Top Eleven Favourite
movies in the order they come to me as I look at my DVD collection
Part One
Sometimes I am accused of being slightly negative in my ramblings and rantings about movies. I can dig that, but I would counter that, well, I've seen some amount of overpraised shit in my time and I guess it pisses me off some.
However I thought, while I'm gearing up to do a bit of work on sequels in the next few weeks, I would put forward a fave-list of movies I have nothing negative to say about at all and would in fact unreservedly recommend.
Here then are the first five of my top eleven fave movies ( right now ). Why eleven? Fuck you, that's why.
Eastern Promises
Directed by : David Cronenberg
Starring
: Viggo Mortensen, Naomi Watts, other people who also act
in it with their faces and mouths and stuff.
Plot :
Investigating the death of a young mother to find a guardian for
the girls new born baby,
London nurse Naomi Watts becomes increasingly embroiled with the
Russian Mafia Underground. Seeking help in translating the young
girl's diary from a
local restauranter – in reality one of the mafia bosses of the Vory
V Zakone brotherhood,
and someone who may know more about this girl than he is saying – she
is shadowed by chauffeur and Mafia assassin Viggo Mortensen, who finds
his loyalties
tested as the world of violence he trades in threatens him at his own doorstep,
and concepts of “family” are thrown to the fore.
Why? : Like
a lot of people who study films, I find David
Cronenberg a fascinating film maker to analyse. Cited for his fixation on “body-horror”,
this description to me has always missed the point of his movies. I would describe him as a film maker with a “body-fascination”, be it through disease, sex, violence, or transformation. In this instance,
the Russian Gangland brotherhood the Vory V Zakone's tattoo fetish
proves one
of the most memorable body-fascination moments, as a naked Viggo
Mortensen displays
his lifetime of experience through the tattoos on this body. There is
also a rich
theme of birth and rebirth running throughout the piece, centring
overtly around
the birth of the mystery as a new life is brought into this world,
and subconsciously
with the machinations of the brotherhood itself.
Most
people tend to point to A History of Violence as being Cronenberg's
most accessible
film. I adore this movie, but I completely disagree. It has a fetish
for graphic
violence and a comic-book stylisation that I would suggest many
average film-goers
would be quickly turned off by, in particular in the characterisation
and dialogue.
“Eastern
Promises” on the other hand has quite a weak screenplay, really.
It's narrative
is almost Nancy Drew in it's woman-investigates bad people
simplicity; it feels
like what it is, a TV movie by a writer – Stephen Knight – who is
far more comfortable
writing small-screen pieces than cinema, where characters talk about themselves
and their feelings quicker than revealing themselves through action.
BUT
– it still works brilliantly, in no small part to the terrific
acting from every cast member
– Watts and Mortensen in particular, she brittle yet tenacious, he
sleazy, violent,
yet strangely sympathetic – and specifically down to Cronenberg's obsessive
eye for detail, and ultimate distaste for the things these men do. He maintains
a ferocious mood throughout the piece, constantly pointing the
audience towards
the threat of violence that only very rarely truly spills out ( see
the much cited
and rightly praised steam-room fight – vicious, raw, horrible,
utterly compelling
and as revealing of Mortensen's character as it is of his tally-
wacker
). As the
true nastiness of these men creeps in from the corners of the story,
we – like Watts
– find ourselves disgusted yet compelled to delve deeper.
The
true success of this movie is in allying our sympathies not only for
Watts plight,
but for Mortensen's, rewarding our sympathies with what on the
surface might
seem a trite conclusion, yet one which makes absolute sense and has
far reaching
resonance for the characters we've grown to trust across the running
time.
One
of my absolute faves, and one of David Cronenberg's true
masterpieces.
Star Trek : The Motion
Picture
Directed
by : Robert Wise
Starring : The
Cast of Star Trek, and some guy who went on to star in “7th
Heaven”
Plot : An
alien phenomenon of unprecedented size and power is approaching
Earth, destroying everything in its path. The only starship in
range is the USS Enterprise-- still in drydock after a major
overhaul. As Captain Willard Decker readies his ship and his crew
to face this menace, Admiral James T. Kirk arrives with orders to
take command of the Enterprise and intercept the intruder. But it
has been three years since Kirk last commanded the Enterprise on
its historic five year mission... is he up to the task of saving
the Earth? ( From IMDB )
Why? : Because, hands down it is just
the best Star Trek movie there is. Eschewing the camp, action-film formula that every other movie stuck to after this failed miserably at the box office, “The
Motion Picture” is a proper sci-fi movie that dares to ask big
questions, yet still manages to be a Star Trek movie proper in its
own right. The special fx for the main
still stand up ( although Wise did consent to some new CG additions for its
DVD/Laserdisc release a few moons ago ), the characters are properly developed and delved
into, giving great justification for bringing both the characters and the
franchise back, and the 2001-esque final moments thrill physically, intellectually and
emotionally.
The best thing about this film is in
the way it handles the aged cast. In much the same way as Clint Eastwood's latter
day career has focussed in on his age, yet still dipped into his genre roots, “The
Motion Picture” consistently reminds the cast AND the audience that this is not the
youthful cast of the TV series. Both in it's more serious, even existential tone
and in pitting the aging, experienced yet slightly bitter Kirk against the youthful, and
possibly better-able Dekker, the film gives us a far darker conflict at its heart than
any other Trek movie; it even dares to discuss death, the afterlife, and legacy in a
fully adult manner – in the Star Trek franchise's first blockbuster
foray.
Needless to say,
it came out at the wrong time. Critics and audiences, still wowed by the bombast
and simplistic fantasy bluster of “Star Wars” ( without whom it should be added,
this film would never have received it's opportunity to exist ), despised this
movie, which led – in much the same way as the critical drubbing Tarantino's best
film “Jackie Brown” received, led to him popping his head up his own arse to
create pop-culture reference movies with no substance – to the franchise
disappearing into a black hole of camp explosions and lazy
comedy at the expense
of it's increasingly aged
crew.
Yes, “Wrath of Khan” followed up
on the age-crisis at the heart of “Motion Picture,” but with a sledgehammer
unsubtly ( the Kobyashi Maru test anyone ? ) that remained not only for the
Original Cast movies, but for every Star Trek movie beyond, referencing the characters
age as though it were something to be laughed at, ignored, and ironically
referenced, but never again challenged.
This is the living embodiement of the
concept of original, and best.
Twin Peaks Fire Walk
With Me
Director : David
Lynch
Starring : Most
of the cast of the original TV series, Moira Kelly, and for some reason Chris
Isaak.
Plot : Charting
the last seven days of TV series kickstarter Laura Palmer, the film
delves into the drug-addled despair of a prom-queen, and the
possibly supernatural forces conspiring
to abuse and ultimately murder her through spite.
Why? : Another
flick that received a bizarre and unnecessary drubbing from pretty
much everyone,
this is David Lynch's best, most original, and darkest movie to date.
In
reality, this film didn't stand a chance. Drubbed by critics and
ignored by audiences,
like “Star Trek The Motion Picture,” it simply hit at the wrong
time. Twin Peaks had briefly been a phenomenon on the small screen, a dark,
witty, weird and
twisty murder-mystery tale that drew in millions of fanatical viewers ( myself included
) before shitting on them spectacularly during it's second season.
This
is why the audience were simply not there for the film. No one cared
anymore, except
it seemed David Lynch. Lynch had been a critical darling, albeit
briefly, for his
Triple Slam of Awesome Movies (tm), "The Elephant Man," "Blue Velvet," and "Wild
at Heart" ( we ignore "Dune" because everyone else does and with that
logic in mind,
it simply never happened ).
For
some reason, despite – or retrospectively, perhaps because of –
his returning to the
by-then familiar Lynchian themes and imagery of the previous movies,
which critics
had pretty consistently jizzed over up to this point - sexual
extremity, strobing lights,
red lips on porcelain skin, undercurrents of almost operatic evil in
otherwise placid
people and places, and a twisted yet silly streak of humour – the
critics turned unexpectedly and viciously rabid on this one.
It
was a backlash, partly fuelled I suspect by the Twin Peaks brand name
and the sheer
brilliant cheek of setting it BEFORE the series began, rather than
following it up
as most TV-based movies do ( see the recent “Veronica Mars,” for
example ) or spoofing
it, in the manner of a “Brady Bunch” or the hideously awful “21
Jump Street.”
But
the backlash ignored the facts in favour of some extremely emotive
and smug French
booing ( at Cannes, where it was roundly booed by idiots ).
Taken
on it's own terms ( granted, hard to do given the pedigree ), this is
an original,
truly dark, deeply emotional movie, charting the headlong and
speeding nosedive
of a sexually pressurised, drug addicted, and possibly parentally
abused teenage
girl as she lingers over her last seven days alive, with the
knowledge that her
time is running out. Beautifully
shot, paced, and acted this is a long movie – but necessarily so
to allow
for the slow-burn at its difficult heart. Sheryl Lee – looking
somewhat older than
the seventeen year old she portrays, it has to be said – and Ray Wise reprise their
roles as daughter and slowly unwinding father Laura and Leland Palmer respectively,
and give perfectly judged, raw, operatic performances. Wise in particular
veers between heart-rending, as the father with a dark secret, and terrifying,
as that dark secret itself unfolds.
Lynch
never bettered the set-pieces and mood he created for this movie,
though it informed
every film he made after with it's left-field ( and it has to be said
slightly misogynist
) sexuality, strobing imagery and darkly shadowed compositions that force
the viewer to fear for what might lurk in the corners of the screen.
Add to that a
smoky, gorgeous score by Lynch regular Angelo Badalamenti, and a
weird series of
cameos from the likes of David Bowie, Chris Isaak, Kiefer Sutherland, Lynch himself and a backwards
talking Jurgen Prochnow, and this film is nigh-on perfect.
Boogie Nights
Directed
by : Paul Thomas Anderson
Starring : Marky
Mark, The Bandit, Don Cheadle, your one from Killing Her Softly, and
a red-haired
plank of wood.
Plot : Charting
a reperatory company of porn performers and film makers across
several decades,
Boogie Nights zeroes in on literally-rising star Marky Mark, from his discovery,
rise to fame in the hey-day of seventies porn-acceptance and
inevitable fall
from grace as the grubby and drug-fuelled eighties take over.
Why? : Because
everything about this film is so completely off-kilter and yet so
overwhelmingly perfect it's not even funny.
It's
a masterpiece directed by a twenty-seven year old. It's a film that
exclusively charts
a group of pornographers yet treats them with according dignity, and
rare bouts
of almost patronly scorn. It wears every one of it's Scorcese,
Tarantino and Spielberg
influences on its sleeve yet somehow manages to seem thrillingly original.
And you get to see Heather Graham full frontal, vagina and everything!
In
its own way, “Boogie Nights” is a truly pornographic movie –
not so much in its tasteful
depiction of intercourse but in it's absolute indulgence in every
single frame;
the gliding, glorious long-take camerawork ( at one point hedonistically diving into a swimming pool to continue following its characters ), it's frank, sometimes affectionate
and often harsh depiction of the reality of porn, and the effects it
has on both
male and female performers, it's overwhelming pace, it's decade-savvy jukebox
soundtrack, and in the sheer number of characters it follows.
The
acting is superlative ( with the exception of the truly wooden and
inexpressive plank
that is Julianne Moore ), with special mention going to Don Cheadle's constantly
out-of-his depth performer for soliciting some of the best laughs and deepest
pathos within the film.
Paul
Thomas Anderson is a strange beast. He's been pretty much allowed do
what he
wants, which has resulted in some genuine cinematic gems ( “Magnolia” ),
some odd-ball left-field
experiments ( the wonderfully autistic “Punch Drunk Love” ), and
latterly some
truly head-scratching, pissy indulgence ( the wasted opportunity that
was “The Master” a sort of okay movie with little to say and a very
long running
time in which not to say it. )
What's
brilliant about him is that he divides audiences. But what's truly
brilliant about
this movie, is that it's the only film he's made that doesn't do
that. Even my dad
likes “Boogie Nights!” And he hated “Crimson Tide” for fuck
sake.
It's
a film with great heart, great wit, and befitting his then-age, a
vibrancy and affection
that has long disappeared from Anderson's increasingly bitter movies.
Neds
Directed
by : Peter Mullen
Starring : Conor
McCarron, Peter Mullen, and Gary Lewis
Plot : Set
in working-class Glasgow through the seventies, “NEDS” (
Non-Educated-Delinquents
) follows the studious, overly-intelligent but increasingly
emotionally destructive
John McGill, a sponge for the violence he witnesses and ultimately involves
himself in, inspired by the street-gangs of his Glasgow suburb, and
his own
alcoholic, weak but verbally abusive father.
Why? : Peter Mullen is one of those all-rounders you just want to hate. As an
actor he is raw,
angry, always empathetic, and although one could call him one-note,
he plays that
note clearly, and with enough variation to create melody.
As
a writer and a director he has managed to perfect a blend of gritty,
angry social realism
with an almost whimsical, spiritual poetry.
The
gruff-faced Scotch bastard has it all.
Mullen
came to the fore in Ireland for tackling “The Magdalene Sisters”
at a raw point
in the country's history. Biting, angry, satirical, and oddly funny,
it was a calling
card for Mullen in more ways than one, setting
out his stall from the off.
He
busied himself taking acting roles in films as diverse as "War Horse," "Children of Men," and the excellent "Tyrannosaur," while
searching for a personal project to follow. "NEDS" became that project.
And
this
is the film by which he should be measured. Up front I'll admit that
I'm slightly
biased, not only because I pretty much worship the ground Mullen
walks on but
because I grew up in Scotland across the Eighties and Nineties, and
though never
in the extremes presented by this movie, I was witness to that
peculiarly Scottish
form of petulant, give-all working-class
violence this film
describes.
With
two, young first-time actors, Mullen charts
five years or so of his main character John McGill's life,
starting as a blushing, nervous, overweight twelve year old and
slowly transforming
into the vicious, knife-wielding thug seen in most of the promo material.
Right
from the off Mullen surrounds McGill with male-perpetrated
violence: the opening
threats from the Secondary-School thug he exacts terrible revenge on
at the height
of his own violent awakening; the male teachers indifference, vanity,
and of course
their use of corporal punishment; the peers around him, talking
tough, bantering
one moment and beating the next; his
older brother, a feared young leader in
a thuggish gang, and the
father who abuses his family, drunkenly screaming at his
wife and terrifying his young daughter each
night.
Dealing with the consequences of violence, all
through this film we're left in no doubt who in society is to blame
for the perpetuating
of it, but what is special about this movie is that it also
accepts that
some people are simply more predisposed towards it than others. In
this case, the
frightened and retiring child that McGill once was, transforms
horrifically into that
vicious, alienated and angry thug. It
suggests however that not only is the exterior
influences that push him in this direction, but an interior conflict, a sociopathy
that would largely be ignored in that environment.
Yet
at no point do we lose sympathy with him, down both to Mullen's
superb direction,
and the naturalistic performance of first-timer Conor
McCarron as the older
McGill. Witness
the moment he lazily realises he is no longer frightened of his
father's violence, and watches the old man at the bottom of the stairs with, at first detachment,
then pity, and
finally violent resolve.
Mullen
has drawn incredibly natural,
almost documentary-like performances from the
entire cast, adding to the grittily realistic feel of the movie. But
McCarron stands
out, especially in the last act as the world closes around him and
topless – with
two knives tied to his hands – he walks out into the burbs to lash
out at the world
and everyone in it.
As
the film moves into it's final act, it becomes something very
different. In fact, Mullen
HAS come under flack, bizarrely, for betraying the social realism at
the heart
of his movie with a slow drift into poetical whimsy. He sometimes
relies a little
too heavilly on religious imagery but then, his story is set at the
heart of Catholic
Scotland. Based very
loosely on Mullen's own upbringing, this film plays out
as a fable, and one with a beautiful ending.
But
the whimsy works because we're increasingly seeing the world from the
point of
view of McGill. At first we're scared for him and by the end, scared
by him.
Yet we
do want to see the people who have pushed him to this point punished.
The
greatest thing about this movie though? When we finally do, it fills
us with dread
and horror, and makes us realise that – generally speaking – we
are ones who are
not predisposed
towards violence.
Powerful,
biting, angry, funny, and ultimately uplifting. A word of warning though - along with the ugly violence portrayed in the movie, there is also unwavering commitment to that completely indistinguishable inner-city Glasgow accent. Subtitles may be required.
Okay, so that's a lot of reading and clicking on links and checking out awesome movies for one day!
Part Two will be finished in a day or so!
Leave comments, comparisons, denials and pictures of yourself naked if needs be!
Talk soon
Dom
No comments:
Post a Comment