pullulating across America.

Review by Jean Carlo Lavoie (translation by K. Laforest)

Land of the Dead


It’s nothing new for fantasy cinema to assert its political implications. Back in 1935, James Whale’s The Bride of Frankenstein loudly pleaded in favor of minorities by making the creature more an object of empathy than of fear, a genuine antihero even. Today, in 2005, it’s George A. Romero’s turn to pick up the torch again (Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead and Day of the Dead already were virulent visual lampoons) to once more bitchslap us (inside our own ivory tower: Hollywood) across our fat little bourgeois faces, atrophied of soul.

As paradoxical as it can seem, since the beginning of his zombie cycle in 1969 Romero has been telling, parallelly with the decadence of our civilization, the fascinating evolution of the new species that caused it. The zombies play a double role always more refined, on the one hand a menace for mankind, a reflection of it on the other. Initially yanking the individual out of his civilized existence and plunging him in peril, the zombies then grotesquely puts into perspective the drifts of his behavior in society. For this reason, the way they buoyantly err like dumb consumers through the shopping mall in Dawn of the Dead (1978) possesses a most significant satirical force.

However, while zombies were at first mere descendants of the mummy (in a more exhibitionist version) mimicking our behavior, in 1985, with the character of Bub in Day of Dead (a zombie manifesting surprising signs of intelligence, such as using a gun to blast away the movie’s enfoiré de service!), their representation takes a rise which reaches its apogee, not without emotion, in Land of the Dead. Explanations.

Immediately, let us mention that the hero of the first three films, the one who was a valuable role model, was always a tall Black man, lucid (“When there is no more room left in Hell, the dead will walk the Earth.”), courageous and equipped with a clever sense of initiative. In Land of the Dead, this same character proves to be a zombie who takes leadership of the hordes of his kin. Romero is clearly, to the eyes of connoisseurs at least, exposing his position in favor of the zombies and indicating that it is now them who convey the optimistic notions of this ultimate opus.

Indeed, whereas the cult filmmaker (who still stands strong in spite of his 65 years of age) reveals more on the social and political stakes of humanity in 1 hour and 33 minutes than TV news do in 50 years, whereas he reminds us that between a terrorist and a political leader there are thousands of affinities for only one opposition (social status), whereas he demonstrates how B-movies (in spirit, not in means) can express much with little and, thus, the image of an army of zombies in rags marching towards an illuminated skyscraper sheltering a carefree aristocracy summarizes, by itself, centuries of class struggle, the film gives us, through its subtext, an unexpected glimpse into the origins of this inescapable catastrophe: the ambivalence of the progress of intelligence.

On that basis, per degree, as through a return to the stone age, one will see the zombies overcoming their fascination for light (the fireworks used as diversions by the militia furrowing the country in ruins), learning how to use tools and weapons (from the mincer to the machine-gun) and, finally, to unite in a joint undertaking (isn’t this one of the first bases of society?). However, this advance of the zombies towards knowledge, which logically make them a more fatal species for ours, incites our admiration more than terror, as if we were, emotionally, witnessing the first steps of humanity. On the other hand, during the particularly rowdy climax, Romero ties things up in a sequence where this wonderful progress reveals its true, wretched face.

Thus, while working on the grounds of Carpenter’s Escape from New York / L.A. , Romero still throws some choice gore our way (fans will practically go into convulsions during certain scenes), while depicting the downfall of our civilization. And, through this, fantasy testifies once again to its engagement towards the human destiny. Subversive and necessary.

Review by Jean Carlo Lavoie (translation by K. Laforest)

Howl’s Moving Castle


The latest from Miyazaki is imperfect. Those who cried when they attained the zenith of pleasure while watching Nausicaä of the Valley of the Winds (1984), Castle in the Sky (1986), My Neighbor Totoro (1988), Porco Rosso (1992), Princess Mononoke (1997) and Spirited Away (2001) will think that this assertion is either impossible or heresy. Nonetheless, it is an undeniable fact. Then again, all the antigravitational rhetoric of the master is there, his brushstroke is still inspired and his palette remains rich enough to give the universe he puts into place all the charm of the impossible dreams of an omniscient kid, gracefully oscillating between the strange and the sublime.

In a mythical XIXth century Europe, where magic is an accepted daily reality (its participation is even requisitioned during wartime), a moving castle wanders through the land according to the whims of its mysterious owner, seductive young sorcerer Howl. Meanwhile, 18-year-old hatter Sophie is cursed by the vindictive Witch of the Waste, who transforms the young woman into an 80-year-old lady. Leaving her family, she finds refuge in the famed castle, hoping to find a solution to her situation.

Howl’s Moving Castle is not based on an original screenplay by Miyazaki. Consequentially, this second assertion might partly explain the first. The filmmaker said all he had to say about the dynamics of the Universe through Princess Mononoke and, in Spirited Away, about his intimate dreams. Henceforth, each of the aforementioned scenarios was written in close relation with its graphic expression. The narrative wasn’t sacrificed to the upcoming drawings, but subordinated to them, inasmuch as the tale’s principles sprung from the visual premises (like in Burton’s movies, for example). In other words, the storyteller defines the essence of what he wants to convey through the specific vision that guides the animators. Out of that come films that juggle countless ideas, but nonetheless preserve an absolute coherence and display a perfect development.

Since it’s an adaptation of a Diana Wynnes Jones book, Howl’s Moving Castle is the first Miyazaki picture in which some of the story’s parameters slip away from him, notably everything concerning the terrible war that’s shattering Europe (it doesn’t stop him from signing magnificent apocalyptic tableaux). If it escapes him, though, it’s not because he can’t translate its destructive fury (the insects’ charge in Nausicaä or that of the wild boars in Princess Mononoke prove otherwise) but because of an obvious disinterest. On the other hand, everything having to do with the moving castle, its occupants and the relationships they share is surely what attracted the auteur of Spirited Away (a film in which Miyazaki’s preoccupations are fully inscribed) to this British novel. Hence, the progressive discovery of the mysteries of the castle (from the architecture to its inner workings) and the characters (destiny and sentimentality) will have the viewer transported once again by the master’s enchantment.

Then again, in Miyazaki’s cinema, the epic and the grandiloquent (Nausicaä, Mononoke) tend to give way more and more to the simple splendors of quiet contemplation (Totoro), like Sophie being hypnotized by the beauty of a lake’s surface, as smooth as “inner peace”. Now, if the emotion inspired by such a spectacle remains, can we consider the imperfection (or unevenness) of the film to really be a problem? Only if critical ethics weigh more than laughs and tears.

Review by Jean Carlo Lavoie (translation by K. Laforest)

Mario Bava

Since he’s begun being rehabilitated (i.e. since his enormous influence has been recognized by numerous filmmakers and critics), it is not rare for Mario Bava to be nicknamed the Italian Hitchcock. Naturally, the comparison isn’t in favor of the creator of giallo, who’s more often perceived like a craftsman skilled in the Hitchcockian style than like the infinitely personal innovator he was.

According to Tim Burton, in an interviewed for Garry S. Grant’s documentary Mario Bava, Maestro of the macabre, the universe staged in La Maschera del demonio aka “Black Sunday” (the cornerstone of Italian style gothic horror) is more “real than reality”, inasmuch as the sinister crypts and creepy castles filmed by Bava better reflect his innermost personality than an authentic autobiography would. Starting there, and taking in consideration how the Internet crawls with websites chronicling the director’s career (which spans over nearly every genre from 1960 to 1980) and exploring his recurrent themes (sadism, erotism, Goth and death), we will try instead in this here piece to sketch the psychological portait of the artist (but not the man) according to the nature of his work.

In 1956, Bava completes the shooting of I Vampiri, which his fellow director friend Riccardo Freda abandoned after a conflict with the producers. The film launches Italian gothic horror. In 1957, over at Hammer, Terence Fisher lays the foundations of British gothic horror with The Curse of Frankenstein. In 1960, the Corman/Matheson tandem begins its Poe cycle with an adaptation of The House of Usher, offering an American counterpoint to the emerging cinematographic tendencies of England and Italy. Finally, the same year, Bava, after about 20 years as cinematographer, special effects supervisor and salvager of troubled productions, directs his first film, La Maschera del demonio, which will traumatize generations of moviegoers. While the picture’s charged sadism (notably in the infamous opening scene) isn’t as troubling as back then, it remains no less fascinating, but for different reasons that we will now observe more attentively.

General consensus has the gothic genre (from the point of view of narrative arts, not architecture) recognizable by its settings (isolated castles, sinister cemeteries, ominous forests, etc.) and its atmosphere (melancholy and macabre). Alas, whereas the aforementioned elements do come back from film to film, their signification differs in depending on who’s holding the camera. More often than not, the gothic genre constitutes the virtual canvas upon which the creator’s subconscious is projected. The worn-down and decrepit aspect of the locations relates to the notion of suppressed feelings (dust and cobwebs), the various torture instruments (often straight out of the Inquisition) evoke some of the psychological mechanisms that torment us (jealousy, paranoia, frustration, etc.), the countless and sinuous hidden passages suggest the inextricable meanders of the human mind (who was never startled by one of his own thoughts, springing out like a character coming out of one of those revolving bookshelves?) and, of course, the characteristic isolation of a castle perched upon a vertiginous cliff is nothing but the symbolic representation of the realm of dreams, beyond the prosaic grounds of awaking. In Bava’s cinema, through the rich sprawling sets, the warm kaleidoscope of the lighting and the languorous camera movements (ah yes, languorous!), the gothic genre presents itself like the reflection of an unconscious freed from the consequences of morality where, in the shadows of death, reigns the drunkenness of the senses.

“Movies are a magician’s forge, they allow you to build a story with your hands.”

With this declaration from Bava himself, summing up his passion for the elaboration of special effects, sets and the various elements of photography and filming, we’re able to reach even further towards the essence of his art: sensuality. For the director of Sei donne per l’assassino aka “Blood and Black Lace”, sculptor’s son and Beaux Arts student, existence is apprehended foremost by the senses, notably sight (lights, camera, action) and touch (the sets, special effects and actresses). One only has to look at the enthusiasm he provokes in fetishist filmmakers (Argento, Tarantino, Burton, etc.) to accept this hypothesis. However, Bava is above all a director of horror films, something that always coincides with a pronounced taste for the extreme (otherwise he’d be chronicling the lives of modest villages of Italian fishermen, right?). Henceforth, if he can be fascinated by the exquisite caresses you want to provide to a voluptuous young woman, nameless tortures also ignite his curiosity (1963’s La Frusta e il corpo aka “The Whip and the Body”). For the immoral explorer he is, these are only two diametrically opposed degrees of the same specter of physical sensations. On the other hand, this sensual covetousness culminates in lucidity. By interweaving lust and suffering, tenderness and sadism into a breathless longing for pleasure, his artistic process always crashes into what ineluctably ends the realm of the senses: death. In this regard, an image from La Maschera del demonio proves revelatory. When the vampire-witch Asa (personified by Barbara Steele, sublime nymph of gothic horror, in whom Poe himself would have retrieved his lost lovers), recovers her beauty, the young doctor Gorobek, fooled and attracted by her demoniacal charm, tries to embrace her but, in removing her cape, he discovers the exposed guts of a rotting corpse (a sight still shocking some 45 years after its creation). Putrefaction shamelessly reveals to be the ultimate destination of beauty. Cinema rarely offered, the way paintings do, such an effective representation of Vanitas. This obsession with the duplicity both seductive and repulsive of beauty (generally the female body) constitutes in Bava a capital dimension of the artist’s nature.

Then again, even though he always more or less flirted with Goth, Bava didn’t limit himself to this genre, more so considering that he’s credited with literally creating one: Giallo (in reference with the yellow color that adorns the covers of the sadistic-themed books from which it’s inspired). Certainly, if Giallo is in itself a sub-genre of the thriller, the reversal it operates in the manner with which psychopathic killers are portrayed in thrillers in general is considerable and underlines manifestly another dimension of Bava’s personality. In Sei donne per l’assassino, (first official Giallo in 1963), the main character, whose return we await incessantly, who always instigates the action, in a word, the star of the film is none other than the killer himself. When he emerges and charges on his prey (always a woman), the viewer isn’t asking himself, like in a Hitchcock picture, for instance: how will she get out of it? But: how will he kill her? Because Bava’s mise en scène voluntarily develops no identification between the audience and the characters (they each have only ten minutes of exposition), concerning itself instead with the deranged but human pleasure of watching the wolf devastating the sheepfold (or the fox the henhouse, your pick). Hence, in Sei donne per l’assassino, through its killer with a white mask occulting his physiognomy and wearing a trench-coat, gloves and a black hat, Bava doesn’t try to present an unbalanced individual with a past, a psychology and a well defined mobile (like today’s “profiler movies”, in the vein of The Silence of the Lambs). To the contrary, the idea is to give a human silhouette to our own destructive violence, which has no other foundations than our own communal blood thirst. Consequentially, the mystery, the mask and the anonymity of the killer are less the consequences of the obligatory uninspired “whodunit” than essential elements aiming to identify and formulate the murderous side growling in each of us. Based on that, is his cinema more the exorcism of a blind rage which he never could appease or the satisfaction by proxy of an unforgivable ecstasy he never tasted, namely murder? Hard to decide.

Whichever it is, in the 1970s, with such films as 5 bambole per la luna d’agosto aka “Five Dolls for an August Moon” and especially Reazione a catena aka “Bay of Blood”, Bava sails away from the coasts of his unconscious to accost in the real world and, consequentially, his killers, confounding themselves more with actual death (inexpressible, invisible and irrational), imperceptibly slip into off-screen abstraction, revealing themselves only by the intrusion of their weapon (generally knives) in the frame. At age 55 the explorer who, ten years earlier, teased death to electrify his senses, begins to properly glimpse his own mortality. The hands and the eyes with which he always “confected” his sublime films will soon sink into inertia and this will make him bitter. In the spirit of this image from Reazione a catena, where a cadaver is slowly devoured by an octopus, Bava loses his warmth and becomes authentically ghastly, even though he remains lucid, not unlike the ever more crude photography of his movies. He dies in 1980, three days before Hitchcock, like whom he also leaves behind an apparently purely commercial filmography that actually, more than many others, gives all its sense to the “auteur theory”.

translation by K. Laforest

John Woo

John Woo is a paradoxical figure. A true pop icon on the one hand (celebrated by Tarantino, Gans, Kassovitz and many other incorrigible young directors) and a veritable auteur on the other (full dossier on Face/Off in Les cahiers du cinéma # 516, september 1997), his filmography – constituted of paroxysmal action films, with references both liturgical and chivalrous, occidental and oriental, taking the appearance of thrillers to narrate the tragedy of the last men of honor – has always been qualified as violent even though the protagonists that populate it always come out sanctified. How can all-out shooting sprees rhyme with purifying martyrdom? More so, how does the King of the Gunfight on celluloid manage to also be one of the most sensitive filmmakers of his time? Basically, how does one become John Woo (his artistic pseudonym) to redeem the soul of Yusen Wu (his birth name)?

Born in 1946, in Guangzhou (Canton), South China, John Woo grows up poor and miserable in Hong Kong. Following the terrible fire that destroyed part of the city in 1953, his family is forced to live on the street. His gravely ill father spends ten years in the hospital before passing away and his mother must works extra hard to raise her children alone. His stay in the streets, rubbing elbows with crime and violence, inspired in the young John Woo some of his future obsessions. Amongst others, the perdition of values (notably honor) in a chaotic world. Also seeing the day is one of his principal creative impulsions: revolt.

In 1967, a providential intervention by the church allows Woo to study at Matteo Ricci College. His gratefulness is such that, like a certain Scorsese, he hesitates for a while between cinema and priesthood. But his natural aesthetical inclinations won’t be able to resist to the promise of European and America cinema, which he discovers with amazement after trading in classrooms for movie theaters. While his top ten favorite films include such diverse titles as West Side Story, 2001: A Space Odyssey and Seven Samurai and he acknowledges the influence of Peckinpah, Leone and Demy, it’s with the work of French director Jean-Pierre Melville that he identifies the most vividly, as much for the universe it shows with lyricism and suaveness than for its philosophy (honor code, male bonding, the fatality of fate, etc.).


In 1971, John Woo joins the Shaw Brothers studios, famous for its Wuxia and Kung Fu films (to which Tarantino pays explosive homage with his Kill Bill), and becomes first assistant director of Chang Cheh. Consequentially, his service under the man behind the cult One Armed Swordsman flicks introduces him to the internal elaboration of frenzied expressive mechanisms, of which he’ll make brilliant use in his future films. Woo evokes his mentor with words quite similar to those used by his own aficionados: “(…) not only Chang Cheh’s depiction violence on screen but his incomparable way with emotions and chivalrous qualities.” They worked together on four pictures: Water Margin in 1971, Boxer From Shantung in 1972, Four Riders in 1972 and Blood Brothers in 1973.

Finally, the same year as Blood Brothers, Woo helms his first film, Farewell Buddy, the only merit of which is that it was banned by the censors and was only released two years later, reedited and retitled as The Young Dragons. Thus begins a period in which the future revolutionary action filmmaker multiplies forgettable work for hire, mostly Kung Fu movies such as a shitty 1976 Jackie Chan vehicle entitled Hand of Death. The only salvageable film from these weak years is the powerful Last Hurrah For Chivalry (1978), a Wu Xian Pan epic that announces his more personal films, where ancestral heroes, brothers in arms and lethal confrontations elope with stunning maestria from the hack that everyone stubbornly mistook him for.
Hong Kong will still have to wait until 1986 to get the smash that would change its cinema forever, courtesy of three audacious craftsmen who would become legends. Indeed, when Tsui Hark, producer and founder of the unavoidable Film Workshop, offered John Woo the opportunity to shoot A Better Tomorrow with Chow Yun Fat, they permanently affected the genre. With this first stylish polar, the filmmaker finally gave body to the melvillians ghosts in search of redemption that have long haunted his tormented imagination and develops his inimitable trademark: martial choreographies and ballistic blasts infinitely renewable and intensely evocative. The film also makes Chow Yun Fat into a star who will then hop from one shoot to the next at a vertiginous pace. This is mostly the beginning of an indefectible complicity between the actor and the director, in the manner of De Niro/Scorsese, Russell/Carpenter, Hauer/Verhoven, of which the ultimate feat remains to this day the mythical The Killer (1989), a masterpiece that pays homage without complex to Melville’s Samouraï. Chow Yun Fat’s character actually has the same name and executes the same profession as Alain Delon did in 1967.


1986-1992 constitutes what critics and fans refer to as the “Hong Kong period”. A Better Tomorrow I and II, The Killer, Bullet in the Head and Hard-Boiled are so many masterworks bursting with the virtuosity of John Woo that conquer a large audience worldwide and also attract the attention of the Occident upon the rest of the rich and unbridled local production. Indeed, nowadays even the profane can recognize the master’s imprint. Whether it be the use of slow-motion to stigmatize the signification or the aesthetic of the action, the doves gracefully flying in the midst of apocalypse or the other key figures repeated from film to film, Woo’s signature is manifest. Of all these figures, one in particular symbolizes the Hong Kong period: the Mexican Stand Off (two men, face to face, mutually pointing guns to each other’s head). From A Better Tomorrow to Hard-Boiled, John Woo tirelessly explores stories of dual melancholy outcasts, the crook and the cop, crossing paths in battle (gun pointed at the head), recognizing that they share a code of honor (face to face)beyond law and uniting against a common enemy (the modern world negating the values of the past). Said modern world is always represented by the mob and its armies, which the heroes will decimate by the hundreds through dantesque gunfights that make the conjugated accomplishments of Schwarzenegger and Stallone look like mere slingshot blows.


In 1992, fleeing the upcoming 1997 retrocession, John Woo expatriates himself to Hollywood and enters his American period with Hard Target, which many erroneously consider a disgrace. Surprisingly, the Hollywoodish corset, far from choking the artist, forces him by its conventions to operate a demobilization of his obsessions, i.e. abandoning the antagonism between his heroes and the world to explore the duality in one’s own soul, torn between good and evil. Whereas you can’t mow down countless extras in Hollywood like in Hong Kong, any respectable action flick needs a serviceable Nemesis. From that point, Hard Target, a minor film with a Van Damme more ridiculous than ever, nonetheless constitutes a virtual theater where Woo sketches a new key figure in his cinema which, in the vein of the Mexican Stand Offs for his Hong Kong period, will perfectly define his American period: the hero and his Nemesis, back to back, separated by a wall, discoursing while reloading their weapon before turning around and shooting at one another point blank. Of course, the greatest example of such forceful duel is reached in the astonishing Face/Off (1997), with the sublime Cage/Travolta duo, where two lifelong enemies, Sean Archer (the painful incarnation of all the sacrifices of good) and Castor Troy (the demented allegory of all the ecstasy of evil), who switched faces earlier, position themselves in that key figure, but with a double-sided mirror instead of a wall separating them. Hence, when they turn around towards their reflection to open fire upon their adversary, they discover with horror the traits of the other in place of theirs. Needless to say that whole pages of analysis would be necessary to decrypt the countless possible interpretations of such a schizophrenic scene. By the time the film reaches its climax, with a hysterical Cage overcome by a Tavolta on the verge of madness, John Woo purges himself inexorably of his demons and et imperceptibly makes his cinema slip into a new period.


His next film comes in 2000, with the further adventures of Ethan Hunt in Mission: Impossible 2. Despite a difficult shoot and clashes with star Tom Cruise, Woo delivers a particularly Zen action film. He orchestrates original, feverish action sequences as always, but with little of the moral and spiritual conflicts of his previous films. Apparently healed by art, the genius cineaste has been substituted by a brilliant craftsman, whose Windtalkers (2002) and Paycheck (2003) don’t deny his finesse and savoir-faire. Sure, to critics for whom cinema only has worth through the auteur theory, this can appear like degradation, but the cinephile open to the diversities of art, this is only a new transition. Today’s John Woo is like an old maker of samurai swords whose blades are still sharp but aren’t meant to kill. After confronting the world and himself, it wouldn’t be surprising to see him soon tackle the Grim Reaper itself, a logical and inevitable (all filmmakers get there sooner or later) continuation of what he’s always pursued. So, friend’s advice, don’t miss the next transition, because it risks being, in the image of the others, unforgettable.

<img src=”http://www.montrealfilmjournal.com/dat/pic/M0000634.jpg”

THE FILMS OF 2004

THE TEN
Vol. 2 95
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind 94
House of Flying Daggers 93
Team America: World Police 92
Les Aimants 91
Before Sunset 90
Tarnation 90
Mar Adentro 90
Shaun of the Dead 90
Sideways 88

CADILLAC
The Passion of the Christ 90
Touching the Void 90
Spider-Man 2 88
Garden State 87
Anchorman 85
The Village 85
Troy 85
Life is a Miracle 84
Main Hoon Na 84
The Corporation 83
The Girl Next Door 80
Fahrenheit 9/11 80
Son Frère 80
Million Dollar Baby 79
Ray 78
Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle 78
Bon Voyage 78
Daytona 77

STEAK KNIVES
The Polar Express 74
mon fils sera arménien 73
Mensonges et trahisons et plus si affinités… 72
Mean Girls 71
Last Life in the Universe 71 (reviewed in FanTasia coverage)
le petit Jésus 70
Nathalie… 70
Vera Drake 70 (reviewed in Festival du Nouveau Cinéma coverage)
Kinsey 70
L’amour en pen / De mémoire de chats 70
La Peau Blanche 69
i ♥ huckabees 69
Monica la Mitraille 69
Hotel Rwanda 68
The Ladykillers 68
Ginger Snaps Unleashed 68
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban 67
<A HREF=" Expiration 67
la petite lili 67
Collateral 66
Finding Neverland 66
50 First Dates 65
13 Going on 30 64
Undertow 64
In Good Company 64
Madame Brouette 64
Hellboy 64
mémoires affectives 63 (reviewed in Festival du Nouveau Cinéma coverage)
The Terminal 63
Je t’aime… moi non plus 63 (reviewed in FFM coverage)
The Heart Is Deceitful Above All Things 62 (reviewed in Festival du Nouveau Cinéma coverage)
Je n’aime que toi 62
Les côtelettes 62
Le coût de la vie 62
Le chien, le général et les oiseaux 62
Go Further 61
p.s. 61
Shrek 2 61
Make Money. Salut, Bonsoir ! 61
The Dreamers 60
The Woodsman 60
The Incredibles 60
La Planque 60
The Day After Tomorrow 60

FLAWED, BUT WORTH A LOOK
The Notebook 59
Blueberry 58 (reviewed in FanTasia coverage)
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou 57
Young Adam 57
The Door in the Floor 56
Spanglish 56
Les Choristes 56
The Butterfly Effect 55
Trilogia –To livadi pou dakrisi 55 (reviewed in FFM coverage)
Jersey Girl 55
Les oubliés de Herat 55
When Will I Be Loved 55
One Point O 54 (reviewed in FanTasia coverage)
Closer 54
Nos enfants chéris 54
Feux Rouges 53
Man on Fire 52
New York Minute 51
The Aviator 50
Le Dernier Tunnel 49
Palindromes 48 (reviewed in Festival du Nouveau Cinéma coverage)
Some Kind of Monster 47
Premier Juillet 47
clean 46 (reviewed in Festival du Nouveau Cinéma coverage)

NOT WITHOUT WORTH, BUT MEH
cette femme-là 44
Ocean’s Twelve 43
La vida que te espera 42 (reviewed in FFM coverage)
Birth 41
Miaou ! 40
Tristan 39
Van Helsing 38
Memories of Murder 37 (reviewed in FanTasia coverage)
Vanity Fair 37
Demi-Tarif 37 (reviewed in Festival du Nouveau Cinéma coverage)
le bonheur c’est une chanson triste 36
Comme une image 36
Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights 36
De-Lovely 35
One of Many 35
Vendus 34
Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning 34 (reviewed in FanTasia coverage)
Les égarés 33
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow 33
Ripoux 3 33
Führer Ex 32
Ma vie en Cinémascope 31
Mariages! 31
La Comunidad 30

DON’T BOTHER
Les 11 commandements 29 (reviewed in Comedia coverage)
Starsky & Hutch 28
Walking Tall 28
Janis et John 27
Elles étaient cinq 27
Childstar 26 (reviewed in Festival du Nouveau Cinéma coverage)
Mille mois 26
Win a Date with Tad Hamilton! 25
C’est pas moi… C’est l’autre ! 25
Breakfast with Hunter 24
Going the Distance 23 (reviewed in Comedia coverage)
Baadasssss! 22
Alien Vs. Predator 22
Nackt 22
7 ans de Mariage… 22
Je Reste! 20
Aime ton père 19
Camping Sauvage 18
The Stepford Wives 17
Jack Paradise, les nuits de Montréal 17
Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen 17
Effroyables Jardins 16

YOU’RE FIRED!
La Lune viendra d’elle-même 15
Le Bison* et sa voisine Dorine 14
A Dirty Shame 13
Dans l’œil du chat 13
The Punisher 12
Comment devenir un trou de cul et enfin plaire aux femmes 11
Coeur à bout 11
RRRrrrr !!! 9
Nouvelle-France 8
Elvis Gratton XXX – La Vengeance d’Elvis Wong 6

AFI 100 (1998 version)

The American Film Institute’s 100 YEARS, 100 FILMS


1: Citizen Kane (1941) 100
[ review ]


2: Casablanca (1942) 100
[ review ]


3: The Godfather (1972) 100
[ review ]


4: Gone with the Wind (1939) 95
[ review ]


5: Lawrence of Arabia (1962) 66
[ review ]


6: The Wizard of Oz (1939) 93
[ review ]


7: The Graduate (1967) 94
[ review ]


8: On the Waterfront (1954) 93
[ review ]


9: Schindler’s List (1993) 95
[ review ]


10: Singin’ in the Rain (1952) 100
[ review ]


11: It’s a Wonderful Life (1946) 94
[ review ]

12: Sunset Boulevard (1950) 95
[ Part film noir and part Hollywood satire, this endlessly rewarding film is about the events that led to a homicide in a mansion on the titular road, as recounted by the dead victim! Played by the great William Holden, Joe Gillis is a struggling screenwriter who enters a bizarre relationship with half-mad has been silent film star Norma Desmond, unforgettably portrayed by Gloria Swanson. Gillis also entertains a flirtation with Betty Schaefer (Nancy Olson), a cute reader on the Paramount lot, but Norma has her claws too deep in him to allow her gigolo a chance at a normal life… Boasting exquisitely pulpy dialogue (and narration) and expressionistic B&W cinematography, “Sunset Blvd.” is truly one of the greats. ]

13: The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957) 62
[ Alec Guinness leads a company of British P.O.W.s in occupied Burma who are forced by a Japanese madman to build a railway bridge in this classic WWII film. Shot in CinemaScope, on location in the Ceyton jungle, with hundreds of extras and what might be the largest set ever built for a movie, this 160 minute beast is pure David Lean, for better or worse. I have a feeling I’d be more appreciative of his films if given the opportunity to see them on the big screen. On a small TV, you clearly lose on the epic aspect of the filmmaking, and the slow storytelling can be a chore. Guinness and the Japanese colonel spend almost an hour arguing whether officers should do manual labor. Is this such an important principle? Hundreds of soldiers are worked to death, but the half dozen officers get out of it, whoop-dee-doo. Then the British decide to take the bridge-building seriously and be the most productive possible for their enemy (???) and, as soon as the bridge is finished, Allied commandos blow it up! What was that all about? Goes to show how pointless war is, I guess. The movie’s well crafted and I like William Holden’s smart-ass character, but I don’t feel this is “one of the most memorable cinematic experiences of all time”, as the back of the DVD promises. ]

14: Some Like It Hot (1959) 94
[ This is the best comedy of all time according to the American Film Institute. That might be pushing it a bit (I’m partial to “Dr. Strangelove” or “The Producers” myself), but there’s no denying that this is an incredibly witty and enjoyable flick. It starts off like a gritty gangster film in prohibition era Chicago with car chases and shoot-outs and a raid on an illegal booze joint, but the tone lightens up considerably when the story shifts to Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon as musicians who escape all the surrounding mayhem by taking a gig in Florida… in an all-girl band! The back-and-forth between the two actors in drag is very amusing and supporting actress Marilyn Monroe? Zowie! Now that’s a woman! But she’s also got great comic timing, overflowing charm and a great singing voice to boot. ]


15: Star Wars (1977) 90
[ review ]

16: All About Eve (1950) 93
[ When Broadway star Margo Channing (Bette Davis) meets borderline stalker Eve Harrington (Anne Baxter), who comes to see her perform in her latest play every night, they hit it off and Eve becomes Margo’s “sister, lawyer, mother, friend, psychiatrist and cop”. But soon enough the honeymoon’s over and the claws come out, as Eve’s initially flattering attempts to become like her idol reveal to be the makings of a cunning coup. Full of bitingly clever dialogue and note-perfect acting, “All About Eve” is a brilliant satire of clashing egos, backstage brouhaha and diva behaviour. “Fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy night.” ]

17: The African Queen (1951) 90
[ Movie star heaven, with Humphrey Bogart doing his gruff man’s man boat captain against Katherine Hepburn’s sophisticated English lady. Laughs, thrills and sensuality ensue as the two come across white water rapids, wild animals and German soldiers. “I never dreamed a mere physical experience could be so stimulating!” ]


18: Psycho (1960) ???
[ This is the second time that I decide not to give a rating to a film. The first time was for Stanley Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey”. The thing with these two films is that I just couldn’t decide if they were truly great or not. I’m aware that they’re timeless classics that were masterfully directed by brilliant filmmakers, and that the logical thing would be to reward these masterpieces with high ratings. The problem is that these two films are… Well, kinda boring to me. Then again, I haven’t watched them since my late teens, so the wise thing might be to revisit them in the near future. ]

19: Chinatown (1974) 88
[ This late addition to the film noir tradition has Jack Nicholson playing a private eye in Depression era Southern California who stumbles upon a political scandal involving the Water Department. This is a tight, tight picture, well written, well acted, well shot and well scored, full of surprising twists and gritty confrontations – how about “midget” Polanski cutting Jack’s nostril! ]


20: One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1975) 92
[ review ]

21: The Grapes of Wrath (1940) 84
[ Your family’s been living, working and dying on this land for generations and now the Man comes in with a piece of paper and wants to take it away? As if the harshness of the Oklahoma “dust bowls” wasn’t enough… Tom Joad and his folks pack up and head for California, hoping for greener pastures, but they only find more sorrow and abuse from the Man. This classic slice of old Hollywood moviemaking is a gripping adaptation of John Steinbeck’s Pulitzer Prize-winning novel. Some of the supporting players overact a storm, but their heart is in the right place and Henry Fonda’s slow-burn performance elevates everything around him. “Wherever you can look – wherever there’s a fight, so hungry people can eat, I’ll be there.” ]


22: 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) ???
[ What am I supposed to do with this film? Is it a masterpiece or a bore? Could it be both? In a way, it is indeed truly great. The storyline is very ambitious, attempting to tell the story of humanity from the Dawn of Man to the future, into deep space. Kubrick’s direction is brilliant, the camerawork is inventive, there are countless beautiful shots, and the special effects are excellent for the time. But… It’s so slow! I think it’s the most actionless, even motionless film I’ve ever seen! Then again, I haven’t watched it since my late teens, so the wise thing might be to revisit it in the near future. ]

23: The Maltese Falcon (1941) 95
[ The first collaboration between John Huston and Humphrey Bogart (who also worked together on other brilliant films like “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre” and “The African Queen”) is also Huston’s first picture and, by many accounts, the first film noir. The opening scroll and its mentions of Knight Templars and pirates having been involved with the titular priceless token instantly grabs your attention, the opening scene with private dick Sam Spade rolling a cigarette then meeting with a female client quickly seals the deal, then the twists start unrolling like wildfire and there’s no turning back. The smoky B&W cinematography, the moody score, the hard-boiled dialogue, the femme fatale (“What else is there that I can buy you with?”), the quirky supporting performances by Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet (who both turned out the next year with Bogie in “Casablanca”, probably not coincidentally) and the very Bogartitude of it all are simply intoxicating. It’s a cliché to say that they don’t make them like this anymore, but damn! Every single beat of this yarn is awesome, there’s none of the filler and nonsense that make up so many of the movies today. Sam Spade is one of the coolest characters ever – as the Fat Man tells him at one point, “There’s never any telling what you’ll say or do next, except that it’s bound to be something astonishing.” ]

24: Raging Bull (1980) 92
[ A brilliantly crafted character study with some of the most stunning boxing scenes ever shot and blistering performances by Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci. What’s more brutal: the violence in the ring, or the one at home, back in the Bronx? Jake La Motta’s rage is a plus in his boxing career, but it means trouble when he carries it with him in his relations with women, his brother and just about everybody else. This is Scorsese at his best, in form, with virtuoso B&W cinematography and editing, and in content, with another raw yet profound “street-smart” screenplay by Paul Schrader and some of the best acting you’ll ever see. Pesci and De Niro have become self-parodies, but their back-and-forth here is incredibly intense and multi-layered, the two brothers’ relationship being rough, tender, sad, sometimes all at once. The fight scenes are unglamorous, all blood and sweat, hardly Rocky-like inspirational; this is more like something out of German expressionism, with Sugar Ray Robinson looming like an African-American Nosferatu! And then there’s the pathetic third act, with De Niro/La Motta all fat, doing bad stand-up… A truly great biopic. ]


25: E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982) 97
[ review ]


26: Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) 97
[ review ]

27: Bonnie and Clyde (1967) 69
[ During the Great Depression, an “ignorant, uneducated hillbilly” and “the best damn girl in Texas” are hot for each other, the road and cold hard cash. Armed robberies as foreplay? A life of crime as the only true romance? This is bullshit, but spectacular bullshit that serves the movies well (see also: “Badlands”, “Natural Born Killers”, etc.). Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway look sharp, talk in sexy Southern accents, stick-up banks and drive stolen cars as bluegrass pursuit music blares on! It’s all good… until it isn’t. Clyde ain’t quite the stud he seems to be, Bonnie has wild mood swings and, inevitably, people get killed. Grim stuff, but the movie can also be a lot of fun, like during the hilarious Gene Wilder cameo. “I’m an undertaker!” ]


28: Apocalypse Now (1979) 100
[ review ]

29: Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) 87
[ James Stewart is wonderful in this inspirational political fable about an earnest senator’s day-long stand for what he believes in, in spite of his opponents’ cheap tricks. Pure Capra. ]

30: Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) 89
[ Humphrey Bogart is riveting as a down-on-his-luck American in Mexico who takes on prospecting with fellow bum Tim Holt and old-timer Walter Huston. They must face bandits, exhaustion and the paranoid fear of being robbed of one’s share by the others. This is classic studio moviemaking, well-oiled entertainment that never misses a beat but also has a thing or two to say about the darker chambers of the human heart. ]


31: Annie Hall (1977) 95
[ review ]


32: The Godfather Part II (1974) 86
[ review ]

33: High Noon (1952) 70
[ This black and white Western is kinda square, with Gary Cooper’s Marshall walking around like he’s got a stick up his ass and Grace Kelly being all self-righteous (she plays a Quaker) and pretty (oh so pretty). But the plot’s clock (an infamous bandit is coming to kill Cooper on the noon train and the movie counts down the hour until then in real time) builds up a lot of suspense, there are some interesting morality issues (Cooper refuses to flee, even though no one in town will stick his neck out for him) and I love the recurrent theme song (the Oscar-winning Do Not Forsake Me, Oh My Darlin’. ]

34: To Kill a Mockingbird (1962) 97
[ One of the greats, it conveys an essential message about racial harmony with grace and intelligence. Gregory Peck is the father everyone wishes he had. ]

35: It Happened One Night (1934) 62
[ “Remember me? I’m the fella you slept on last night.”
Clark Gable stars as a flippant newshound who hooks up on a night bus to New York with a spoiled brat (Claudette Colbert) running away from her father. This is an old-fashioned romantic comedy, pairing a wisecracking leading man matched with a dame who can snap back at him – it’s “When Harry Met Sally” 50 years early. The plot is thin and the characters aren’t very complex, but Colbert and Gable have chemistry and the banter between them is enjoyable. ]


36: Midnight Cowboy (1969) 90
[ review ]

37: The Best Years of Our Lives (1946)

38: Double Indemnity (1944) 94
[ Hard-boiled narration, light coming in through venitian blinds, a dame who’s “not fully covered”… This is noir alright, but with Billy Wilder’s cynical sense of humor offsetting things. Right from their first exchange, sparks are flying between Fred MacMurray and Barbara Stanwyck:

Phyllis: Mr. Neff, why don’t you drop by tomorrow evening about eight-thirty. He’ll be in then.
Walter Neff: Who?
Phyllis: My husband. You were anxious to talk to him weren’t you?
Walter Neff: Yeah, I was, but I’m sort of getting over the idea, if you know what I mean.
Phyllis: There’s a speed limit in this state, Mr. Neff. Forty-five miles an hour.
Walter Neff: How fast was I going, officer?
Phyllis: I’d say around ninety.
Walter Neff: Suppose you get down off your motorcycle and give me a ticket.
Phyllis: Suppose I let you off with a warning this time.
Walter Neff: Suppose it doesn’t take.
Phyllis: Suppose I have to whack you over the knuckles.
Walter Neff: Suppose I bust out crying and put my head on your shoulder.
Phyllis: Suppose you try putting it on my husband’s shoulder.
Walter Neff: That tears it.

Ouch! Then it just gets hotter, scene after scene until… You wouldn’t want to get into this kind of deal because it can only end badly, then again, that very danger is part of the turn-on of a femme fatale! This is genius, from the B&W to the acting, the great lines (courtesy of Wilder and co-writer Raymond Chandler) and the music. Insurance fraud, the perfect murder, an intuitive boss who never has a match for his cigars, “a crazy story with a crazy twist”. Doesn’t get much better than this. ]

39: Doctor Zhivago (1965) 70
[ As I’ve suggested before, either DVD doesn’t do justice to David Lean’s vision or it’s me who doesn’t get it. Watching a film like “Doctor Zhivago”, I certainly admire the majestic Maurice Jarre score, the masterful cinematography and the epic scope of the picture, but I can’t say I fell in love with it like I did with, say, “Double Indemnity”, which might have made an easier transition to the small screen. It’s too bad, because there are a lot of elements that I did love: the bookends with the imposing Alec Guiness (who also provides sparse but cutting narration through the feature), Rod Steiger’s cynical views on mankind (“There are two kinds of men and only two. And that young man is one kind. He is high-minded. He is pure. He’s the kind of man the world pretends to look up to, and in fact despises. He is the kind of man who breeds unhappiness, particularly in women. Do you understand? I think you do. There’s another kind. Not high-minded, not pure, but alive. Now, that your tastes at this time should incline towards the juvenile is understandable; but for you to marry that boy would be a disaster. Because there’s two kinds of women. There are two kinds of women and you, as we well know, are not the first kind. You, my dear, are a slut.”), the palpable dread of the World War I and Russian Revolution sequences, the misery and pseudo-socialist tyranny of Communism… Yet my experience felt incomplete. I haven’t read the Boris Pasternak novel, but on screen there seems to be whole pages missing. We’re rushed through History and the characters’ lives, often being told about greatly dramatic events instead of them being shown to us. Still, we can understand why Omar Sharif’s Zhivago longs for Julie Christie’s Lara – she’s a mess, but oh so fascinating. I wish the film had opened up to me more, but polite admiration is all it got from me. ]


40: North by Northwest (1959) 75
[ review ]


41: West Side Story (1961) 95
[ review ]

42: Rear Window (1954) 95
[ Another great James Stewart film but in quite a different register. Stewart plays a wheelchair-bound magazine photographer who fights boredom by looking out the window into the apartments of his neighbours: the newlyweds, the sexy ballet dancer, the lonely single woman, the pianist… the murderer? This makes for one of the most voyeuristic and suspenseful films Alfred Hitchcock ever directed. “Rear Window” is packed with virtuoso visual storytelling, managing to remain absolutely engrossing even though we never leave Stewart’s tiny little apartment. It doesn’t hurt that his girlfriend is played by the most beautiful woman in the world, Grace Kelly, who never looked better than in this movie. That first close-up of her when she bends to kiss Stewart would make anyone’s heart melt. ]

43: King Kong (1933) 65
[ Foolish white film crew invades primitive black tribe’s island to shoot legendary giant monkey, but serves as dinosaur lunch instead. Meanwhile, Kong gets hot for Fay Wray (who can blame him?) and chases her all the way to New York and to its own doom. Kick ass, brutal stop-motion action more or less makes up for deadly dull human drama, but I still wouldn’t call this a masterpiece. ]

44: The Birth of a Nation (1915) ???
[ An extreme case of dichotomy between artistic genius and abject morality. You want to praise this as early cinema’s most important film, with DW Griffith basically laying out all the bases of camerawork and editing still in use today, but at the same time one wants to throw this ode to the KKK in the darkest pile of cinematic trash. ]


45: A Streetcar Named Desire (1951) 93
[ review ]


46: A Clockwork Orange (1971) 92
[ review ]


47: Taxi Driver (1976) 100
[ review ]

48: Jaws (1975) 94
[ Watching this again, more than forty years after it exploded as the first modern Hollywood blockbuster, one can appreciate more than ever the way Spielberg keeps the shark unseen for most of the film and how much time and care he puts in developing Roy Scheider, Richard Dreyfuss and Robert Shaw’s characters and the way they play off each other. This may not have quite the visceral impact it must have had back then, but it’s still totally badass, with so endless quotable dialogue, iconic shots, memorable scenes… The first half is a quasi horror movie, with a shark slasher stalking the waters around Amity Island. Then the second half is this awesome adventure film, with the central going out at sea on the Orca to kill that damn Bruce. “Jaws” is pretty much a perfect picture, with confident, gripping storytelling, masterful mise en scène, great performances and that classic John Williams score. One of Spielberg’s all-time best. ]

49: Snow White & the Seven Dwarfs (1937) 86
[ I remembered how beautiful and colorful the animation is (gotta love all the cute animals) and how goofy them dwarfs are, but I’d forgotten how evil that Stepmother Queen is: “Kill Snow White and bring back her heart in this box”? Damn! And is it just me or Snow White sounds like she’s a “very special” princess? In any case, this remains a truly charming picture. ]

50: Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid (1969)

51: The Philadelphia Story (1940) 93
[ Katharine Hepburn as a spoiled socialite about to get remarried, Cary Grant as her bitter ex-husband and James Stewart as a snobbish tabloid reporter: quite the cast, isn’t it? This old-fashioned yet incisive romantic comedy is a bit stiff, looking every bit like the filmed play it basically is, but the flawless performances and the wise and witty dialogue more than make up for it. And this that rare movie romance where you actually don’t know who will win the woman’s heart until the very last minute. ]

52: From Here to Eternity (1953)

53: Amadeus (1984) 84
[ Salieri (F. Murray Abraham, in one of the most incendiary “super-villain” performances I’ve ever seen) is chaste and devoted while Mozart (Tom Hulce, irreverent) is a “giggling, dirty-minded creature”. Then why would God give the latter the greater musical genius? This is the fascinating mystery at the heart of this peculiar historic biopic, less a conventional costume drama than a comedy of manners and cruel irony. Even more so, this is an astounding tribute to Mozart’s music, deconstructing and reconstructing it to glorious effect. ]

54: All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)


55: The Sound of Music (1965) 93
[ review ]

56: MASH (1970) ???
[ This a totally chaotic and unkempt mess, with nary a plot or character development in sight. This is supposed to reflect the craziness of working as surgeons in the Korean war, I guess, and I understand that what Bob Altman was doing (improvised scenes, overlapping dialogue, guerrilla-style filmmaking) was revolutionary at the time – in Hollywood, at least, because the French Nouvelle Vague was up to the same tricks ten years earlier. Donald Sutherland and Elliot Gould are vaguely entertaining, but the movie itself isn’t that funny. ]


57: The Third Man (1949) 94
[ review ]

58: Fantasia (1940) 90
[ Forget the American Idol and the Montreal film festival of the same name, THIS is “Fantasia”. Walt Disney’s imagination spawned countless cultural landmarks, but this might be his most brilliant creation. This series of cartoons inspired by classical pieces of music is kind of like the high art ancestor of MTV. From the abstraction of Toccata and Fugue in D minor to the colourful fairies flying to The Nutcracker Suite, from Mickey Mouse’s unforgettable embodiment of The Sorceror’s Apprentice to the life and death of dinosaurs in The Rite of Spring, from the mythological creatures of The Pastoral Symphony to the Dance of the Hours by hippos in tutus and crocos in capes (!), all the way to the Devil’s Night on Bald Mountain and the elegiac retreat to Ave Maria, this “concert feature” is an astonishing experience. Who needs hallucinogens when you can just watch this trippy flick? ]

59: Rebel Without a Cause (1955) 74
[ This is pure ‘50s Americana cinema, with the Cinemascope, the Technicolor (or actually Warnercolor), the swelling score, the Method acting and, of course, James Dean. The gone too soon actor plays the ultimate angry young man, getting drunk, getting up in his father’s face and getting into knife fights, car races and other trouble. There’s also some rather obvious gay subtext going on, especially through Dean’s relationship with the Sal Mineo character. “Hey, you wanna come home with me. There’s nobody at my house and, heck, I’m not tired…” The film might be overly melodramatic, but it still resonates. ]


60: Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) 93
[ review ]


61: Vertigo (1958) 100
[ review ]

62: Tootsie (1982) 35
[ I had a hard time getting into this movie. The first act is so inside-ball that it will mostly appeal to viewers who are struggling actors themselves. Dustin Hoffman plays an actor who’s talented but so difficult that no one will hire him, so he decides to put on a wig and become a new man – a wo-man, that is. Second act swings for broader situation comedy, with Hoffman experiencing various mishaps as a female soap opera star. These scenes are mildly entertaining, but I can’t say I laughed at all. Last act about how Dustin becomes a better man after living as a woman is well-meaning, but still nothing particularly inspired. There’s nothing here that wasn’t done a hundred times better in “Some Like it Hot”. ]

63: Stagecoach (1939) 73
[ A stagecoach must ride through Apache country, but the greatest challenge might be for the mismatched passengers to get along. The interaction between the “gentleman” gambler, the soldier’s wife, the drunken doctor, the whore, the banker and the Ringo Kid (a young John Wayne, already iconic) is indeed the most enjoyable thing about this classic B&W Western, though the impending threat does add suspense. And when the attack comes, it’s exciting and full of badass stunts. ]


64: Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) 91
[ review ]


65: The Silence of the Lambs (1991) 93
[ review ]

66: Network (1976) 63
[ Peter Finch’s posthumously Oscar-winning turn as a news anchorman turned mad prophet is riveting and the satire of the television world is incisive, but the film is loose, all over the place and uneven. Could have used a good rewrite. ]


67: The Manchurian Candidate (1962) 92
[ review ]

68: An American in Paris (1951) 61
[ The story is paper thin and the romance doesn’t work, but the song and dance numbers are pretty great. ]

69: Shane (1953)

70: The French Connection (1971) 90
[ In France, he guy walks around, buys a baguette, goes home and gets shot in the face. Back in the New York, Roy Scheider and Gene Hackman (the latter dressed as Santa Claus!) run after a “nigger”, then rough him up. Later, our two cops tail a “greaser”, just because he looks suspicious… 20 minutes into the movie, we don’t really know what’s going on, except that the protagonists seem to be antiheroes and that director William Friedkin has a knack for making everything feel tense and gritty. Scheider and Hackman do stakeouts, listen to wiretaps, follow people around… But again, for a long time, we’re not sure what they’re after and the thing is, maybe they don’t either. They just have a hunch or something. Yet thanks to the way each scene is shot, cut and scored, it remains engrossing. “The French Connection” is basically a feature-length chase scene, culminating with the famous sequence in which Hackman tries to catch up to a train in a car. Add a few shootouts and you get one of the best action films of the 70s. ]


71: Forrest Gump (1994) 100
[ review ]

72: Ben-Hur (1959)
73: Wuthering Heights (1939)

74: The Gold Rush (1925) 60
[ Maybe this shoots down whatever credibility I have as a critic, but I just don’t find Charlie Chaplin particularly funny. Oh, I can see his physical skills and sense of timing, and the sentimental beats always touch me but in general this kind of slapstick leaves me cold. ]

75: Dances with Wolves (1990) ???
[ Saw this on VHS back in the day with my parents… I might have fell asleep… Obviously, I need to see it again! ]

76: City Lights (1931) 65
[ Most of this other “timeless classic” of Chaplin didn’t make much of an impression on me but I have to say, the ending is absolutely marvelous. ]

77: American Graffiti (1973) 46
[ review ]


78: Rocky (1976) 91
[ review ]


79: The Deer Hunter (1978) 92
[ review ]


80: The Wild Bunch (1969) 91
[ review ]

81: Modern Times (1936) 70
[ A clock (time is money!), titles (“A story of industry, of individual enterprise – humanity crusading in the pursuit of happiness”), then a shot of cattle fading into one of workers rushing out of a subway station! Not very subtle, but an effective opening to this whimsical anti-capitalism / pro-proletariat comedy. I’ve never found the Tramp’s pratfalls particularly funny, but I do admire Chaplin’s physical prowess and the heartfelt, unpretentious way he expresses his convictions. And how cool is it that there’s actually a scene here where he’s high on cocaine and beats up escaping convicts? ]

82: Giant (1956) 79
[ Rock Hudson goes East to buy a stallion and comes back with a beautiful young bride (Liz Taylor). They settle in his giant Texas ranch and learn to deal with the heat, the cows, the Mexican workers, children, grandchildren… and Jett (Jimmy Dean), a headstrong ranch hand who grows up to be an oil tycoon. You can probably guess that mucho drama will come out of all this, building up to an epic saga spanning decades. This is classic but engrossing storytelling, set against a breathtaking backdrop and driven by gorgeous movie stars like they don’t make them anymore. This is kind of a thematic cousin of “Gone With the Wind”; it’s not quite as (Techni)colorful and unforgettable as Scarlett and Rhett’s Song of the South, but Hudson, Taylor and Dean are certainly iconic in their own right. And how about that hamburger joint fisticuff! ]

83: Platoon (1986) ???
[ Saw this a long time ago, so my memory is hazy… I remember some iconic shots, great acting… But also a feeling that this is no “Apocalypse Now”. ]


84: Fargo (1996) 95
[ review ]

85: Duck Soup (1933) 81
[ Groucho Marx is appointed dictator of Freedonia in this endlessly witty and silly political satire. Groucho’s rapid-fire zingers always hit and the perfectly timed physical comedy bits (the lemonade stand, the mirror scene…) are hilarious. ]

86: Mutiny on the Bounty (1935)

87: Frankenstein (1931) 65
[ “Bride of Frankenstein” is obviously a much more inventive and effective film, but James Whale’s first dig at the Mary Shelley creation offers its share of creepiness and pathos, and you gotta love the atmospheric cinematography, the dramatic sets and the intense performances by Colin Clive as the mad scientist and Boris Karloff as the monster. ]


88: Easy Rider (1969) 91
[ review ]

89: Patton (1970)
90: The Jazz Singer (1927)
91: My Fair Lady (1964)
92: A Place in the Sun (1951)

93: The Apartment (1960) 90
[ Funny, charming and smart if old fashioned. Jack Lemmon and Shirley Maclaine are adorable and I love that the ending is left open. ]


94: GoodFellas (1990) 94
[ review ]


95: Pulp Fiction (1994) 100
[ review ]

96: The Searchers (1956) 64
[ John Wayne’s Ethan Edwards is a man on a mission. After Comanches massacre his kin and kidnap his young niece, he goes out after them and nothing will stop him. Some have accused the film of being racist, but I don’t think so. John Wayne’s character certainly hates “Injuns”, but the film doesn’t necessarily approve of it. He’s clearly drawn as an anti-hero, an obsessed man who will get the girl away from the Comanches even if that means he has to kill her. Wayne is riveting in the role, which makes up for some of the weak supporting cast, lame comic relief and the staged feeling of many of the scenes. I don’t reckon this really is one of the great Westerns, but Wayne’s performance is a must-see. ]

97: Bringing Up Baby (1938) 44
[ I’m generally quite fond of old American movies, but I had much trouble sitting through this “classic” screwball comedy. The humor seemed rather contrived to me and Katherine Hepburn’s manipulative loudmouth and Cary Grant’s stuffy nerd of a zoologist quickly grow obnoxious. I didn’t root for them to hook up, I just wanted them to shut up! The leopard’s pretty cool, though. ]


98: Unforgiven (1992) 93
[ review ]

99: Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner (1967) 91
[ “He thinks you’re gonna faint because he’s a Negro.”
This old-fashioned yet still relevant meet-the-parents dramedy boasts irresistible performances from the ever charismatic Sidney Poitier, bubbly Katharine Houghton, commanding Kate Hepburn and thoughtful Spencer Tracy. Every character is complex and endearing and the interaction between them is involving from the first to the last minute, even though you could accuse the film of being little more than a TV sitcom. ]

100: Yankee Doodle Dandy (1942)

Les Chefs-d’oeuvre (2)

PREVIOUSLY: 1960-1990

1959
À bout de souffle (Jean-Luc Godard) 91
[ review ]

1959
Apur Sansar (Satyajit Ray)


1959
North By Northwest (Alfred Hitchcock) 75
[ review ]

1959
Jungfrukällan (Ingmar Bergman )

1959
Pickpocket (Robert Bresson)

1958
Touch of Evil (Orson Welles) 96
[ Charlton Heston stars as a Mexican (!) cop in a border town who must deal with local gangsters, the disappearance of his wife (Janet Leigh) and a racist, corrupted American police chief played with sleazy bravado by a morbidly obese Orson Welles, who also wrote and directed this powerful, morally ambiguous film noir. Masterful direction, solid performances, gorgeous black & white cinematography and an engrossing plot: this is classic moviemaking at its finest. ]


1958
Vertigo (Alfred Hitchcock) 100
[ review ]

1958
Hiroshima, mon amour (Alain Resnais)

1958
Les 400 coups (François Truffaut) 58
[ Saw this back in film school and thought it was pretty blah. Little brat acts up, whines, wanders around, ends up on the beach by the sea, FIN. I should probably give this another spin before making a final verdict. ]

1957
Smultronstället (Ingmar Bergman)

1957
Mon Oncle (Jacques Tati)

1957
Det Sjunde inseglet (Ingmar Bergman)

1957
Le Notti di Cabiria (Federico Fellini)

1956
Aparajito (Satyajit Ray)

1956
Un condamné à mort s’est échappé (Robert Bresson)

1956
The Searchers (John Ford) 64
[ John Wayne’s Ethan Edwards is a man on a mission. After Comanches massacre his kin and kidnap his young niece, he goes out after them and nothing will stop him. Some have accused the film of being racist, but I don’t think so. John Wayne’s character certainly hates “Injuns”, but the film doesn’t necessarily approve of it. He’s clearly drawn as an anti-hero, an obsessed man who will get the girl away from the Comanches even if that means he has to kill her. Wayne is riveting in the role, which makes up for some of the weak supporting cast, lame comic relief and the staged feeling of many of the scenes. I don’t reckon this really is one of the great Westerns, but Wayne’s performance is a must-see. ]

1955
Lola Montes (Max Ophuls)

1955
The Night of the Hunter ( Charles Laughton)

1955
Ordet (Carl T. Dreyer)

1955
Pather Panchali (Satyajit Ray)

1955
East of Eden (Elia Kazan) 66
[ I read the book for a college class and adored it, one of the most powerful pieces I’ve ever read. Then I rented the film and couldn’t help but be sooooo disappointed… It basically skips over the first 3/4 and just hovers over the last part with the grown-up sons and the prostitute mother… I’ll have to give it another shot, I’m probably underselling it. ]

1954
Rear Window (Alfred Hitchcock) 95
[ Another great James Stewart film but in quite a different register. Stewart plays a wheelchair-bound magazine photographer who fights boredom by looking out the window into the apartments of his neighbours: the newlyweds, the sexy ballet dancer, the lonely single woman, the pianist… the murderer? This makes for one of the most voyeuristic and suspenseful films Alfred Hitchcock ever directed. “Rear Window” is packed with virtuoso visual storytelling, managing to remain absolutely engrossing even though we never leave Stewart’s tiny little apartment. It doesn’t hurt that his girlfriend is played by the most beautiful woman in the world, Grace Kelly, who never looked better than in this movie. That first close-up of her when she bends to kiss Stewart would make anyone’s heart melt. ]


1954
Shichinin no samurai (Akira Kurosawa) 96
[ review ]

1954
La Strada (Federico Fellini) 88
[ Is there something more beautiful than 35mm B&W cinematography and Nino Rotta music? Was there ever a more adorable clown than Giulietta Masina’s Gelsomina? Do they make male leads as wonderfully brutish as the late Anthony Quinn anymore? “La Strada” is an enchanting, heartbreaking road movie – maybe a bit of a “trifle”, but one that sticks with you. ]


1954
On the Waterfront (Elia Kazan) 93
[ review ]

1953
Ugetsu (Kenji Mizoguchi)

1953
Les Vacances de M. Hulot (Jacques Tati )

1953
Madame de… ( Max Ophuls)

1953
Tokyo monogatari (Yasujiro Ozu)


1952
Singin’ in the Rain (Stanley Donen) 100
[ review ]

1952
High Noon (Fred Zinnemann) 70
[ This black and white Western is kinda square, with Gary Cooper’s Marshall walking around like he’s got a stick up his ass and Grace Kelly being all self-righteous (she plays a Quaker) and pretty (oh so pretty). But the plot’s clock (an infamous bandit is coming to kill Cooper on the noon train and the movie counts down the hour until then in real time) builds up a lot of suspense, there are some interesting morality issues (Cooper refuses to flee, even though no one in town will stick his neck out for him) and I love the recurrent theme song (the Oscar-winning Do Not Forsake Me, Oh My Darlin’. ]

1951
The African Queen (John Huston) 90
[ Movie star heaven, with Humphrey Bogart doing his gruff man’s man boat captain against Katherine Hepburn’s sophisticated English lady. Laughs, thrills and sensuality ensue as the two come across white water rapids, wild animals and German soldiers. “I never dreamed a mere physical experience could be so stimulating!” ]

1951
Othello (Orson Welles)

1951
Umberto D. (Vittorio De Sica)

1950
Rashomon (Akira Kurosawa) 93
[ A priest, a farmer and a vagrant meet in rain-drenched ruins and discuss the day’s court hearing regarding the murder of a samurai. We hear and see what happened according to the accused, the widow and even the victim himself speaking through a medium. It is clear that the bandit raped the woman and that this lead to the death of her husband, but no one can agree on the details… Akira Kurosawa’s film is rather slow, with sparse dialogue and intentionally non-spectacular scuffles, but where it becomes riveting (aside from the superb b&w cinematography and Toshiro Mifune’s gleeful overacting) is in the way the story is structured. By having each protagonist’s testimony contradicting the others, “Rashomon” sets up an ambiguous morality tale in which one’s truth is another’s lie. The sexual politics are questionable (“Women are weak by nature”) but probably reflective of Japan at the time, and the conclusion is underwhelming (“Thanks to you I can keep my faith in men.” “Don’t mention it.”) but this remains a masterful picture that’s still influential to this day. ]

1950
Sunset Boulevard (Billy Wilder) 95
[ Part film noir and part Hollywood satire, this endlessly rewarding film is about the events that led to a homicide in a mansion on the titular road, as recounted by the dead victim! Played by the great William Holden, Joe Gillis is a struggling screenwriter who enters a bizarre relationship with half-mad has been silent film star Norma Desmond, unforgettably portrayed by Gloria Swanson. Gillis also entertains a flirtation with Betty Schaefer (Nancy Olson), a cute reader on the Paramount lot, but Norma has her claws too deep in him to allow her gigolo a chance at a normal life… Boasting exquisitely pulpy dialogue (and narration) and expressionistic B&W cinematography, “Sunset Blvd.” is truly one of the greats. ]

1950
Le journal d’un curé de campagne (Robert Bresson)


1949
The Third Man (Carol Reed) 94
[ review ]

1949
Louisiana Story (Robert Flaherty)

1948
Ladri di biciclette (Vittorio De Sica) 42
[ So this poor dude steals a bicycle and, um, that’s about it. One of many so-called masterpieces we were shown in film school that have obvious importance because of the context in which they were made (post-war Italy, neo-realism, etc.) but that feel dull and ordinary today. ]

1948
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (John Huston) 89
[ Humphrey Bogart is riveting as a down-on-his-luck American in Mexico who takes on prospecting with fellow bum Tim Holt and old-timer Walter Huston. They must face bandits, exhaustion and the paranoid fear of being robbed of one’s share by the others. This is classic studio moviemaking, well-oiled entertainment that never misses a beat but also has a thing or two to say about the darker chambers of the human heart. ]

1946
Roma, città aperta (Roberto Rossellini)

1946
My Darling Clementine (John Ford)

1946
La Belle et la Bête (Jean Cocteau)

1945
Ivan Groznyj II (Sergei Eisenstein)

1945
Les Enfants du Paradis (Marcel Carné)

1944
Ivan Groznyj (Sergei Eisenstein)

1942
Vredens dag (Carl Dreyer)

1941
The Magnificent Ambersons (Orson Welles)


1941
Citizen Kane (Orson Welles) 100
[ review ]

1940
The Great Dictator (Charlie Chaplin) 88
[ Before the United States entered World War II, one of its leading filmmakers took a stand: Charles Chaplin. I personally don’t find his Tramp schtick all that funny, but the way he ridicules Hitler (“Hynkel”) is really ballsy, the better-laugh-than-cry depiction of the Holocaust is heartbreaking and Chaplin’s final plea for peace and tolerance is an inspiration, even sixty-some years later as war and hate are unfortunately still a reality. ]

1940
The Grapes of Wrath (John Ford) 84
[ Your family’s been living, working and dying on this land for generations and now the Man comes in with a piece of paper and wants to take it away? As if the harshness of the Oklahoma “dust bowls” wasn’t enough… Tom Joad and his folks pack up and head for California, hoping for greener pastures, but they only find more sorrow and abuse from the Man. This classic slice of old Hollywood moviemaking is a gripping adaptation of John Steinbeck’s Pulitzer Prize-winning novel. Some of the supporting players overact a storm, but their heart is in the right place and Henry Fonda’s slow-burn performance elevates everything around him. “Wherever you can look – wherever there’s a fight, so hungry people can eat, I’ll be there.” ]

1939
La Règle du Jeu (Jean Renoir)

1939
Stagecoach (John Ford) 73
[ A stagecoach must ride through Apache country, but the greatest challenge might be for the mismatched passengers to get along. The interaction between the “gentleman” gambler, the soldier’s wife, the drunken doctor, the whore, the banker and the Ringo Kid (a young John Wayne, already iconic) is indeed the most enjoyable thing about this classic B&W Western, though the impending threat does add suspense. And when the attack comes, it’s exciting and full of badass stunts. ]

1938
Aleksandr Nevsky (Sergei Eisenstein)

1937
La Grande Illusion (Jean Renoir)

1936
Modern Times (Charlie Chaplin) 70
[ A clock (time is money!), titles (“A story of industry, of individual enterprise – humanity crusading in the pursuit of happiness”), then a shot of cattle fading into one of workers rushing out of a subway station! Not very subtle, but an effective opening to this whimsical anti-capitalism / pro-proletariat comedy. I’ve never found the Tramp’s pratfalls particularly funny, but I do admire Chaplin’s physical prowess and the heartfelt, unpretentious way he expresses his convictions. And how cool is it that there’s actually a scene here where he’s high on cocaine and beats up escaping convicts? ]

1934
The Scarlet Empress (Josef Von Sternberg)

1934
L’Atalante (Jean Vigo)

1931
M (Fritz Lang)

1930
Der Blaue Engel (Josef von Sternberg)

1930
L’Âge d’or (Luis Bunuel)

1930
Zemlya (d’Alexander Dovjenko)

1931
City Lights (Charlie Chaplin) 65
[ Most of this “timeless classic” didn’t make much of an impression on me, but I have to say, the ending is absolutely marvelous. ]

1929
Man with a Movie Camera (Dziga Vertov) 95
[ review ]

1928
The Wind (Victor Sjöström)

1928
Steamboat Bill, Jr (Charles F. Reisner)

1928
La passion de Jeanne d’Arc (Carl Th. Dreyer) 90
[ The story of Jeanne d’Arc’s trial and execution by fire, this outstanding silent film is shot almost only in close-ups, putting us directly face to face with all the vile clergymen haranguing the poor girl, and with Jeanne herself, portrayed with overwhelming heart and soul by Falconetti. ]

1928
Oktyabr (Sergei M. Eisenstein)

1928
Die Büchse der Pandora (Georg Wilhelm Pabst)

1927
Berlin: Die Sinfonie der Großstadt (Walther Ruttmann)

1927
Sunrise (Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau) 70
[ Murnau’s first American picture (after making “Nosferatu” and “The Last Laugh” in Germany) was the toast of the very first Academy Awards ceremony, winning Oscars for “Most Unique and Artistic Production”, Best Actress and a particularly deserved Best Cinematography. “Sunrise” may feel slow, dull and desperately corny to today’s audiences, but visually it remains as stunning as ever (the use of super-imposition alone is pure genius). Too bad the story and characters aren’t particularly interesting – the film could have used more of the coolest dog ever (watch him swim!) and of the city woman (who smokes cigarettes!!!) who threatens to come between the virtuous husband and wife. ]

1927
Napoléon (Abel Gance)

1926
Metropolis (Fritz Lang) 96
[ Some of the sillier plot specifics and the over the top acting characteristic of most silent cinema have aged, I guess, but as a thematically rich Marxist revolution allegory and a sci-fi epic filled with iconic imagery, this remains as visionary, groundbreaking and masterful as ever. Watching a restored print of it in a packed 3,000 seat theatre with an amazing new score performed by a live orchestra made it all the better. ]

1926
The General (Buster Keaton) 64
[ Keaton stars as a train engineer who’s rejected from enlisting in the Civil War and is seen by his peers as a “disgrace to the South”. His girlfriend even tells him that she doesn’t want him to speak to her again until he is in uniform! I have always been uneasy with this kind of rah-rah patriotism and as the current President of the USA encourages “either you’re with us or you’re against us” sentiments, it’s even harder to swallow even in a light-spirited film like “The General”. In any case, other than from a historic viewpoint I don’t see how this should rate as one of the best films of all time (according to a Sight & Sound poll). It’s little more than a couple of long chase sequences (between a locomotive driven by Keaton and one filled with soldiers from the North) filled with slapstick. Keaton’s stunts and pratfalls are impressive and amusing enough but then so’s the average Jackie Chan movie! ]

1925
The Gold Rush (Charlie Chaplin) 60
[ Maybe this shoots down whatever credibility I have as a critic, but I just don’t find Charlie Chaplin particularly funny. Oh, I can see his physical skills and sense of timing, and the sentimental beats always touch me but in general this kind of slapstick leaves me cold. ]

1925
Bronenosets Potyomkin (Sergei M. Eisenstein)

1924
Sherlock Jr. (Buster Keaton)

1924
The Navigator (Buster Keaton)

1924
Der Letzte Mann (Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau)

1923
Greed (Erich von Stroheim)

1922
Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens (Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau)

1921
The Kid (Charlie Chaplin)

1921
Nanook of the North (Robert Flaherty)

1919
Broken Blossoms (David W. Griffith)

1919
Das Kabinett des Doktor Caligari (Robert Wiene) ???
[ Another classic that was shown to me when I was a punk-ass teenager studying cinema in CEGEP. I slept through most of it, so I don’t remember much beside some cool design and not much of a discernable story. ]

1916
Intolerance (David. W. Griffith)

1915
Birth of a Nation (David. W. Griffith) ???
[ An extreme case of dichotomy between artistic genius and abject morality. You want to praise this as early cinema’s most important film, with DW Griffith basically laying out all the bases of camerawork and editing still in use today, but at the same time one wants to throw this ode to the KKK in the darkest pile of cinematic trash. ]

Les Chefs-d’oeuvre

LES CHEFS-D’OEUVRE

Médiafilm is the “objectively subjective” reference in Québec. For more than 50 years, they have reviewed almost every movie to play in theatres, on video or on TV locally. They use an interesting 1-7 grading scale, with ‘1’ being a masterpiece and ‘7’ utter crap. These ratings are used in a lot of newspapers and TV guides, as well as in the Boîte Noire movie guide. And for detail-obsessed movie geeks like myself, it’s interesting to see what makes the cut with these notoriously difficult critics.

Below, you can see the list of all the ‘1’ they ever awarded. I counted 112, from 53 directors (Eisenstein, Fellini, Chaplin and Hitchcock have 5 each, Welles, Keaton and Bergman have 4, many have 2 or 3). There are 5 chefs-d’oeuvre from Germany, 22 from France, 7 from the former USSR, 14 from Italy, 3 from India (all from Ray), 4 from Sweden (all Bergman), 4 from Japan, 5 from the UK, 2 from Denmark (both from Dreyer), and 46 from the US.

3 are from the 1910s (all from DW Griffith), 17 from the ‘20s, 11 from the ‘30s, 13 from the ‘40s, 36 from the ‘50s, 17 from the ‘60s, 13 from the ‘70s and 2 from 1980. There hasn’t been a “chef-d’oeuvre” for 23 years, but one thing I find wise is that they’re not against re-evaluating previous ratings. It does take time for a film to qualify as a classic… Though I think it’s about time for them to upgrade “Casablanca” from its ridiculous current ‘2’.

UPDATE (06/07/05): For the first time in five years, Mediafilm has extended its list of ‘1’ films with 22 newly appraised titles, including long-overdue masterpieces like “The Third Man”, “West Side Story” and “Dr. Strangelove”, silent classics such as “Metropolis” and “Man With a Movie Camera”, the very first ‘1’ movie from Québec (“Pour la Suite du Monde”), a few more 1980s flicks and the most recent chef d’oeuvre, “Goodfellas”.

***


1990
Goodfellas (Martin Scorsese) 95
[ review ]

1987
Der Himmel über Berlin (Wim Wenders)

1984
Brazil (Terry Gilliam)

1984
Once Upon a Time In America (Sergio Leone)


1982
Blade Runner (Ridley Scott) 97
[ “I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.”

While not a very faithful adaptation of Philip K. Dick’s brilliant “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?,” “Blade Runner” might be the most influential sci-fi flick this side of “Metropolis.” I couldn’t admire the vision and craft more, from the design of the futuristic Los Angeles to the neo-noir atmosphere, the dazzling Jordan Cronenweth cinematography, the amazing Vangelis score, plus the always great Harrison Ford as hard-boiled protagonist Rick Deckard, and Rutger Hauer, Daryl Hannah, Brion James and Joanna Cassidy as the replicants he’s hunting down. This timeless Ridley Scott sci-fi masterpiece is an endlessly fascinating exploration of identity and the nature of humanity. I wasn’t always its biggest fan, but watching it again for the first time in ten years, on the eve of the release of “Blade Runner 2049,” I was completely won over. ]

1980
Mon Oncle d’Amérique (Alain Resnais) 90
[ More a treatise on the biology of behavior than any kind of conventional storytelling, this feels like the most intellectual film ever – which is fascinating if you’re up for it. Consumption, gratification, punishment, inhibition and countless other concepts are explored as we learn through nearly non-stop narration about the details of the lives of textiles manufacturer René (Gérard Depardieu), actress Janine (Nicole Garcia) and radio news director (Roger Pierre), who illustrate the theories of Professor Henri Laborit. ]

1980
Raging Bull (Martin Scorsese) 92
[ A brilliantly crafted character study with some of the most stunning boxing scenes ever shot and blistering performances by Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci. What’s more brutal: the violence in the ring, or the one at home, back in the Bronx? Jake La Motta’s rage is a plus in his boxing career, but it means trouble when he carries it with him in his relations with women, his brother and just about everybody else. This is Scorsese at his best, in form, with virtuoso B&W cinematography and editing, and in content, with another raw yet profound “street-smart” screenplay by Paul Schrader and some of the best acting you’ll ever see. Pesci and De Niro have become self-parodies, but their back-and-forth here is incredibly intense and multi-layered, the two brothers’ relationship being rough, tender, sad, sometimes all at once. The fight scenes are unglamorous, all blood and sweat, hardly Rocky-like inspirational; this is more like something out of German expressionism, with Sugar Ray Robinson looming like an African-American Nosferatu! And then there’s the pathetic third act, with De Niro/La Motta all fat, doing bad stand-up… A truly great biopic. ]

1979
Manhattan (Woody Allen) 85
[ review ]


1979
Apocalypse Now (Francis Ford Coppola) 100
[ review ]


1978
Days of Heaven (Terrence Malick) 92
[ review ]


1977
Annie Hall (Woody Allen) 95
[ review ]


1976
Taxi Driver (Martin Scorsese) 100
[ review ]

1975
Nashville (Robert Altman) 76
[ It might be set in the country-western capital of the world, but I’m not sure that “Nashville” is actually celebrating that music. Right from the start, Altman contrasts a middle-aged cowboy jerk recording a corny patriotic ditty with a soulful gospel choir blowing the roof off the studio down the hall – it’s easy to see where his allegiance lies. Altman is clearly a liberal, anti-establishment filmmaker, and this shows through this cynical, irreverent but also humanist picture.

Set over 5 days during which a presidential candidate’s helpers are recruiting Nashville artists to perform at a rally, the movie has stars, wannabes, groupies, reporters, politicians and Elliot Gould (as himself!) bonding, clashing and everything in between. The 160 minute running time is a bit much – it could have lost many of the bad country songs – but Altman keeps things engaging and surprisingly cohesive, with a great ensemble of character actors and a climax that still feels shocking and sad. ]


1974
The Godfather Part 2 (Francis Ford Coppola) 86
[ review ]

1974
Zerkalo (Andrei Tarkovsky)

1974
Chinatown (Roman Polanski) 88
[ This late addition to the film noir tradition has Jack Nicholson playing a private eye in Depression era Southern California who stumbles upon a political scandal involving the Water Department. This is a tight, tight picture, well written, well acted, well shot and well scored, full of surprising twists and gritty confrontations – how about “midget” Polanski cutting Jack’s nostril! ]

1973
Amarcord (Federico Fellini) 79
[ For more than half an hour, “Amarcord” is an irresistible satire of 1930s provincial Italy, filled with quirky characters and irreverent humor. There is no plot to speak off, just a real sense of a time and a place but with a fantasist/nostalgic tint. The film moves through a small city, from school to the church, the beach to the piazza, following all these “exuberant, generous, tenacious” people. It can get quite lowbrow, especially around the horny young men or town whore Volpina (“I bet she even dips a cock in her morning coffee!”), but it’s in good spirit.

Then comes the Fascist rally, and it comes off as a shock. We like these characters, yet here they are saluting Mussolini and his black shirts? Fellini depicts these manifestations in the same playful manner as the rest of the film, like harmless demonstration of adolescent national pride. Maybe this is how it felt to people at the time, unaware of the evils Fascism would wreak across Europe… But we’re also shown some of the abuse and oppression characteristic of a dictatorship – in one scene. What seemed like the main theme of the film is ultimately just one part of a general chronicle, which is kind of a letdown.

I don’t mind the disconnected narrative and the caricature-like characters, that’s part of the movie’s charm. But it’s odd how Fellini hints at something more serious then moves on, never to mention it again. That kind of breaks the aforementioned charm and the remaining vignettes, while still amusing enough, don’t feel as refreshing as what came before. “Amarcord” remains a superior picture, full of sensuality and wit, with memorable images and a great Nino Rota score, but it’s not quite the masterpiece it could have been. ]


1972
The Godfather (Francis Ford Coppola) 100
[ review ]

1972
Le Charme Discret de la Bourgeoisie (Luis Buñuel)

1972
Cries and Whispers (Ingmar Bergman) 34
[ Everything is either red, black or white, every other shot looking like a White Stripes album cover, but don’t expect to be rocked much. This is a sloooow, bleak art film about desperately bored Swedes who stare vacantly, exchange a few solemn words, flash the occasional skin and die, eventually. Formally brilliant, but criminally dull. ]

1971
Morte a Venezia (Luchino Visconti)


1971
A Clockwork Orange (Stanley Kubrick) 92
[ review ]

1969
Il Conformista (Bernardo Bertolucci)

1968
Teorema (Pier P. Pasolini)

1968
Once Upon a Time in the West (Sergio Leone) 65
[ Haven’t actually seen this in, oh, 7 or 8 years, so I’ll be sure to revisit it when it finally comes out on DVD later this year… But back then I liked the mood and the music, but I felt it was too slow and long and nowhere near as great as Leone’s Man With No Name Trilogy with Clint Eastwood. ]


1968
2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick) ???
[ What am I supposed to do with this film? Is it a masterpiece or a bore? Could it be both? In a way, it is indeed truly great. The storyline is very ambitious, attempting to tell the story of humanity from the Dawn of Man to the future, into deep space. Kubrick’s direction is brilliant, the camerawork is inventive, there are countless beautiful shots, and the special effects are excellent for the time. But… It’s so slow! I think it’s the most actionless, even motionless film I’ve ever seen! Then again, I haven’t watched it again since my late teens, so the wise thing might be to revisit it in the near future. ]

1967
Play Time (Jacques Tati)


1966
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Sergio Leone) 100
[ review ]

1966
Andrei Roublev (Andrei Tarkovsky)

1966
Persona (Ingmar Bergman) 50
[ The opening montage really took me by surprise, with its barrage of fucked-up imagery : a tarantula, a sheep being bled to death, a nail being hammered into a hand (Jesus’?)… And was that a subliminal shot of an erect cock? Who’s the projectionist, Tyler Durden? Then there’s a curious scene with a boy, followed by the cacophonous title sequence and, finally, a first non-experimental scene setting up the story of Elisabet Vogler (Liv Ullmann), an actress who has lost the ability to speak, and of Alma (Bibi Andersson), the nurse taking care of her. After that, it’s pretty much just the two of them, one silent, one who talks a lot. And I mean a lot – Alma even has a long monologue that’s repeated twice in a row. Despite the gorgeous B&W cinematography and sometimes striking editing, “Persona” feels very theatrical. It’s also generally dead-serious, humorless and well, dull. Pure Bergman, from what I understand. I’ve only seen “Cries and Whispers” and this so far, and I can’t say I’m a fan. Oh, the man was clearly a brilliant filmmaker (his sense of shot composition alone sets him apart), but the films of his I’ve seen so far leave me cold for the most part. ]

1966
Blow-Up (Michelangelo Antonioni)

1964
Il Deserto rosso (Michelangelo Antonioni)


1964
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (Stanley Kubrick) 97
[ review ]

1964
Les parapluies de Cherbourg (Jacques Demy) 69
[ review ]

1963
Pour la suite du monde (Pierre Perrault & Michel Brault)

1963
8 1/2 (Federico Fellini)

1963
The Birds (Alfred Hitchcock)

1962
Lawrence of Arabia (David Lean) 66
[ review ]

1962
L’Eclisse (Michelangelo Antonioni)


1961
West Side Story (Robert Wise) 95
[ review ]

1961
La Notte (Michelangelo Antonioni)

1961
Jules et Jim (François Truffaut) 33
[ I don’t get this, just as I didn’t get “Les 400 coups”. Whereas I can see the attraction in early Godard, this melodramatic Nouvelle Vague slice of life left me indifferent. Jules’ a bore, Jim’s a bore and Jeanne Moreau does little more for me. The B&W cinematography is nice to look at and the score is great, but I still didn’t care much for this ménage-à-trois story. ]

1960
L’année dernière à Marienbad (Alain Resnais)

1960
L’Avventura (Michelangelo Antonioni)


1960
La Dolce Vita (Federico Fellini) 93
[ review ]


1960
Psycho (Alfred Hitchcock) ???
[ This is the second time that I decide not to give a rating to a film. The first time was for Stanley Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey”. The thing with these two films is that I just couldn’t decide if they were truly great or not. I’m aware that they’re timeless classics that were masterfully directed by brilliant filmmakers, and that the logical thing would be to reward these masterpieces with high ratings. The problem is that these two films are… Well, kinda boring to me. Then again, I haven’t watched them again since my late teens, so the wise thing might be to revisit them in the near future. ]

NEXT: 1915-1959

Die Hard!

“[Action filmmakers] are the most cinematic directors. They’re taking cinema and making you hard – and making you come, actually!” – Quentin Tarantino

I truly love action movies. There’s nothing that I like more than watching big, macho, muscular, sweaty men kicking each other’s ass, shooting guns and making stuff blow up, while the whole thing is shot like a pumped up MTV video edited to a faux-Wagnerian score. I am, of course, being a tad sarcastic, and that’s a must for an action fan. You gotta love thrills, but you also need a good sense of humor, an ability to swallow the dumbest twists and attitudes with a smile. You gotta believe that one guy can defeat an army, that a bad guy would rather fight his nemesis honorably in hand-to-hand combat than shoot his brains out and that motorized vehicles can defy any law of physics when used properly. You can’t go, “Hey! No way that can happen!” You gotta be, like, “Fuck it, that’s fun to watch!” The next few pages will try to cover most of the various forms of action movies that spun from Hollywood in the last 15 years or so.

First of all, we have to settle on a definition of an action movie. To me, it’s a film that relies on violent confrontations and death-defying ventures more than anything. This essay won’t consider early movies that kinda were action films, but not really. Think of westerns, blaxploitation, cop/gangster movies and war films. In these kinds of films, fights might break out, bullets might be shot, but that wasn’t what these types of movies were really about.

I won’t either extend to some of the brilliant action work that was done outside of Tinseltown, notably Asia’s long tradition in martial arts movies. Other genres, like science-fiction, that sometimes share elements with action will also be pushed aside, even though movies like “Star Wars” or “The Terminator” were action-packed. What I’m trying to do is to get down to the classic definition of a Hollywood action film: the opposition between Good and Evil, violence and fast-paced, flashy filmmaking. Next are what may be the 5 most influential action flicks ever made in Hollywood.

FIRST BLOOD : Political Action (1982)

“After Vietnam there was a need for escapism. Rambo led to the birth of the real uber action film. I was part of that group with Arnold (Schwarzenegger] and Bruce (Willis] and there was a definite theme. It was about one-man armies.” – Sylvester Stallone

The first real action film was definitively “First Blood”. Somehow like “Taxi Driver”, the film follows a Vietnam veteran as he returns to America and realizes that home ain’t all that sweet after all. But while Travis Bickle did take out a few guys, it’s nothing compared to John Rambo’s elaborate decimation of a whole town. The film takes itself seriously, but even its creators must have known that the overwhelming violence was the film’s driving force much more than the political message. What we want is to see Sylvester Stallone beating people every which way but loose, right? A one-man army, more pyrotechnics than dialogue… The modern action movie is born all right. Other movies of this kind of serious “political” action films are the two Rambo sequels and the Chuck Norris vehicles “Missing in Action” and “Delta Force”.

COMMANDO : Action Takes It Easy (1985)

If Stallone was the figure that started the genre, it’s Schwarzenegger who made it so popular. Instead of being frustrated and stiff like Rambo, Ah-nuld seemed to be having fun while he was killing people. More often than not, plots were just excuses for a series of exciting fights and stunts. No message here! Instead, you get one-liners and over-the-top action sequences. The first film to tap into that is also my favorite movie: Mark L. Lester‘s brilliant “Commando”. Arnie made countless other movies with almost as much humor as violence : “Predator”, “Raw Deal”, “Red Heat”, “Last Action Hero”, “True Lies”, “Eraser”… Then there’s the “Lethal Weapon” and “Beverly Hills Cop” series, which are almost comedies but still pack tons of action. Then there are those Schwarzenegger wannabes, Steven Seagal and Jean-Claude Van Damme, who can kick some ass but aren’t all that comfortable with one-liners. Still, they made some fun films.

DIE HARD : Action in a Nutshell (1988)

Whereas Rambo and Matrix wandered around vast places (whole cities, islands…) in order to kill people, John McClane is caught in a skyscraper. And so a new kind of action film is born. Instead of having your hero trying to get to the bad guys, you can now just stick all of them together in the same place and have them play cat-and-mouse. The place ain’t important: it can be an airport (“Die Hard 2”), a plane (“Passenger 57” / “Air Force One”), a ship (“Under Siege”), a train (“Under Siege 2”), a hockey arena (“Sudden Impact”)… These movies are usually about a bunch of foreign terrorists that take over a place in which, luckily, a hyper-trained hero happens to be. An interesting twist is “Road House”, where you got the thing with the hero beating up bad guys in the one location (a bar), except that they’re not terrorists, just a bunch of drunken assholes!

John McTiernan “Die Hard” remains the coolest flick of that kind that was ever made. It stars Bruce Willis, in his first action role, as John McClane, a New York cop who comes to L.A. to spend Christmas with his wife and kids. The couple meets at an office party in a huge business building, and that’s when a gang of European terrorists take over the place. McClane is the only one who can stop Hans and his boys. As you can see, that’s a simple plot, but it’s efficient. It leads to a series of outstanding fights and shoot-outs, as well as many funny scenes. Willis burns the screen with his overwhelming charisma. He’s witty, he’s macho, and he sure kicks ass! This is what I call a classic. I’ve seen this action-packed masterpiece countless times, and I never get tired of it. It’s filled with inventively violent set-ups, and the action never stops. Definitely a must-see. The sequels are also pretty good, especially the third film, an inventive cat-and-mouse game across New York.

SPEED : Action Without Balls (1994)

This is the action film at its weakest, at its most mainstream. In Jan De Bont‘s film, there are almost no fights or violence. He just kept the MTV-style direction, the stunts and the explosions. Yes, there’s still a bad guy, but Dennis Hopper isn’t even face-to-face with the hero more than 10 minutes, and there aren’t even other bad guys. There might be 2 or three deaths in the whole flick! All you get is some dude and a chick on a bus that crashes through stuff. I admit that the film is enjoyable in parts, but I’m still happy that the genre survived this “roller-coaster” phase, which didn’t last all that long. We still had to suffer through Stallone’s “Daylight” and some other wussy action flicks where heroes face natural disasters instead of bloodthirsty terrorists (Sly vs a tunnel!?!).

FACE / OFF : Action As Opera (1997)

If it hadn’t been for this movie, I would probably have decided not to stop myself at Hollywood movies for this retrospective, because I couldn’t have mentioned the absolute best action director in the whole world, Hong Kong’s John Woo. His films reach new levels in action, with shoot-outs orchestrated like apocalyptic ballets and violence poetically used to portray the most passionate feelings of one. Honor becomes the driving force of combat, as charitable gangsters face dirty cops. It’s the fight between good and evil, but the distinction ain’t all that evident. In movies like “The Killer”, even love and true friendship are present. Woo started out in Hollywood with “Hard Target”, which is cool, but his style is overwhelmed by Van Damme’s usual tricks. The director went on to make “Broken Arrow”, another explosive yet impersonal outing. It’s with “Face/Off” that Woo finally shows mainstream America what he is all about. This amazing picture presents the opposition between a determined FBI agent, Sean Archer, and a funky terrorist, Castor Troy, who get their faces switched, forcing them to use the other guy’s allies to fight each other. Besides featuring brilliant direction, spellbinding action scenes and a clever script, the film gets great performances from Nicolas Cage and John Travolta. For all these reasons, “Face/Off” was actually the 6th best reviewed movie of ’97 (after “The Sweet Hereafter”, “Titanic”, “Boogie Nights”, “L.A. Confidential” and “In the Company of Men”). Action never felt so good!

So that’s about it as far as action movies go. Of course, I only went to the essentials, and as I said at the beginning, many other types of action films could have been explored, but I think I went to the heart of it when it comes to action in Hollywood from 1982 to 1997. Would I dare make predictions for the future? As far as I’m concerned, I think that Hong Kong holds the fate of the action film. Action directors like Ringo Lam (“Maximum Risk”), Kirk Wong (“The Big Hit”) and Tsui Hark (“Double Team”) have all joined John Woo in America, as did action stars like Jackie Chan (“Rush Hour”), Jet Li (“Lethal Weapon 4”) and, most of all, Chow Yun-Fat (“The Replacement Killers”). Because, admit it, soon-to-be sixty Schwarzenegger and Stallone and forty-something Bruce Willis might not be on top for long, and Seagal and Van Damme never stood a chance to be more than second bit players. As for Nic Cage, he might be too busy playing beautiful freaks to rule the action world as he did last year with “Con Air” and, of course, “Face/Off”. Is Hollywood getting the message? Very likely, since “Mission: Impossible” star and producer Tom Cruise apparently wants John Woo to direct the next instalment! Whatever happens, I’m sure that we will still be able to see heroes who can shoot whole armies dead for a long, long time.

***

UPDATE!

A recent thread at the (sadly defunct) Cinemarati Roundtable about whether “First Blood” created the modern action movie reminded me of this article, which I wrote in 1998. Reading it again for the first time in years was a gas. I still think I hit most of the bases, and I’m pretty proud of how accurate my prediction turned out to be.

John Woo did direct “M:I-2” and the Hong Kong invasion has yet to stop, with Asian-influenced flicks like “The Matrix” and “Kill Bill” reinventing the way we think of action movies. One thing I didn’t see coming was the return of super-heroes, which seemed over and done with after 1997’s “Batman and Robin”. Yet some of the best action scenes of this decade involved the X-Men and Spider-Man. Also worth mentioning is the wave of epics (“Gladiator”, “The Lord of the Rings”, etc.), Michael Bay’s misunderstood oeuvre (culminating in the ridiculously frenetic “Bad Boys II”) and the most action-packed TV series ever, “24”.

As for who replaced Schwarzenegger (who’s now Governor of California!), it’s still not clear, as the Hong Kong stars have made almost nothing but crap in Hollywood. Vin Diesel hasn’t fulfilled the promise he showed in his first few flicks, so I’ll push my chips toward The Rock, who can whoop butt like the best of them and has revealed unexpected comic timing. He’s made his “Conan”-style heroic fantasy (“The Scorpion King”), his “Raw Deal”-style revenge yarn (“Walking Tall”), his “Red Heat”-style buddy comedy (“The Rundown”)… He’s due for a “Terminator” or a (gulp) “Commando”, don’t you think?


I’M THE NEXT SCHWARZENEGGER!

ANOTHER UPDATE

Okay, you know why I’m doing an update now, right? The best old school action flick since the golden age of the 1980s has been released this weekend. I’m talking of course of “Rambo”, which brings us back to the movie that started it all, “First Blood”. We also got another “Die Hard” sequel recently, but “Live Free or Die Hard” wasn’t so hot. Alas, the third figure of action cinema, Arnold Schwarzenegger, is still busy being Governor so we didn’t get a sequel to the other key Hollywood action movie, “Commando”. But while not technically related to it, the John Cena vehicle “The Marine” was certainly influenced by it and satisfyingly filled the void left in its place.

In other news, since the last update 3 years ago, there were some brilliant action sequences in unexpected places, namely pictures which had other things on their minds, like David Cronenberg‘s “A History of Violence” and “Eastern Promises”, but which packed riveting bursts of violence and mayhem nonetheless. “Pathfinder” and “Beowulf” owe more to heroic fantasy à la “Conan the Barbarian” than to straight action as defined above (way back in the intro), but they kick too much ass for me not to mention them. Likewise with “Sin City” and “Apocalypto”, respectively film noir and historical/adventure influenced, but action-packed nonetheless. And “Hot Fuzz” might be a comedy first, but damn it if it doesn’t get your blood pumping!

And then there was Bourne. Over the course of three movies, this franchise single-handedly changed the rules of the game, as decisively as “First Blood”, “Commando” and “Die Hard” did back in the day. Telling proof: the James Bond series totally went Bourne in “Casino Royale”, making things less over the top and having the hero be more tortured and vulnerable. I’m not sure Matt Damon wants to be typecast as an action star, but right now, he’s king of the hill.

LIVE FREE AND UPDATE

Another two years or so have passed since I last took the pulse of the Modern Hollywood Action Film. Again, comic book adaptations have given us some of the most kick-ass movie scenes to enjoy: I’m thinking of “The Dark Knight”, “Watchmen”, “Hellboy 2”, “The Incredible Hulk”, “Iron Man” and most of all, Timur Bekmambetov’s utterly badass “Wanted”.

There were also some thrilling action sequences in various war films (“The Hurt Locker”, “Che”, “Defiance”, “Inglourious Basterds”), David Mamet offered an intriguing twist on the genre in “Redbelt” and Liam Neeson, of all people, rocked hard in “Taken”. But I think that as with “Hot Fuzz” a few years back, it’s often the comedies that were the most explosive! Take “Tropic Thunder” for instance, or “JCVD” (that opening showcases Jean-Claude Van Damme at his best!), or especially “Pineapple Express”, which intentionally riffs on 1980s action flicks.

Ultimately, though, nothing offered more excitement than a pair of recent sci-fi epics, Neill Blomkamp’s “District 9” and of course, James Cameron’s “Avatar”. Now, we’re far from the archetypical greatness of the classic Schwarzenegger, Stallone and Willis vehicles… But hopefully, next year’s “The Expendables” will scratch that itch!