The Sixth Sense (1999)

#89, replaced Patton (1970) in 2007


Hey, remember The Sixth Sense? I forgot how great this movie is. I saw it not long after it came out (the end was ruined for me- rude!) and as I just watched it again now I realized that I don't think I've seen it since. Well ten years later it's just as good, let me tell you. I remember thinking it was terrifying (I was a wuss at 13 and I'm not much better now), but it's not nearly as scary as I remember. On the off chance that anyone still hasn't seen the movie I won't spoil what might be the greatest twist ending of all time, but I'll mention a few other thoughts.

First of all, Toni Collette is one of the greatest actresses I've ever watched. I just finished the first season of "United States of Tara" where she plays four distinctly different character- sometimes in the same scene. I always forget that she was in this movie and that it got her a (very well-deserved) Oscar nomination. She's incredible and you'd never know it was her. Her Amercian accent alone is perfect, but she does Philadelphia just as well (and on USoT, Southern woman, Southern man and teenage girl, all equally brilliantly). Haley Joel Osment is truly amazing considering he was 10 when the movie was filmed. I think his Oscar nomination was also highly-deserved. Bruce Willis is good, though he's never been a favorite of mine and he doesn't display any remarkable range of character in this. And, although I hate this in principle (don't ever ruin the end of anything for anybody!), it's almost better knowing the secret. I'm a big M. Night fan (the only one in the world who's still a fan, actually) and one of my favorite aspects of his movies is how much better they get upon repeat viewing. Once you know, everything becomes an "oh my god!" moment. (It's also way less scary for chickens like me.) I'll stop gushing before I say anything that will give away the MONSTROUSLY INCREDIBLE LIFE-CHANGING ENDING (I'm not overselling it at all, am I?), but if there's any way you've missed seeing this one- GO! GO NOW!

Extra- I read about the movie on Wikipedia and learned two things I didn't notice either time. I don't want to say it since it might give away the aforementioned surprise ending, but look for the section called "Production". So smart! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sixth_Sense

Psycho (1960)

#18, replaced in 2007 by The General (1927)


Who doesn't love Psycho? No one, that's who. It's a masterpiece and a classic and I'll kick your ass if you say otherwise. I've seen Pyscho several times (though admittedly I was far too young the first time I saw it) but it had been many years since the last time. We have a movie theatre in Palo Alto that only shows old movies and it's been restored to its original decor: an actual ticket booth out front, old-time movie seats, a balcony, an organ that raises and lowers before and after each movie, curtains that open and close over the screen, etc. The whole experience is fun and the atmosphere definitely adds to the movie-going experience (plus they have double features for $7!). I saw a double feature: "The Birds" and "Psycho" and we'll just skip right over the first (where is the ending?? where is the explanation?? why is Suzanne Pleshette only in 0.2375 minutes of it??) and go right to the second.

This movie is the definition of genius! It starts out in the big city and ends up in a creepy deserted motel, it tricks you into thinking the killer isn't the killer, the main character (famously) dies not terribly far into the movie and the twist at the end is impossible to predict. It's a fascinating study of film-making in the 60s, a brilliant representation of what Hitchcock does best and a really scary movie! It was nominated for 4 Oscars (including Best Actress- Janet Leigh and Best Director- Alfred Hitchcock) but didn't win any. If you've never seen "Psycho", and I pity you if that's the case, get thee to a Blockbuster immediately!

Extra: Several years ago I saw the exhibit at Universal Studios which explains some classic movie magic. They have an in-depth demonstration of many of the elements that make up the classic "shower scene". It was the first place I learned that the blood was actually chocolate syrup which looked more realistic in black and white than fake blood. Also, there's a clip of Janet Leigh explaining that the scene took almost a week to shoot and Hitchcock, being such a perfectionist, was obsessive about getting each shot right. Although she appears naked in the scene, she was fully clothed for most of the shooting and it took so long and was so boring that the filming experience was nothing at all like the experience of seeing it on film. She said that she was so scared when she saw the movie that she refused to take showers alone at home ever again. Fascinating! For more interesting tidbits, Wikipedia has a great write-up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycho_%281960_film%29

(Note: that scene scared me so much as a child that I may or may not still to this day dislike shower curtains. Just sayin'...)

North By Northwest (1959)

#40, undisputed


Who knew Hitchcock had a sense of humor?! Okay, maybe a lot of people did. I didn't. I'm a big Hitchcock fan and I've seen surprisingly few of his movies. For the most part (thank goodness "The Birds" isn't on this list...) I love everything I've seen. And I will admit to thinking all his movies were horror films. Apparently I was wrong and the "Master of Suspense" has some really fun not-at-all-scary movies. Don't get me wrong, "North by Northwest" is neither a comedy nor void of suspense. But it's just pure fun. Cary Grant is in all his Grant-ness in this one and it works well. The story is a little flimsy but enjoyable, nonetheless. The classic crop-duster plane scene is fun (although I admit I was waiting for it the whole movie) and the chemistry between Eva Marie Saint and Cary Grant is perfect. I most enjoyed seeing the big cities as they were in the '50s (much of the action takes place in New York and Chicago and on a train in between) although the scenes in the country home at the end were a lot of fun too. This one isn't by any means Hitchcock's best but it's definitely enjoyable.

Bonnie and Clyde (1967)

#27, undisputed


I don't get it. At all. If someone can explain to me how this movie has any merit whatsoever, I'd greatly appreciate it. First off, if there's a movie that moves more slowly let me know. I was bored in the first ten minutes. Young Faye Dunaway (almost unrecognizable) is from a tiny farming town, hunky gangster Warren Beatty swoops in and takes her away to a life of violent crime. Along the way they meet annoying Gene Hackman and annoying Estelle Parsons. They rob a lot of banks but seem to still always be poor. They finally get caught by the police and shot. Yawn. Nothing about it kept my interest in the least. Somehow it was nominated for 10 Oscars for all four of the actors mentioned (how?), Best Screenplay (how??) and Best Picture (WTF???). Estelle Parons won (I generally think she's a brilliant actress, I don't get why she won for this) as did the cinematography (this makes more sense to me although, still, snooze-fest). I'll waste no more time on this bafflingly-adored "classic".

Recommendation: don't waste your time.

Goodfellas (1990)

#94, undisputed


Um, hey. How are ya? Remember this? I come crawling back to you, dear reader(s), on bended knee asking for your forgiveness. It's been almost a year since I last updated and I'm terribly embarrassed about it. Well, not "terribly". But a little. I made a commitment and I let you down. (Not unlike the commitment my "co-authors" made to this project. Have you seen anyone else posting a review? I haven't either.) I'd like to beg your forgiveness and renew my commitment. Can you ever love me again? In my defense, I have watched a few more in the time we've been apart. Although not technically "breaking" Rule #2, I'm bending it a little by posting some of these reviews several months after watching the films. Again, forgive me?

Goodfellas. I have to admit that I don't remember much of it. As stated above, I should follow Rule #2 more closely and rewatch it but who has that kind of time? I mean, I still have over 100 movies to watch. We need to get this show on the road! I'd like to saw that since I don't remember it well it didn't make much of an impression on me and therefore I didn't love it. But I seem to remember actually liking it. I will say that Joe Pesci is a brilliant actor, if always the same. I remember him specifically and thinking he was great in the role. This is because he is the role and he always plays the role. "My Cousin Vinny" is one of my all-time favorite movies but the only difference between his performance in this and his performance in that movie is that one is a comedy in the South (funny Italian New Yorker causes trouble in '80s Alabama) and the other is a drama in New York (funny Italian New York causes trouble in '70s New York). Surprisingly, he won an Oscar for this role which I think is well-deserved. I just happen to think he could easily have won for any number of other roles as they're not all that different. It's a Scorsese film so the film-making is brilliant. As I've seen more of his movies I've started noticing the Scorsese-isms and I do think he's incredible. Ray Liotta was pretty good, I'm not a huge fan and I think he, too, is pretty one-note. De Niro is, well, De Niro! He's brilliant in everything. All that being said, I thought it was more interesting as a "slice of life" movie, as I call them, (almost a period piece) than anything else. The story is mildly interesting but nothing Earth-shattering. I thought it was a bit too (needlessly) violent, which is also not uncommon for Scorsese. And, as I said, it didn't leave much of an impression on me. At some point I would like to see it again but for now, onward-ho!

Rear Window (1954)

#42, undisputed


I'm a big Hitchcock fan but not big on scary movies. Hence, this is one of my favorites since it's suspenseful but not scary like other horror movies (and others of his films). I read after watching it again that it was filmed on a massive set in Los Angeles and not in New York where it takes place, which is pretty incredible considering how much happens in the apartments across from Jeffries'. Several of them were actual working apartments decorated and sized according to their respective tenants. James Stewart is perfect, with a great balance of dry humor and inquisitive curiosity. Grace Kelly is classic Hollywood over the top which is outdated and unrelatable but a lot of fun to watch (I'm not sure I've seen her in anything else but she's certainly of an era). I remembered some of the storyline but forgot certain plot points so seeing it all unfold again was a lot of fun. I particularly like how much we see (and care for) the residents of the other apartments. Since the whole thing (with the exception of one moment) takes place inside Jeffries' apartment, you get a real sense of how isolated he feels and how closely he relates to these people he doesn't actually know. Because of this empathy we feel for him, we start to connect with these other characters as well and by the end of the movie we feel the same peace he does as we see their respective outcomes. I missed Hitchcock's cameo so if you know where it is, let me know! For a simple, fun, old-timey movie, definitely check this one out.

The Maltese Falcon (1941)

#23, undisputed




The Maltese Falcon is a movie. It is in black and white. A lot happens and it is hard to follow all the action. Peter Lorre is the best part. This concludes my report on the movie, The Maltese Falcon. Thank you.

Saving Private Ryan (1998)

#71, replaced Forest Gump


I'm a big fan of films (shocking, I know) and I tend to watch movies with iMDB open on the side. This one has been on my list for a long time. Just one of those movies I've been meaning to get to forever. I finally watched it and my brain exploded with this cast. Did you know all these people were in it? Basically every male actor who has ever appeared on a screen in the history of cinema has a part. I thought the story was interesting but not nearly as compelling as the movie's hype makes it seem. Granted, 10 years later I've heard an awful lot about it and few films actually do live up to their own reputations. I thought most of the acting was excellent and the scenery and recreations of actual battles are amazing. I say thumbs up to the movie, but I wouldn't give it rave reviews.

Fargo (1996)

#84, removed from list in 2007



I have a confession to make. It's not going to be easy to hear. Hell, it's not very easy to say. But it's the truth and I need to come clean about it. Here goes. I'm scared...

I, Elie Berkowitz, hate the Coen Brothers' movies.

Okay, hear me out. I should like them. I like them in theory. I want to like them. I just... don't. Everything about their style of film-making appeals to me (reusing the same cast of actors, incredibly realistic dialogue and speech patterns, sometimes excessive use of bad language, Steve Buscemi, etc) and I don't understand it myself but I just can't get on board with their stuff. In a way I think it's very Mametian who is one of my absolute favorite playwrights of all time. They even have William H. Macy in common. I like everything Bill Macy has ever done (except for Wild Hogs, which I like to pretend never happened...) and I actually liked him in this quite a bit. I even understand why Frances McDormand won an Oscar for the movie! So why did I hate it so much? Here's how I think it breaks down:


1. The plot is both too cluttered and mind-numbingly, crawling-at-a-snail's-pace, Dear-God-please-let-something-happen-soon slow. It takes a real talent to do both at the same time. The intial storyline involves William H. Macy hiring Steve Buscemi and Peter Stormare to fake-kidnap his wife. Comedy! He needs the ransom money and he's sure her wealthy father will pay up. Unfortunately for everyone, they're all bumbling idiots and everyone is too dumb to pull this off. That's where it all derails. There are (spoiler alert:) other murders that seem to have nothing to do with anything, suspects to interview who seem to have no bearing on anything, and lots and lots of shots of snow and signage and cabins and Winter that put me right to sleep.

2. The dialogue is excellent. I love writing (both for stage and screen) that sounds very realistic and deceptively easy to pull off. [Sidenote: Going back to Mamet, it sounds very, very wrong if you don't speak it with the correct pauses on the correct syllables at the correct times in the correct ways. That shit is not easy to pull off. Lucky for me, it's my favorite type of dialogue and I work very hard to make all writing sound like that when I speak on stage. I think it's more fun, more rewarding and more of a challenge as an actor.]

3. Note that I used the word "dialogue" above and not writing. How this won an Oscar for Best Screenplay is beyond me.

4. Frances McDormand is the greatest person of all time. For the right now anyway. She is truly a study in accent-work. Also acting pregnant. Awesome.

5. The ending. Oy. I think we've all heard about the infamous "wood chopper scene" about which I won't go into more detail here. Except to mention that it is the ending. No, seriously, the ending. The last thing we see on screen. Hello? Did the ideas just stop coming? Did production costs get too high? Finally got too cold on location to keep shooting? Baffling.

6. I've felt this way about other movies of theirs. I fell asleep during O, Brother, Where Art Thou? all three times I tried to watch it and I'm apparently the only person on Earth who thought No Country For Old Men was the worst movie of last year. Anyone with suggestions for better movies to start with, please let me know.


It was a rough night of movie-watching and it left me wanting much, much more. Like, you know, a beginning, middle or end. But I did walk around speaking in that accent for the next week. And that's always fun, ya?

Sophie's Choice (1982)

#91, added in 2007 replacing My Fair Lady

I think I missed something. Like, the point of this movie, for example. It's one of the most-hyped movies I've ever heard of (note: it's possible I've heard so much about it because I grew up Jewish studying and commemorating the Holocaust). Of course it's the first Oscar Meryl Streep won, based on a novel, Kevin Kline's first film, etc. There are many great things about the movie, don't get me wrong. But overall, I didn't like it at all.

The entirety of Kevin Kline's role is extraneous. I'd almost say the same for Peter MacNichol's character. Stingo (worst name of all time, made me cringe every time they said it) narrates the whole movie, Kevin Kline acts crazy the whole time (albeit a major plot point) and Sophie barely says anything until the last half hour. It's like someone forgot that the title is "Sophie's Choice". I didn't know much about the movie before watching it but the soundbyte description was "a mother has to choose which of her children is killed in Auschwitz." After the first hour of character development, story lines, backstories, montages, etc. I began to wonder when the main concept would factor in. In case you watch it and spend the whole movie wondering the same thing, I'll save you the trouble: not till the last 15 minutes. HELLO?? Literally the first hour and a half is the three of them falling in love, becoming best friends, running around Coney Island, fighting, making up, having picnics.... It's like two completely separate films were spliced together. At some point Sophie opens up to Stingo and tells him about her experiences in the war. We see this in a flashback and Meryl Streep has never been better. I wanted more of that and less of them flouncing around Brooklyn. Peter MacNichol does an awful Southern accent which made me want to turn off the movie altogether. He's actually pretty good in this other than his accent but that's hard to get past which makes him annoying. He's never been one of my favorites (funny on Ally McBeal but annoying as well, interestingly evil on 24 but annoying as well; see the pattern?) and my opinion of him hasn't changed much after this.

The exception is Meryl Streep. It's like she stepped out of the most incredible movie ever made and landed in this. It is truly one of the most incredible performances of all time. Her accent is spot on the entire time and, having spent a lot of time with Russian families growing up, I can attest that her mannerisms are impeccable. It's more than the actual accent; the way she crafts her phrases is perfect. If you didn't know who Meryl Streep was you'd swear she was Polish. Also mind-blowing is her acting in other languages. Yes, accents are difficult. More difficult, in my opinion, is making another language you don't actually speak come off with true emotion. I've had some practice with French, German, Hebrew, Spanish... it's incredibly difficult to focus on getting the words out and have them mean something. I really could go on all day about how inspiring she is. If it weren't for her performance I'd wonder why the movie made the AFI list at all. It carries the movie to that extent.

I'm having a hard time making a final decision about the film and whether or not I'd recommend it. It really is worth it to sit through it just for Meryl Streep but it's not an easy process. Overall I say any actor needs to watch her work in this one but make sure you're well-rested, hydrated and stretched out first. It's a tough one to get through.

The Godfather Part II (1974)

unchanged #32

I have a confession to make: I didn't like this one nearly as much as the first. I actually finished this a few days ago but I haven't gotten around to writing about it yet. The past few days have also given me some time to collect my thoughts. There's no question that it's an achievement. It's a big, big film and it's very impressive in a lot of ways. Coppola is a master and everyone in the film is excellent. The non-linear storytelling and parallel time periods is fascinating and I love films that use those techniques well. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot to love.

However. It feels much more spread out than the first and I liked that Part I told a very neat story with a beginning middle and end. That's sort of ironic considering Part II takes place before and after Part I but it still has a complete arc. Part II covers A LOT of ground and it felt very thin at parts. There was a lot going on and many, many different characters that I couldn't keep straight (who was in the first movie, who reappears both before and after the first movie, who's doing business with whom, who's stabbing who in the back, etc. [not to mention all the Italian names I can't remember]). Plus, love him though I do, there's only so much time I can watch Pacino silently debate with himself. Seriously, half this movie is him thinking pensively, staring into space just off camera. I wanted a little more story development and fewer plot twists, some more solid action and some better dialogue. It's interesting that it won Best Screenplay and Best Picture and the first didn't because Part I had this beat easy.

ON THE OTHER HAND: De Niro. Period. Unbelievable. He barely said one word in English and I bought it. The transition from poor, hard-working immigrant to vengeful killer made perfect sense. And most incredible of all, I think, is how closely he plays it to Brando's characterization. They're the only two actors to ever both win awards for playing the same character in different movies.

Diane Keaton is also great. I'm not a big fan of hers but that's because I've only ever seen her post-Woody Allen where everything she plays is EXACTLY. THE. SAME. Funny sometimes, but always the same. She was really good in both movies, I think.

And I gotta give some love to Pacino. He really is amazing and he was great in this movie just as he was in the last one. It's just different and I think he had much more to work with in the first film with his transition into the family business.

Bottom line: worth seeing, not as good as the first, didn't make me want to keep watching for Part III (which will take some time anyway because it's not on the list). Good work, FFCopp!