Plot: The former Fellowship of the Ring prepare for the final battle for Middle Earth, while Frodo & Sam approach Mount Doom to destroy the One Ring.

But is it any good?

This is the one where they reach the volcano. Okay, I’m getting a bit sick of LOTR now. It will be interesting to see whether the trilogy still makes the top 10 lists in a decade or two. I’m guessing that a couple may drop further down the list, but perhaps not this one.

Return of the King is the most epic of the trilogy because of course the first two were leading up to the story’s climax at the volcano. The Fellowship are also less fresh-faced now. They’re getting a bit tired; Frodo in particular is bogged down by trust issues (Sam vs Gollum) and the sheer weight of the ring (literally, as it’s getting heavier, but also the responsibility of it).

I’m not a Tolkeinite or a fantasy freak so can’t comment on the subtleties of differences to the book(s). All I can say is that the film, like the other two, is a cinematic masterpiece. It could so easily have been a twee onscreen tale of elves and little hobbits but it’s not. It could also have been dominated by all the CGI but it wasn’t.

ROTK is definitely my favourite, probably because it’s the darkest of the three and as already discussed I’m partial to dark films. Just watch the beginning of ROTK where we see how Gollum became Gollum. Powerful and realistic stuff indeed.

IMdb’s rating: 8.9/10
My rating: 10/10

Share This

Plot: The early life & career of Vito Corleone in 1920’s New York is portrayed while his son, Michael, expands and tightens his grip on his crime syndicate stretching from Lake Tahoe, Nevada to pre-Revolution 1958 Cuba.

But is it any good?

It’s a bit unfortunate that I have to review the second one before the first. I watched them both back-to-back (well, a night apart) two years ago on a small computer screen because we had no TV at the time. Sadly, the version I watched had no subtitles for the Robert de Niro part and my Italian… well, there is no ‘my’ Italian. Still, I was able to easily follow everything that happened (and have since watched it with the subtitles and didn’t learn anything new).

Part II had the uncomfortable job of following such a strong act - and this time without Brando. It shows Michael’s (Pacino) moral decline as he gets more and more wrapped up in the “family business” but also has the parallel narrative of young Vito’s (De Niro) rise to power in early 1900s New York. Watching Michael’s transformation is pretty heartbreaking stuff; he’s cold and ruthless as he does what he thinks he must, and learning about Vito’s early years is both intense and touching, and adds some depth to the first film.

So which is better? I’m going to be difficult and say I like them both equally. They belong as a pair, not two single films. This one is certainly darker and delves a little more deeply into the minds of the characters. And I’m going to steal a line from imdb about De Niro and Pacino: “To say that these two are good actors is like saying that a nuclear bomb makes a loud noise.”

IMDb’s rating: 8.8/10
My rating: 10/10

Share This

Plot: A poor village under attack by bandits recruits seven unemployed samurai to help them defend themselves.

But is it any good?

So I have finally seen Seven Samurai, which has been waiting patiently for me near the top of the 100 list since I started this project. It is hailed as the granddaddy of the Western genre and has inspired countless other filmmakers around the world with its flawless epic-ness. “If you haven’t seen this movie, you can’t call youself a fan of films,” bleats one reviewer on imdb.com. Actually, I’ve never seen so many gushing love-letters to a movie. “Each and every shot is exquisitly composed..” etc.

Well, respect. The movie certainly deserves all its accolades. Set in 16th-century Japan, it opens with some timid farmers who know their village is shortly to be plundered by bandits so they recruit some unemployed samurai warriors to help them defend it, promising only three meals a day in return. The plot follows the recruitment of the samurai (clearly the 16th-century equivalent of rockstars, or at least some of them), their arrival in the village, their preparation for the bandit attack and then the battle(s).

The samurai themselves range in character from young and silly to wise Obi-Wan/Morgan Freeman-types and each portrait is carefully painted. The farmers are not one-dimensional either: timid, cowardly, a little crooked and opportunistic. There is certainly time to give them depth at 3.5 hours; admittedly there are no superfluous scenes but the duration was still a struggle for me (a quick glance at the imdb rating demographic shows that females give this film about 7.3).

But watching this I was able to recognise the inspiration for films that were to come - it was apparently the first to have slo-mo action scenes - and it was certainly a great tale that seemed very vivid as I watched it. I wouldn’t put it in my own top 10, though. And interestingly, 1950s Japan obviously had no hesitation in displaying male buttocks on film in close-up, resulting at times in some awkward Britney Spears-no-knickers type moments!

IMDb’s rating: 8.8/10
My rating: 8/10

Share This

Plot: Classic film set in unoccupied Africa during the early days of World War II: An American expatriate meets a former lover, with unforeseen complications.

But is it any good?

Maybe I’m cold-hearted, I don’t know, but I felt strangely unmoved by Casablanca. Perhaps it was all the hype that dulled the actual process of seeing it. Sure, it’s funny, sentimental and has some long-lasting quotes. But it’s not in my top 10.

IMDb’s rating: 8.8/10
My rating: 7.5/10

Share This

Plot: Oskar Schindler uses Jews to start a factory in Poland during the war. He witnesses the horrors endured by the Jews, and starts to save them.

But is it any good?

This is certainly not a movie I could bring myself to watch again, but I remember being very stunned and moved at the time. Its stark horrors are heightened by it being filmed in black and white with only occasional splashes of colour for effect (the red dress, for example). Spielberg portrays the plight of the Jews during WW2 with such detail and intensity that it is not easy to forget. Nor should it be. One of those films everyone should watch, but be prepared to be shattered.

IMDb’s rating: 8.8/10
My rating: 10/10

Share This

Plot: In a small village in the Shire a young Hobbit named Frodo has been entrusted with an ancient Ring. Now he must embark on an Epic quest to the Cracks of Doom in order to destroy it.

But is it any good?

This is the one where they start walking to the volcano.

Pros: It’s fresh, it’s new, it’s epic and awesome. It contains the lines: (Gimli, in deep growl) “With my axe!” and then (Legolas, in near-falsetto/squeak) “and my bow!”

Cons: No Gollum. And as I saw this while living in Melbourne my enjoyment was hampered by some Herald Sun newspaper wanker saying that The Eye of Mordor looks like a big vagina. He was right, but I didn’t need to be TOLD.

But really, when you look at previews for the current Eragorn dragon-movie and realise LOTR could have looked like that crap, it’s a massive achievement. I will not watch the extended version, but was very pleased with what I saw in 2001. And so proud of a fellow Wellingtonian.

IMDb’s rating: 8.7/10
My rating: 8.5/10

Share This

Plot: Following the death of a publishing tycoon, news reporters scramble to discover the meaning of his final utterance.

But is it any good?

This remains my favourite movie. Out of context it is a powerful biopic-style film of a media baron. In context it is a powerful biopic-style film of a media baron, based around the life of William Randolf Hearst who condemned the film, written and directed by, and starring, a mid-20s Orson Welles. The movie was hardly a roaring success when released. Welles himself went on to become much like Kane himself - a lonely old recluse.

So who is Kane? In the first scene we (from the camera’s perspective) travel past the forbidding fences into his opulent Xanadu palace and see a withered old man whisper “Rosebud” just before he dies, dropping a clutched snowglobe which shatters on the ground. The media then flocks around trying to uncover the secret of this final utterance and one reporter begins to sift through Kane’s past via a series of interviews. We learn of a small boy given by his mother to a rich guardian; an idealistic young journalist who changes the face of daily news; a wannabe politician who loses passion for his first wife and shows a soft side for a young singer; a pushy media baron who must have everything his own way, driving away those around him.

What makes this film so special in my eyes is the intimate journey through someone’s life, a journey back in time to find out who he really was and his biggest regret. His life is narrated by those who knew him, mostly in flashback mode, revealing him tale by tale through different eyes and explaining how his character was shaped by life events. The poignant story, plus the cinematic techniques that were new at the time (eg. the deep-focus) and Welles’ powerful direction and acting, make this a movie I think is worth watching again and again.

IMDb’s rating: 8.6/10
My rating: 10/10

Share This

Plot: Luke Skywalker leaves his home planet, teams up with other rebels, and tries to save Princess Leia from the evil clutches of Darth Vader.

But is it any good?

Aww. How could anyone have anything bad to say about this movie? I wasn’t born when it came out but it still shaped my childhood (my brother would chase me around the house when I nicked his R2D2 figurine). I even studied it at uni in a Film Studies course: it follows the traditional myth structure (evil vs good, mentor, princess, reluctant hero etc), C3PO and R2 are based on fat-and-thin comedians Laurel and Hardy, and the film’s release came at a time when Americans needed a patriotic lift from the shambles of the Vietnam War. Apparently.

A New Hope must be contextualised with the other five films now (it’s part 4 although it was the first one released), but as it was released first it comes close to being a package within itself. At the time of filming there was no certainty things would work out. The characters were new, filming in the sand-whipped desert was tough, and the actors weren’t convinced it would hold together (”You can write this shit George,” said Harrison Ford, “but you sure as hell can’t say it”). The dialogue is indeed silly, the acting’s weak in parts and the effects have dated now. But it’s still an entertaining, kind-of-original and uplifting film that has humour, aliens, lightsabers and R2D2. And that stormtrooper who bumps his head.

Tattoo parlours, costume parties and the ‘religion’ box in census forms would never be the same again.

IMDb’s rating: 8.7/10
My rating: 10/10

Share This

Plot: The lives of two mob hit men, a boxer, a gangster’s wife, and a pair of diner bandits intertwine in four tales of violence and redemption.

But is it any good?

Ten years-plus later and this is still one of my favourite films ever - and I’ve seen a lot of films! I was 16 when it came out, looked about 12, and it was an R18 flick. It took me at least three attempts to sneak into the cinema to see it, and it was worth the wait. Its originality may have faded now and it’s been copied and parodied to death, but it delivered so many mainstream firsts: a skewed, interweaving narrative, spicy, natural dialogue, memorable quotes for Africa and then-shocking drug and violence scenes.

The package was uber-cool. Suddenly, Tarantino was an auteur. And here we are today, with “Le Big Mac”, The Jack Rabbit Slim’s Twist Contest, Pumpkin and Honey Bunny, adrenaline in the heart, snooker balls in the mouth, a ‘dead nigger’ in the garage and the ethics of eating filthy animals.

It’s a masterpiece. The soundtrack is a classic. It’s one of the defining films of ‘my’ era. And don’t tell me any different or I’ll start reciting: “The path of the righteous man…”

IMDb’s rating: 8.7/10
My rating: 10/10

Share This

Plot: Frodo and Sam continue on to Mordor in their mission to destroy the One Ring. Whilst their former companions make new allies and launch an assault on Isengard.

But is it any good?

As a Kiwi, it’s a mix for me between pride in my country for being involved in the creation of such a world-renowned trilogy and just being completely over it. I should make clear that I have only read the first book in the trilogy and I didn’t really like it much (love The Hobbit, though). Yes, I have seen all three films, once each, when they were released. And I like Two Towers the second-best.

Why? Well, it introduces Gollum, my favourite character. He has everything: in parts cute, in parts utterly repulsive. He’s CGI but seems so natural. His acting is way better than the others’ (apart from maybe Sir Ian). It’s a shame Andy Serkis couldn’t be nominated for acting awards. Like it was a shame Wilson the ball couldn’t be nominated for Cast Away.

But then this movie also has the Tree People and they’re annoying.

It’s a solid ‘middle’ episode. Visually stunning like the others and from what I can tell (having not read all the books) a brilliant job was done in adapting such a complicated story.

There are still two more to come in my list so I’ll stop here. Like they say in Clerks 2: “All it was, was a bunch of people walking, three movies of people walking to a fucking volcano.” This may be just part two of people walking to the fucking volcano, but it introduces Gollum! So…

Imdb’s rating: 8.6/10
My rating: 8.5/10

Share This