2014 End of Year Watchlist

I watched 102 films in 2014. Some viewings were repeats, most were first time, almost all were from prior years. Living on the college time + money budget, getting to the theater was difficult, so I relied heavily on Netflix and old DVDs. Here’s the full list of everything I watched, with some comments when warranted.

True Swill

Seven Chances (1925) by Buster Keaton – 20/100

Racist smut.

Awful

Three Ages (1923) by Buster Keaton – 30/100

Triple Trouble (1918) by Charlie Chaplin – 40/100

The Knockout (1914) by Charles Avery – 45/100

 

Bad

Go West (1925) by Buster Keaton – 50/100

Orphans of the Storm (1921) by Buster Keaton – 50/100

The Birth of a Nation (1915) by D.W. Griffith – 50/100

100 for the production, 0 for the overt racism and historical inaccuracy. Averaged out to 50.

Between Showers (1914) by Henry Lehrman – 55/100

Steamboat Bill, Jr. (1928) by Buster Keaton – 60/100

Broken Blossoms (1919) by Buster Keaton – 60/100

Intolerance (1916) by D.W. Griffith – 60/100

 

Probematic

The Pawnshop (1916) by Charlie Chaplin – 65/100

Our Hospitality (1923) by Buster Keaton – 66/100

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) by Steven Spielberg – 69/100

Indian people eating monkey brains and eyeball soup? Oh man, is this movie racist.

Seven (1995) by David Fincher – 70/100

The Lady Vanishes (1938) by Alfred Hitchcock – 70/100

Abraham Lincoln (1930) by D.W. Griffith – 70/100

Sherlock, Jr. (1924) by Buster Keaton – 70/100

Easy Street (1917) by Charlie Chaplin – 70/100

The Artist (2011) by Michel Hazanavicius – 71/100

 

Flawed

Foxcatcher (2014) by Bennett Miller – 72/100

The Fisher King (1991) by Terry Gilliam – 72/100

Behind the Screen (1916) by Charlie Chaplin – 72/100

Dazed and Confused (1994) by Richard Linklater – 74/100

Days of Heaven (1978) by Terrence Malick – 74/100

Gravity (2013) by Alfonso Cuarón – 75/100

Way Down East (1920) by Buster Keaton – 75/100

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) by Frank Capra – 77/100

Frozen (2013) by Chris Buck & Jennifer Lee – 78/100

Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story (2004) by Rawson Marshall Thurber – 78/100 [rewatch]

American Beauty (1999) by Sam Mendes – 78/100

Casino Royale (2006) by Martin Campbell – 79/100

 

Good

Midnight in Paris (2011) by Woody Allen – 80/100

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) by Terry Gilliam – 80/100

The Usual Suspects (1995) by Bryan Singer – 80/100

Badlands (1973) by Terrence Malick – 80/100

Rashomon (1950) by Akira Kurosawa – 80/100

The General (1926) by Buster Keaton – 80/100

Shanghaied (1915) by Charlie Chaplin – 80/100

Burn After Reading (2008) by Joel & Ethan Coen – 81/100

The Darjeeling Limited (2007) by Wes Anderson – 82/100

Good Will Hunting (1997) by Gus Van Sant – 82/100

Sleeper (1973) by Woody Allen – 83/100

Rope (1948) by Alfred Hitchcock – 83/100

Clerks (1994) by Kevin Smith – 84/100 [rewatch]

Raising Arizona (1987) by Joel & Ethan Coen – 84/100

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) by Steven Spielberg – 84/100

Get Low (2010) by Aaron Schneider – 85/100

The Social Network (2010) by David Fincher – 85/100

Glengarry Glen Ross (1992) by James Foley – 85/100

Die Nibelungen: Kriemhild’s Revenge (1924) by Fritz Lang – 85/100

 

Classics

Nightcrawler (2014) by Dan Gilroy – 86/100

Ghostbusters (1984) by Ivan Reitman – 86/100

What’s Up, Tiger Lilly? (1966) by Woody Allen – 86/100

A Fistful of Dollars (1964) by Sergio Leone – 86/100

One A.M. (1916) by Charlie Chaplin – 86/100

The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014) by Wes Anderson – 87/100

The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou (2003) by Wes Anderson – 87/100 [rewatch]

Caddyshack (1980) by Harold Ramis – 87/100 [rewatch]

From Russia With Love (1963) by Terence Young – 87/100

Rushmore (1998) by Wes Anderson – 88/100 [rewatch]

Saving Private Ryan (1998) by Steven Spielberg – 88/100

Broadway Danny Rose (1984) by Woody Allen – 88/100

Raging Bull (1980) by Martin Scorsese – 88/100

Dr. No (1962) by Terence Young – 88/100

The Apartment (1960) by Billy Wilder – 88/100

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) by John Huston – 88/100

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013) by Martin Scorsese – 89/100 [rewatch]

Bernie (2012) by Richard Linklater – 89/100

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) by Steven Spielberg – 89/100

Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex* (*But Were Afraid to Ask) (1972) by Woody Allen – 89/100

 

Marvels 

The Maltese Falcon (1941) by John Huston – 90/100

Battleship Potemkin (1925) by Sergei Eisenstein – 90/100

Strike (1925) by Sergei Eisenstein – 90/100

12 Monkeys (1995) by Terry Gilliam – 91/100

Blazing Saddles (1974) by Mel Brooks – 91/100 [rewatch]

Die Nibelungen: Siegfried (1924) by Fritz Lang – 91/100

Silver Linings Playbook (2012) by David O. Russell – 92/100 [rewatch]

Love and Death (1975) by Woody Allen – 92/100

The Last Detail (1973) by Hal Ashby – 92/100 [twice]

Sunset Blvd (1950) by Billy Wilder – 92/100

The Immigrant (1917) by Charlie Chaplin – 92/100

Nebraska (2013) by Alexander Payne – 93/100

Barton Fink (1991) by Joel & Ethan Coen – 93/100

Young Frankenstein (1974) by Mel Brooks – 93/100 [rewatch]

 

True Genius

Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009) by Wes Anderson – 94/100

Lost in Translation (2003) by Sofia Coppola – 94/100

Boogie Nights (1995) by Paul Thomas Anderson – 95/100

Nosferatu (1922) by F.W. Murnau – 95/100

Boyhood (2014) by Richard Linkater – 96/100

The Royal Tenenbaums (2001) by Wes Anderson – 96/100 [rewatch]

Citizen Kane (1941) by Orson Welles – 96/100 [rewatch]

Metropolis (1927) by Fritz Lang – 96/100

Fargo (1996) by Joel & Ethan Coen – 97/100 [twice]

Taxi Driver (1976) by Martin Scorsese – 97/100

Paths of Glory (1957) by Stanley Kubrick – 97/100

The Godfather (1972) by Francis Ford Coppola – 98/100

The Cranes Are Flying (1957) by Mikhail Kalatozov – 99/100

Rear Window (1954) by Alfred Hitchcock – 99/100 [twice]

There Will Be Blood (2007) by Paul Thomas Anderson – 100/100

Apocalypse Now (1979) by Francis Ford Coppola – 100/100

Psycho (1960) by Alfred Hitchcock – 100/100

 

A full list of all of my film ratings can be found here:

http://www.criticker.com/profile/djcrawfo/

 

Here’s to a great 2015 of movie watching!

 

I Disagree: Indiana Jones Edition

This is a new column I’m going to try entitled “I Disagree,” wherein I will take a position on an issue that may be rather unpopular. While the very nature of the column is argumentative and alternative, my goal is not to come across as a hipster doofus taking contrary positions for the sake of self-aggrandizement. Part of the way we understand each other as people is through the processing and discussion of art, and this column is in no way designed to belittle those who hold opinions antithetical to my own.

Raiders of the Lost Ark holds a special place in the annals of untouchable cinema. The world’s introduction to film icon Indiana Jones has a following roughly as voracious in defense as that of Beyoncé Knowles; criticism is not tolerated, and any dissent is taken as a personal attack on the patron. Raiders is surely the best movie in the franchise, right? …

Well, who knows? We could try to assign ‘objective’ qualities to writing, direction, and production and analyze those efforts, but that would be altogether boring. All I can say is that it’s not my favorite; that title goes to The Last Crusade. Let’s get ready to rumble.

Don’t get me wrong- I like Raiders, who couldn’t? Harrison Ford runs through jungles and kills Nazis. Sign me up! The film is a blockbuster classic, and it’s tons of fun, but it just doesn’t speak to me on anything but a superficial level.

I didn’t grow up with Indiana in the way that so many Americans from the previous generation did. Truth be told, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was the first Indy film I remember seeing. I don’t break with the mainstream in acknowledging that Crystal Skull is a failure of epic proportions (Really guys? Aliens?), but I bring up the point to emphasize my lack of devout affection for the character. I grew up on George Lucas’ preceding blockbuster trilogy; Harrison Ford is Han Solo to me, not everyone’s favorite whip-slinging archaeologist.

Coming into the original trilogy unattached, and watching the three films back-to-back-to-back in the course of one evening, Raiders does not resonate with me the same way that The Last Crusade does. I find Raiders to be devoid of the human connection that I require in order for an action/adventure film to rise above in-the-moment pleasure and reach the level of lasting impact. Raiders is action-heavy and plot driven, which is great for an adventure flick, but I find myself longing for a deeper connection to these characters.

I believe that Marion is supposed to serve as an in-road to the audience’s emotional attachment to the plot. Marion is a beloved female lead, and rightfully so; she’s smart, and crafty, and pretty, and strong. But Harrison Ford, in his typical fashion, plays Indiana as a stoic mirror, and Marion reflects his lack of believable emotions. When we are first introduced to the couple in the Himalayas of Nepal, they yell at each other in such a cold manner that I momentarily check out. I don’t believe for a single second that these two have had a relationship in the past. In a hallmark scene of robotic acting, I am left unmoved. This is emblematic of a greater flaw I find with the film: none of the characters are very well developed. Who IS Indiana Jones? What motivates him? What is his code of ethics?

I posit that we don’t find out until The Last Crusade.

I have heard it mentioned before that one of the great aspects of Raiders is that it sets up the dichotomy of the protagonist wishing to preserve artifacts for the sake of historical integrity while the antagonist is merely after monetary compensation. I completely disagree. Indiana is shown multiple times in this film discussing financial rewards for his findings. In the final scene, Indy and Marcus make the case that the lost ark should be available to researchers for the purpose of study, but his motives for venturing into the field up to this point of the film are not clearly established as being purely academic. In The Last Crusade, however, a young Indiana (played by River Phoenix) steals an artifact from a wealth-driven villain and loudly proclaims that the piece “should be in a museum.” This statement is integral to our understanding of Indiana Jones as a character, in a way that no piece of dialogue is in Raiders.

Another strong point for The Last Crusade, to me, is that the plot feels like it has real, jarring stakes. I understand as an audience member that the Raiders Nazis are evil, but to what end is this battle raging? The ark is shrouded in mystery (in an effort to make a lasting effect on the climax of the film), so we don’t really know what makes the artifact valuable apart from mystical curiosity. The search for the ark is introduced as being the result of Nazi fascination with the occult, and though we know the historical significance of the mythical ark, and the blow to global morale that may take place if Hitler is the one to discover it, its meaning to the fight between good and evil is not fleshed out throughout the film. In The Last Crusade, however, the screenwriter makes it a point to emphasize that the Holy Grail grants eternal life to its possessor. The thought of an immortal Hitler is a concrete danger that compels my emotional investment in the chase. The Nazis in Crusade also feel dramatically more evil than in Raiders, where they are portrayed as quite cartoonish cannon fodder being set up to die visceral deaths. Crusade Nazis burn books, Raiders Nazis just burn.

But perhaps the high point of The Last Crusade is the inclusion of Sean Connery as Indiana’s father Dr. Henry Jones, Sr. The rocky relationship between father and son is what really makes Crusade stand apart from its franchisees (and most blockbuster movies, to be honest). This is a relationship with a visible, believable depth; you can see the conflict that Indiana feels when he is told that his father has disappeared, and the pain that Henry feels when he believes that he has lost his son for good. Henry is a brilliant, yet distant man, a father that teaches but doesn’t really learn. His obvious love for his son is masked by a thick layer of condescension, exemplified by his persistence in referring to Indy as “Junior” against his wishes. When Indiana berates his father for not being a more engaging and honest parent, Henry rightfully points out that his son can’t think of anything to talk about, either. This moment is storytelling genius; a witty commentary on the propensity for children to harbor unreasonable hostilities toward their upbringing that they must quickly abandon once pressed to examine true underlying causes. Indy goes through the trials and tribulations presented by the Grail’s house of rest in order to cure his dying father of his bullet wound, and when Henry in turn saves his son from falling to his death by speaking “Indiana, let it go,” my heart cries. I finally care about these characters.

Not to be outdone in terms of entertainment, The Last Crusade has my favorite lines of the whole franchise, including:

“Nazis. I hate these guys.”

“No ticket!”

“He chose… poorly.”

“It tells me that goose-stepping morons like yourself should try reading books instead of                       BURNING them!

“She talks in her sleep.”

“This is intolerable!”

“I should have mailed it to the Marx Brothers!”

“DON’T call me Junior!”

“Does anyone here speak English? Or even Ancient Greek?”

and of course

“We named the dog Indiana.”

 

In sum, The Last Crusade has less in common with the first two films in its franchise than it does with a James Bond film (appropriate given Connery’s performance). Perhaps my affection for this film is driven mainly by the affection I have for Connery’s 007, of whom I see a great deal in Ford’s Indiana Jones. I recognize that even die-hard fans have differing opinions about the specific mixture of action, humor, and sex that they prefer for their Bond films, and as I cannot begrudge other fans for preferring action hero Daniel Craig to the charm of my beloved Connery, I cannot blame those who hold Raiders of the Lost Ark above The Last Crusade.

At least we can all agree that Temple of Doom sucks.

 

Wrestling with Foxcatcher

December is an extremely busy time for cinephiles. With the coming of the holiday season, studios push Oscar bait out into theaters in order to qualify for the Academy Awards presented in February. We wait and wait for the air to turn cold so that we can view the year’s best films in a dizzying sequence during the happiest time of the year. We desperately hope to receive the great movies we were promised.

Foxcatcher (2014), as with so many high-profile movies subject to early year hype, is a bitter disappointment.

Directed by Bennett Miller (Capote; Moneyball) and based on the true story of the Schultz brothers (American wrestling heroes) and their disturbed benefactor John du Pont (heir to the DuPont chemical fortune), the movie follows Mark (Channing Tatum), the younger of the brothers, on his rocky journey to the 1988 Olympic games in Seoul. Steve Carell, hidden under a prosthetic nose and intense makeup, stars as du Pont, whose sprawling East Pennsylvania estate (Foxcatcher Farms) serves as the living and training quarters for Schultz and his teammates. More a dramatic character study than a sports movie, Foxcatcher often feels aimless and interminable.

In its defense, the film is visually striking, contrasting the power and beauty of the Pennsylvania woodland with the dark and dingy lighting indoors (mirroring the emotional arc of Mark). Du Pont’s mansion is filled with material trinkets, sterile doll house fixtures meant to be seen but not touched. The off-kilter mega-millionaire lives in a massive farm house with his servants and disapproving mother, wallowing away like Charles Foster Kane from lavish excess. Carell wrings out as much mileage as he can from a poorly written character, convincing the audience of du Pont’s desperate loneliness and delusions of grandeur.

Unfortunately, Tatum’s character is not in the least bit compelling. Mark’s relationship with his older and more decorated brother (Mark Ruffalo) is portrayed as a complex rivalry anchored in familial attachment, but the siblings’ obvious love is addressed superficially. Important details of the brothers’ backstories are explained with jarring exposition. Early on, du Pont’s aide privately questions Mark about his family history in a clunky scene- a grilling which serves only to inform the audience that the brothers had an unstable childhood.

Numerous unnecessary scenes of tell-don’t-show expand the film’s criminal runtime (134 minutes), exacerbating the effects of the deliberate pace. Movie magic also makes an appearance when Mark gains 12 pounds from an afternoon’s worth of room service fried chicken and then proceeds to make weight after a 90 minute sweat-a-thon.

The startling climax is at least interesting, but the film does not properly earn the drama of the conclusion. Rather than satisfied with the movie, I left the theater feeling as isolated and cold as Carell’s du Pont.

Score: 72/100.