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 Grace Kelly is classic Hollywood over the top which is outdated and unrelatable but a lot of fun to watch (I'm not sure I've seen her in anything else but she's certainly of an era).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!

The Godfather (1972)

original #3

This is one I've been meaning to get to for a very long time. I knew nothing at all about the story going in and I was surprised by half the cast. IMDb has a lot to say about the film, its impact on society and the turmoil it stirred up. Of course it's one of the most-known films of all time and I knew many of the more famous lines and plot points without realizing where they were from.

All hype aside, this is a great movie! Francis Ford Coppola really knows what he's doing! Who knew! Marlon Brando is a legend and he's excellent. I grew up with Al Pacino, of course, but considering he was still relatively unknown before this he's unbelievable. Pacino has always been one of my favorites and it's really nice to see some of his earlier work. James Caan is truly remarkable. And Diane Keaton is so... NOT Diane Keaton! (Which, in my book, is a-ok.) I was blown away by some of the camera-work, which is really amazing considering the time period. But what I loved most of all was the use (and often lack) of music. Sometimes movies feel crowded by the soundtrack and the need for constant background noise. It can be so much more effective/heart-breaking/terrifying/meaningful/funny/etc. when it's completely silent. Coppola is masterful at manipulating the audience into feeling exactly the right emotion at exactly the right moment.

I'm currently in the middle of Part II (also on the list) and I'm definitely hooked. My vote: see it if you haven't!