Tuesday, 17 August 2010

Movie Review: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World *** ½
Directed By:
Edgar Wright.
Written By: Edgar Wright & Michael Bacall based on the graphic novels by Bryan Lee O’Malley.
Starring: Michael Cera (Scott Pilgrim), Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Ramona Flowers), Alison Pill (Kim Pine), Mark Webber (Stephen Stills), Johnny Simmons (Young Neil), Ellen Wong (Knives Chau), Kieran Culkin (Wallace Wells), Anna Kendrick (Stacey Pilgrim), Aubrey Plaza (Julie Powers), Brie Larson (Envy Adams), Satya Bhabha (Matthew Patel), Chris Evans (Lucas Lee), Mae Whitman (Roxy Richter), Brandon Routh (Todd Ingram), Jason Schwartzman (Gideon Gordon Graves), Keita Saitou (Kyle Katayanagi), Shota Saito (Ken Katayanagi).

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is the perfect example of a movie that is style over substance. The film is pretty much all style from beginning to end – this is a movie that doesn’t slow down for a second. But the style somehow works for this movie, which is also consistently funny and clever all the way through. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is a cult movie in the making – you are either going to get on its wavelength and love it, or absolutely despise it.

The title character is played by Michael Cera – and is yet another of his now trademarked characters. He is a hipster, living in Toronto, in a rundown, one room apartment with his gay roommate Wallace (Kiernan Culkin). He plays in a band, and does pretty much nothing else except impress girls with his cool, shy, awkwardness. He is still getting over his breakup from last year, and has started dating a high school student – Knives Chau (Ellen Wong). But then he meets Ramona (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) – and falls instantly in love. She is a little more hesitant, but cannot resist his awkward charm for long. The problem is this – she has seven evil exs that Scott has to fight and defeat in a series of videogame inspired madness.

And that’s pretty much the story, but doesn’t for a second describe what it is like to watch the film. Directed by Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) and based on the popular graphic novel series by Bryan Lee O’Malley, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is a tour de force of style – and not just in the fight sequences, where Wright really does take things to the next level. Even in the most seemingly quiet scenes, there are strange shots and pans, rapid fire editing and strange moments. Realism this ain’t, but neither is it boring. Unlike most of the movies that treat style with more reverence that substance, this movie worked for me. Most times, like in the films of Tony Scott or Michael Bay, I end up with a headache. But Scott Pilgrim vs. the World kept me involved and entertained. Perhaps it’s because as the film progressed, I really did get involved with the story and the characters, or perhaps because it moved so quickly that it didn’t give me the time to think. Whatever the reason, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World was nonstop entertainment for me.

A key to a movie like this to work are the performances. You have to have a cast that is committed, and willing to go to all the strange places you want them to – and Wright found a great one. Yes, Michael Cera’s routine is getting a little stale now, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t work in this movie. It still does. I am wondering when, or if, we are ever going to see him try something different (he should, and soon), but for now it works. Winstead is gorgeous with her multicolored hair and penetrating eyes, and she seems to except all this madness going on around her. The supporting players all hit the right notes – Culkin as the wise cracking sidekick, Anna Kendrick as Pilgrim’s little sister constantly bitching at him, Wong as the overly excitable teenage fan, Mark Weber and Alison Pill as Pilgrim’s bandmates – and all seven of Winstead’s exs. They take chances with their roles and mainly they work and pull it off.

A movie like Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is different from most movies because it takes those chances. If this movie had failed, it would have been awful – but for me it succeeded. Yes at times, I did wish the movie would slow down just a bit, but that speed is part of its charm. The movie takes risk, and for the most part, it succeeds.

Movie Review: The Disapperance of Alice Creed

The Disappearance of Alice Creed *** ½
Directed By:
J Blakeson
Written By: J Blakeson.
Starring: Gemma Arterton (Alice Creed), Martin Compston (Danny), Eddie Marsan (Vic).

The Disappearance of Alice Creed is a clever thriller that keeps throwing in twist after twist right up until the final minutes of the movie. On the outside, it looks like a fairly common thriller – two men, Danny (Martin Compston) and Vic (Eddie Marsan) kidnap the beautiful Alice Creed (Gemma Arterton) to try and get her rich father to pay them millions in ransom money. But what starts out as a seemingly kidnapping drama gets more and more complex as the movie rolls along – and more and more secrets are revealed that make us question what we have seen.

I don’t really want to reveal too much of the plot of the film – because the primary pleasure of watching the film is to see how it all unfolds. The opening montage, which shows Danny and Vic soundproofing the room, getting their supplies ready and finally taking Alice, tying her to the bed, stripping her clothes off and replacing them is brilliantly well executed, and gets you hanging off the edge of your seat right from the start. But I never really had any idea what to expect next.

Danny and Vic are a study in opposites. Danny is younger, kinder, more naïve and gullible, and really doesn’t know what he is in for. Vic is older, harsh, sometimes downright cruel, but professional. You get the feeling from both of them that they don’t want to hurt Alice – Danny because I don’t think he could if he wanted to, and Vic because there is no advantage in doing so. He’ll kill her if he has to, but he doesn’t want to. Compston and especially Marsan establish their characters early; have a wonderful chemistry together, which helps because of everything that will come next. For her part, we only gradually get to know Alice – partly because for much of her early scenes, all she is doing is being tied to a bed and stripped. But she has her own secrets to reveal. Gemma Arterton, who was pretty much wasted in Clash of the Titans and Prince of Persia earlier this summer, proves that she really can act, as long as she is given an opportunity to do so. She makes a rather daring decision to play with our sympathy for her character. She is the victim, guiltless in what happens to her, and yet by the end, I felt sorrier for the other two – strangely even more so for Vic, then for her.

Written and Directed by J Blakeson, The Disapperance of Alice Creed starts with a fairly standard setup – one that could have degenerated into a routine kidnapping movie, or perhaps even torture porn. But Blakeson is more intelligent than that – he continues to twist and turn his story, continues to hold the audience in his narrative for the entire running time of the movie. If there is a flaw it’s that The Disappearance of Alice Creed is so densely plotted, with so many twists and turns, that somewhere along the way the characters start to seem more like pawns in his game than actual people. Yet none of this occurs to you while you watching the film. You are too busy trying to figure out what the hell is going to happen next.

Monday, 16 August 2010

Movie Review: Animal Kingdom

Animal Kingdom ****
Directed By:
David Michod.
Written By: David Michod.
Starring: James Frecheville (Joshua 'J' Cody), Ben Mendelsohn (Andrew 'Pope' Cody), Joel Edgerton (Barry Brown), Guy Pearce (Leckie), Luke Ford (Darren Cody), Jacki Weaver (Janine Cody), Sullivan Stapleton (Craig Cody), Laura Wheelwright (Nicky Henry), Dan Wyllie (Ezra White).

It’s hard to imagine a better debut film coming out this year than David Michod’s Animal Kingdom. The film is a well directed, well written extremely well acted crime drama about the most dysfunctional criminal family I have encountered in a movie in recent years. The film is set in an Australia where the difference between the cops and criminals is pretty much non existant. One unlucky teenager, essentially a good guy but with nowhere else to go, get sucked into this world and is in over his head before he even realizes what is happening.

The kid is Josh (played by newcomer James Frecheville). In the films opening scene, his mother ODs on heroin. With no where else to go, he calls his long lost grandma Janine (Jacki Weaver), who shows up at his door and takes him back to her place to take care of him. Given what happens next, Josh would have been better off fending for himself.

Josh meets his uncles Darren (Luke Ford), barely older than Josh himself and too laid back to really fight against the tide of his family, Craig (Sullivan Stapleton), more of an outgoing hardass and Pope (Ben Mendelsohn), who is the “mastermind” of the group, although I use the term loosely. He seems to be charge because everyone else is scared of him. Along with their friend Barry (Joel Edgerton), these four guys are bank robberts. The problem is the bank robbery division of the police are after them – Pope in particular – and have no qualms about breaking the law to get them. If they cannot arrest them, they’d just as soon gun them down on the street. Their unit is being broken up soon, and they have plans to let these criminals walk away free.

This is a movie that could play out like a typical crime drama – and in many ways it does – but it is also much more intelligent and thoughtful than most of what this genre offers us. For one thing, while the plot may seem familiar, I can honestly say that from one moment to the next, I was never quite sure of what was going to happen. A sense of foreboding and death hangs over the entire movie, just waiting for those moments when it gets too heavy and breaks.

For another, the film is much more well observed than most films in the genre. In Frencheville, Michod found a newcomer capabale of carrying his film. He is quiet and morose – like many teenagers – and this makes him difficult to read. At first, he likes his new family – and is honored that his uncles except him, and approve of his girlfriend Nicky (Laura Wheelwright, a real cutie with acting skills to match), and so he doesn’t question it when he gets more and more involved with what is happening around him. But with someone like Pope running things, it is only a matter of time before things blow up. Mendelsohn gives the best performance in the film, and one of the best so far this year, as Pope who is creepy, cruel, violent and pathetic in equal measures. You can never trust him, and there is something definitely off about him – even his mother suggests that “it may be time to start taking your medication again”. Pope talks a lot about loyalty, and his pathetic attempts at empathy towards the other family members, trying to get them to open up, all fail because they’re all scared of him. It is a truly chilling performance. And Jacki Weaver is perfect as the boys mother. At first, she just seems like a kindly grandma, but as the movie progresses we start to feel that there’s something not quite right about her either – her kisses to her sons, always on the lips, last just a little too long to be considered purely motherly, and when she reveals the depths of her coldness and loyalty, it truly is chilling. Ma Barker has nothing on this woman.

Michod shows great skills behind the camera – from the wonderful opening montage, to his brilliant use of music (did you ever think that the cheesy pop song “I’m All Out of Love” could chill you to the bone? I didn’t, but it does here), his use of slow motion, and his ever roaming camera are all put to great use here. This is a stylish movie, but not one where the style overtakes what is happening. Animal Kingdom is a debut film of such power and skill that I am amazed that Michod had never directed a feature before. He is one of the most promising filmmakers out there right now. I cannot wait to see what he does next.

Movie Review: Step Up 3-D

Step Up 3-D **
Directed By:
John M. Chu.
Written By: Amy Andelson & Emily Meyer based on characters created by Duane Adler.
Starring: Rick Malambri (Luke), Adam G. Sevani (Moose), Sharni Vinson (Natalie), Alyson Stoner (Camille), Keith Stallworth (Jacob), Kendra Andrews (Anala), Stephen “Twitch” Boss (Jason), Martín Lombard (The Santiago Twins), Facundo Lombard (The Santiago Twins), Oren Michaeli (Carlos)

There is a bit of dance craze going on over the last few years - achored by popular shows like So You Think You Can Dance and Dancing with the Stars. Over the past few years we also seem to get two or three mainstream dance movies a year as well. They essentially all follow the same formula - a ragtag group of dancers get together to take part in some huge dance competition in order to save themselves from their own impoverished background, or save a community center or something similar. The best of these movies, and I use the term loosely because I don’t think I’ve seen one that I would call a legitimately good movie, have been the Step Up movies. Sure, they follow the same formula, the writing is lackluster and the acting is usually subpar - but the dancing on display really is quite great. Step Up 3-D is more of the same from this series.

Like Step Up 2, there is very little to connect this movie with the previous ones in the series. Yet again, the main characters are jettisoned to tell an entirely different story. In this case, Moose (Adam G. Sevani) from the second movie, and Camille (Alyson Stoner) who had a small role in the first film, are all grown up and headed to NYU for their freshman year. They have been best friends for years - are seemingly able to complete each others sentences and it is obvious to everyone except for them that they should be together. On their introductory tour through New York, Moose accidentally gets involved in a dance battle in Washington Square Park, and catches the attention of Luke (Rick Malambri). Luke owns a building that he uses as a club, and also his as own personal commune for dancers that he likes. They live in this huge, dilapidated building together, but they are getting behind on the mortage. There is a huge dance battle competition coming up, and while their team, known as the Pirates, are good another team - led by a trust fund baby - is perhaps even better. But Luke thinks that with the addition of Moose, as well as the gorgeous, yet mysterious Natalie (Sharni Vinson) they may have a chance to win - and use the prize money to save their way of life.

There are secrets to be revealed, conflicts to be resolved, etc. None of it really matters though and is really just an excuse to string together a bunch of dance sequences. And I must admit, that the dancing in the movie is amazing at times. And although I have been hard on 3-D in the past, I have to say that in this case it actually worked fairly well. For the first time in an non animated movie since Avatar, the 3-D did not look dirty and blurry to me - but actually does pop out the way it is supposed to. Does it really add much to the movie? No, but it doesn’t hurt either.

The problem with the movie, as with all of the Step Up films, is in the scenes where there is no dancing. Perhaps because they need to find actors who are great dancers as well as actors, most of the performances here aren’t very good. The exceptions are Sevani, who is charming in a geeky way, and Stoner who really is quite engaging. They aren’t really given much to do, but they make the most of what they are given. Malambri is another one of those faceless pretty boys who are a dime of dozen. He doesn’t really show any discernable acting talent here - and I also have to say that as a dancer, he is miles behind the best in this movie. Vinson is better - beautiful in a slightly offbeat way, and a better dancer, but only a little more natural. I don’t see either one really going much farther in the acting career.

Step Up 3-D does have some great dance numbers - but I do have to say that after a while they started to blend together, so by the time we get to what should be the high point - the epic battle between the Pirates and the Samurai, I felt under whelmed. By far the best dance number in the film is between Sevani and Stoner to a slightly remixed version of Fred Astaire’s “I Won’t Dance” on the streets of New York which is fun in that old school Hollywood kind of way.

I find it impossible to really recommend Step Up 3-D because so much of the movie doesn’t work. Yet I also have to admit that if you enjoyed the first two films, you probably will enjoy this one as well. It is better than most of the other dance movies out there - but I am still waiting for one of these films to truly step up (sorry, I couldn’t resist) and work not just in the dance numbers but in all scenes. Step Up 3-D only gets half of that right.

Movie Review: The Expendables

The Expendables ***
Directed By:
Sylvestor Stallone.
Written By: David Callahan & Sylvestor Stallone
Starring: Sylvester Stallone (Barney Ross), Jason Statham (Lee Christmas), Jet Li (Ying Yang), Dolph Lundgren (Gunner Jensen), Eric Roberts (James Munroe), Randy Couture (Toll Road), Steve Austin (Paine), Terry Crews (Hale Caesar), Mickey Rourke (Tool), David Zayas (General Garza), Giselle Itié (Sandra), Charisma Carpenter (Lacy), Arnold Schwarzenegger (Trench), Bruce Willis (Mr. Church).

The Expendables is without a doubt the biggest, loudest, dumbest action movie of the year. It is also one of the most entertaining. It is a film with no delusions of grandeur, but does precisely what it sets out to do - gather a bunch of action stars from the 1980s and 90s and spend two hours blowing shit up really good. And if you’re like me, and were practically raised on the action movies of that era, there is a nice sense of nostalgia to go along with all the explosions. I’m not going to claim that The Expendables is a great movie, but it does what it does well.

Sylvestor Stallone, who also co-wrote and directed the film, stars as Barney Ross the head of a mercenary group who will pretty much take any job offered to them. Also on his team is Lee Christmas (Jason Statham), Ying Yang (Jet Li), Gunner (Dolph Lingren), Toll Road (Randy Couture) and Hale Caesar (Terry Crews) (by the way, when did action movies stop giving their characters names as gloriously cheesy as these?). There latest assignment is to assassinate the military President of a small Latin American island. Ross and Christmas go down to scope it out before the job actually happens. They meet with their contact - Sandra (Giselle Itie) - but don’t like the lay of the land. It seems that the President is just a figurehead, and the real guy running the show is James Munroe (Eric Roberts - gloriously slimy). But Ross has developed a conscience - brought out during a recent conversation with Tool (Mickey Rourke), who used to be on the team, but now runs a tattoo palour, and simply puts Ross in contact with people who need his help. Tool is haunted by all the lives lost during his years of service, and Ross realizes that if he doesn’t go back, than Sandra will haunt him as well.

That is essentially the story of the film - but the movie not about its story, but about the action. And here is where Stallone really excels. The film opens with a bloody shootout in Africa before the main action of the film begins. When it does there are multiple shootouts, car chases and more explosions than any other movie that I can recall seeing. Stallone, who is never going to be considered a great director, knows how to stage an action scene. And even better, he doesn’t do the rapid fire editing so popular among action filmmakers these days. I could actually tell what the hell was happening during the almost none stop action sequences.

Perhaps even better to me is the way Stallone presents violence in the film. Like the latest Rambo movie (which is my mind was the best of the series), this is a movie that doesn’t skimp on the violence. When people get shot in this movie, they bleed, their arms fly off, their heads explode. The bloodshed is extreme, and to be this helps to make the movie better. Unlike most action movies, when people die in a Stallone film, it ends messy and in pain. You get the sense that they are actually dead. Rambo, with its massive half hour ending sequence that is among the bloodiest shootouts in cinema history, did this better, but it still works in The Expendables.

In a movie like this, performances are really secondary, but most of them here are pretty good. Stallone is still able to pull off the He Man like performance as the almost unstoppable man of violence. Statham is fine - better than normal actually - and Jet Li has some fun lines. The rest of the performances - by Crews, Coutre, Lundgren along with Steve Austin - are all fine, but nothing remotely special. Far and away the two best performances in the film belong to Mickey Rourke, who brings more gravity to his role as the depressed Tool than I would have thought possible, and Eric Roberts who goes way over the top, but creates a memorable screen villain.

The Expendables is by no means a great movie. It really isn’t that well written. But it is a movie that I have to admit I had fun watching pretty much from beginning to end. It does what it does with no pretensions. It doesn’t try to be anything other than what it is - an entertaining action movie where a bunch of shit gets blown up. If that’s enough for you - it was for me - than you will probably have as much fun as I did. If not, well, you’ve been warned.

Movie Review: Eat Pray Love

Eat, Pray, Love **
Directed By:
Ryan Murphy.
Written By: Ryan Murphy & Jennifer Salt based on the book by Elizabeth Gilbert.
Starring: Julia Roberts (Liz Gilbert), Javier Bardem (Felipe), Richard Jenkins (Richard from Texas), James Franco (David Piccolo), Billy Crudup (Stephen), Viola Davis (Delia Shiraz), Hadi Subiyanto (Ketut Liyer), Mike O'Malley (Andy Shiraz), Welker White (Andrea Sherwood), Tuva Novotny (Sofi), Luca Argentero (Giovanni), Giuseppe Gandini (Luca Spaghetti).

Eat Pray Love is about a woman in her 40s who acts like a teenager. She is a successful writer whose job takes her to places around the world to write travel articles. She lives in a great house in New York, has a good looking husband who loves her, even if he is a flake, and has a great support system of friends. And yet, she is completely and totally unhappy and complains constantly about feeling “disconnected”. So what does she do? She decides to take a year off of work to travel the world and “find herself”. Watching the film I couldn’t help but think of all the people in the world who have real problems. Who are working two jobs to try to put food on the table and a roof over the heads of their children. Why the hell should I care about a spoiled rich woman who has a great life and still does nothing but complain. I understand why the book was such a bestseller among women - because it is essentially a fantasy for most people who dream of having the opportunities that this woman had.

Julia Roberts plays Liz Gilbert, who wrote this memoir of her own life. And while I have never been a huge fan of Roberts, I have to say that in “movie star” roles like this there are few actresses better right now. Roberts is charming and funny and she carries the movie well. Without Roberts at her most charming, I thin this movie could have been downright unwatchable. With her, it mostly agreeable if you don’t bother to think about it.

Gilbert leaves her latest boy toy (James Franco), and heads to Rome to four months where she spends most of her time eating and bonding with friends who seem to have nothing better to do with their days than to set around with her all day every day. After those four months of relaxation, she heads to India, and spends another few months learning to meditate with a Hindu guru. There she meets a fellow American (Richard Jenkins), also looking for inner peace. But he has real problems - his alcoholism ruined his marriage, robbed him of his children, and put everyone he loves in danger. Jenkins is great in his small role - had the whole movie been about his character and his quest for spiritual enlightenment, they really might have had something here. After she has learned the art of meditation, she heads to Bali and gets a gorgeous house rental, studies with medicine man, and meets and falls in love with an even more gorgeous, sensitive divorced man (Javier Bardem). And through this year of non stop personal indulgence, what does Gilbert do more than anything else? Complain.

There things to admire about this movie. Robert Richardson’s cinematography makes these three already gorgeous locations (four if you count New York, and since it is even more romanticized here than in any Woody Allen movie I have ever seen, I would) look impossibly beautiful. It is easy to get lost in the surface of the film, which is charming and fun and great to look at. If you turn your brain off and simply go with it - engaging with the movie as a mere fantasy, you may actually like it. And I suspect that women are going to like the movie a lot more than men. I’m sure that many women have wanted to chuck everything in their lives out and spend a year traveling the world. But most women don’t have that option.

Co-written and directed by Glee creator Ryan Murphy, Eat Pray Love is a movie that I certainly didn’t hate as much as perhaps I have made it sound. Roberts is charming, Jenkins is brilliant and Javier Bardem smoulders wonderfully as Roberts new man. It is a movie that is a pleasure to look at. But Murphy never really finds the right tone for the film - the tone that would make us forget that this is essentially a story about a spoiled brat of a middle aged woman who still wants to act like a teenage - believing the whole world revolves around her and we should all be interested in that struggle. It is possible to make a movie about a rich, successful woman dealing with her insecurities - the recent indie film Please Give is an example. But that movie felt honest and real. Eat Pray Love is anything but.

Friday, 13 August 2010

Year in Review: 1939

1939 is often referred to Hollywood’s greatest year - and it is easy to see why. There are so many films from this year that would go on to become among the most well remembered and beloved of all Hollywood films. So of course, I had to select a French film as the year’s best. C’est la vie!

10. Only Angels Have Wings (Howard Hawks)
While I cannot say that I agree with those who think that Only Angels Have Wings is Howard Hawks’ greatest achievement – I do have to say that the film is a delight to watch. Cary Grant is as charming as ever a pilot in South America who runs the mail service flying over the Andes to get the mail to where it needs to go. Over the course of a few days his entire life changes – first, a pretty American (Jean Arthur) arrives and becomes immediately infatuated with Grant and decides to stay. The two talk and flirt, but Grant doesn’t want to be tied down – he is a cynic and a fatalist. Things only get worse when they new pilot they hired arrives – bringing with him his wife (Rita Hayworth), who was once engaged to Grant. Hawks creates the wonderful atmosphere of Columbia in his idealized view of these professional flyers – and also does a great job with the flying sequences themselves. I may prefer Hawks either in his Western or screwball comedy modes, but Only Angels Have Wings is certainly an entertaining movie.

9. Wuthering Heights (William Wyler)
Although this film version of Wuthering Heights leaves out almost half the novel, and tacks on an ending with the ghosts of the two leads walking hand in hand, which pretty much goes against what the novel was about in the first place, this remains the best version of the novel for the screen that we are likely ever to see. Laurence Olivier was given his breakthrough role as Heathcliff, the orphan who is brought to the wealthy estate of Wuthering Heights and raised by a rich man alongside his two other children – including Catherine (Merle Oberon) and Hindley (Hugh Williams). The children have different reactions to Heathcliff – Catherine falling in love with him, and Hindley becoming his sworn enemy. But when Catherine decides to marry the wealthy Edgar (David Niven) instead of Heathcliff – he flees the estate, only to return a few years later – now wealthy himself, and hell bent on revenge. Although the second generation of characters has been eliminated from the movie (thus Heathcliff doesn’t fall as mightily as he does in the novel), the story retains its fascinating and its power. It is a film about destructive, passionate love – and how it can bring both joy and pain. I tend not to think that Heathcliff and Catherine were meant for each other – and that after her death, Catherine wouldn’t want to walk hand in hand with him anymore – but that’s just my own feelings, and doesn’t diminish this film in the least.

8. Stagecoach (John Ford)
Personally, I have always preferred Ford Westerns that were darker than this film – The Searchers, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, etc. Having said that, you cannot argue against the filmmaking, the storytelling or the acting in the film – and it is certainly among the most influential films ever made (Orson Welles was said to have watched the film 40 times while making Citizen Kane). The film is about a loose knit set of strangers who head out on a stagecoach through Apache territory. Claire Trevor is a prostitute being driven from town, Thomas Mitchell an alcoholic doctor and Louise Platt is a pregnant woman travelling to see her Calvary officer husband – and these are just a few of the people on board. On their journey, they run into the outlaw the Ringo Kid (John Wayne, in his breakthrough role) who has vowed vengeance against the men who killed his brother and father, and is a wanted fugitive. The film moves along at a wicked pace but always remains focused on the storytelling and the characters. Yes, I do find the film a little too simplistic in terms of its treatment of the Apaches, and yet Stagecoach remains today a entertaining Western – a prototype for much of the genre that would follow.

7. Le Jour Se Leve (Marcel Carne)
Marcel Carne’s Le Jour Se Leve is a marvelous film about sexual obsession and murder. Jean Gabin gives one of the most iconic performances of his career as a blue collar worker who falls in love with the young and innocent Jacqueline Laurent. He wants to marry Laurent, but while he is dating her, he is also sleeping with the more experienced Arletty. Laurent it appears is under the thumb of a magician – Jules Berry – who lies constantly to Gabin to try and get under his skin. Gabin is ever so slowly driven further and further by Berry – finally snapping and murdering him (although we see this in the first scene, we do not understand why until much later) – when Berry has implied that he may have corrupted Laurent before Gabin got there. The film is a dark depiction of Gabin, who is not able to get over the fact that his beloved Laurent may not be a virgin. This is a fascinating film – a precursor to film noir to be sure as it has the innocent girl and the femme fatale, and also a film that has probably inspired the work of Martin Scorsese. Carne was a great director – and he would go on to make the masterpiece Children of Paradise that touched on some similar ground – but Le Jour Se Leve stands as one of his best achievements.

6. Young Mr. Lincoln (John Ford)
I don’t think that John Ford’s Young Mr. Lincoln has much to do with the real Abraham Lincoln or historical fact, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a wonderful film in its own right. Henry Fonda, who looks nothing like Lincoln by the way, does capture the nobility and small town folksiness associated with him however. He is a young lawyer in Springfield, who stops the lynching of two men accused of murder by telling the townsfolk that he needs them as his first clients. But Lincoln believes they are innocent and fights hard for them – eventually climaxing in a kind of Perry Mason like confession at the last minute. What I love about the movie though is that it is never quite as simple as its surface appears – Fonda’s Lincoln is more complex than he appears – a great man before he became great – a man with the ability still to be happy, before history will come crashing down on him and make the depressive he was in later life. The movie really isn’t about the court case at all – that simply provides a plot for Ford to allow him to explore Lincoln in more depth than we usually see people like him portrayed. John Ford made three films in 1939 – Drums Along the Mohawk, Stagecoach and this one – and while the other two are probably more famous, Young Mr. Lincoln is his masterpiece of the year. And it is a film that belongs near the top of any list of Ford’s best films.

5. Ninotchka (Ernst Lubitsch)
Ninotchka is one of the greatest comedies of the 1930s – a film directed by Ernst Lubitsch, who could always be counted on to deliver great comedies, and written by Billy Wilder and Charles Brackett, who of course would continue to make great comedies for decades to come. The film stars Greta Garbo is her greatest role as the title character – a super serious Soviet government worker sent to Paris after three of her colleagues, who went there to sell some jewels from the previous empire to support the Soviet state got sucked into the decadence of the West. Melvyn Douglas plays a Count, who has been hired by a former Russian Duchess to try and stop the sale of her jewels. At first, he is just playing her, but gradually the two fall in love. The film is a grand romance, but more than anything it is a comedy that pokes fun of Stalinist Russian mercilessly. The one liners run fast and furious (my favorite: “The last mass trials were a great success. There will be fewer, but better, Russians”). The film works because both Douglas and Garbo are at the top of their games – they play off each other brilliantly, Garbo showing a flair for comedy that few thought she had. One of my favorite comedies of all time.

4. The Wizard of Oz (Victor Fleming)
There are some movies that imprint themselves on your mind as a child and then never let go. The Wizard of Oz is a movie like that. It is a film that taps into some deeper seeded insecurity inside all children – the fear of getting lost, stranded away from home, with your parents unable to find you. It is about growing up and realizing that sooner or later, you’re on your own. It is, of course, also a glorious fantasy with wonderful musical numbers, great costumes, make-up, art direction and bold, bright colors that still look amazing today. The film is darker, scarier than most children’s movies today would even dare to attempt, let alone succeed at. And in Judy Garland it has the perfect heroine for the story – not because she is bold and brassy – but because she was exactly the opposite – vulnerable and scared. It is a film in which at least four different directors had a hand in shooting (among them George Cukor and King Vidor), but it feels like a solid, unified work. The film remains a classic not just because of its story and characters – although they have become as iconic as any screen characters in history – but because it taps into something deeper, darker and scarier – and yes more serious – than almost any other “kids” movie in history. That it retains that power over 70 years later is remarkable.

3. Gone with the Wind (Victor Fleming)
Gone with the Wind is one of the most popular films in movie history – beloved my pretty much every woman (including my mom) that has ever seen it. It is not a perfect film – you can tell that there were two different directors on the film, and that the first half directed by George Cukor is a little better, a little more intimate than the epic finale. But really, who I am to complain? Vivien Leigh gives one of the greatest of all screen performances as Scarlett O’Hara, the spunky heroine of the film who doesn’t quite realize that she should not be in love with the wussy Leslie Howard when she has the ultimate man’s man in Clark Gable’s Rhett Butler (Gable was never more charming by the way). The film still has the ability to sweep you up in its grand, epic Civil War romance – even if it has become dated it some of its attitudes (that Hattie McDaniel was able to create such a three dimensional character out of Mammy is perhaps one of the films greatest achievements. Gone with the Wind is beloved for a reason – it really is as good as everyone says it is.

2. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (Frank Capra)
In our cynical times, especially when it comes to politics, Frank Capra’s Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is a movie shares at least a little of that cynicism, even if it gives a happy ending to the proceedings. James Stewart gives one of the best performances of his career as a Boy Scout leader who is picked by the governor of his state to fill their vacant Senate seat. The governor thinks of Smith as little more than a country bumpkin who will be easy to manipulate – and sure enough when he gets to town, he is immediately taken under the wing of another Senator – Claude Rains – who seems so nice, but is actually corrupt (although, he at least still has a conscience). But Mr. Smith surprises everyone – he is smarter, and more honest, than people in Washington are used to seeing. When Rains and his minions try and discredit him, he takes to the floor of the Senate for a filibuster – one of the most famous scenes in screen history. Politics may not actually work like this, but wouldn’t we all like to believe that it could?

1. The Rules of the Game (Jean Renoir)
Yes, in a year that has been referred to as the greatest in Hollywood history, I had to choose a French movie as the best. That shouldn’t be all that surprising since I am a huge fan of Jean Renoir, and The Rules of the Game is undoubtedly his masterpiece. The film was reviled upon its initial release in France, and banned when the Nazis invaded, but has gone on to become one of the most critically acclaimed films in history – in many polls it ranks second to only Citizen Kane. Renoir’s film is about the upper class, who spends all of their timing playing at being joyful, and the lower class that tries to do the same thing. It takes place at a country home over a long weekend – when many people play at having affairs, but don’t actually have them. They seem to take more joy in chasing the objects of their affection than actually getting them – more joy in sneaking off for secret rendezvous’ than what they may actually do when they do get away. The cast is massive, the subplots nearly countless, and it is all captured by Renoir’s seemingly weightless camera. The film is shot almost entirely in deep focus, and we can often see the subplots playing out in the background, and more important things are happening up front. Only a few of the people in the movie actually play by the rules – the rest seemingly ignore them, and that will lead to tragic consequences. It is easy to see why many French critics on the eve of war didn’t like the film – it portrayed its citizens as idiots who are ignoring the outside world as it comes crumbling down around them. The Rules of the Game belongs near the top of any list of the greatest films ever made.

Just Missed The Top 10: Drums Along the Mohawk (John Ford), Goodbye Mr. Chips (Sam Wood), The Roaring Twenties (Raoul Walsh).

Notable Films Missed: Dark Victory (Edmund Goulding), Love Affair (Leo McCarey), Midnight (Mitchell Liesen), My Apprenticeship (Mark Donskoi), Of Mice and Men (Lewis Milestone), The Story of the Late Chrysanthemums (Kenji Mizoguchi).

Oscar Winner – Best Picture & Director: Gone with the Wind (Victor Flemming)
It is nearly impossible to argue against Gone with the Wind winning the best picture Oscar – it is arguably the most popular film in history, and the best film of the year – The Rules of the Game – wasn’t released in America during the course of the year (not that it would have been nominated anyway, but that’s beside the point). It is perhaps the grandest American epic in history – a film that romanticizes the South sure, but also captures your heart. The win for Flemming as director is much less defensible however – not because the film isn’t well directed (it is), but because by most accounts George Cukor directed roughly half the damn film, and Flemming was little more than David O. Selznick’s lackey (that is why, even though he is the credited director of this and The Wizard of Oz, two of the most popular films in history, he is never mentioned amongst the best directors ever). But whatever – Gone with the Wind is a great movie, and it really did deserve the Oscars it won – even if I would have chosen something else.

Oscar Winner – Best Actor: Robert Donat, Goodbye Mr. Chips
Robert Donat was a wonderful actor, and he really is quite good in Goodbye Mr. Chips. But when you consider he beat out James Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and Clark Gable in Gone with the Wind – two of the most iconic of all screen performances – you really have to wonder if he really deserved to win. Donat’s win in part came because the previous year they decided to give Spencer Tracy his second Oscar for his sympathetic priest in Boys Town, instead of to Donat for The Citadel, so they decided to make up for that snub this year (much like they did the following year, giving Stewart the Oscar for The Philadelphia Story, ignoring the fact that Cary Grant was the real male lead in that film). As far as the movie itself goes, I have always preferred the darker visions of English boarding school life – The Browning Version or The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie for example – the Mr. Chips’ sentimentality. That isn’t to say the film, or the performance, isn’t good – but neither are great.

Oscar Winner – Best Actress: Vivien Leigh, Gone with the Wind
It really is impossible to argue against this award. Vivien Leigh’s Scarlett O’Hara is one of the most infamous of all screen performances – defiant, sexy, sensitive, strong, Leigh played them all over the course of the 4 hour epic. The story is hers, and we rarely leave her side for the entire running time of the film – and she captivates us in every scene. I know that some women idolize O’Hara – but I’ve always seen her as a bit of a bitch – but in a good way (I certainly am not one of those people who believe that she’ll get back together with Rhett when the movie ends – he has finally stood up to her and walked out, and I don’t think he’s looking back). Leigh would go onto to play an even greater Southern belle in Blanche DuBois (at least in my opinion), and it’s these two performances that guarantee her immortality. As long as people watch movies, they’ll watch Leigh’s Scarlett.

Oscar Winner – Best Supporting Actor: Thomas Mitchell, Stagecoach
I for one am glad that Thomas Mitchell won an Oscar – and for a Ford western at that. Mitchell was part of Ford’s stock company of actors, making God knows how many films with him over the years. His performance as the drunken doctor in Stagecoach is hilarious, and at times more than that, but I don’t think it really constitutes his best work. Hell, considering he also played Scarlett O’Hara’s father in Gone with the Wind, and a pilot in Only Angels Have Wings, I’m not even sure if this was the best performance he gave this year! But Mitchell was a wonderful character actor at a time when they really were important, and yet too often overlooked. So I’m happy he won this one.

Oscar Winner – Best Supporting Actress: Hattie McDaniel, Gone with the Wind
Hattie McDaniel’s win for Gone with the Win was historic because she became the first African American to ever win an Oscar. But her win is more than just political – her Mamie is a life force in the movie – perhaps the only person who is not intimidated by Scarlett, and unafraid to tell her how she really feels. I will admit that I do find it a little strange that McDaniel is so damn happy to be a slave, but she played the part she was given, and did a wonderful job with it. More often than not, McDaniel was relegated to the background in her movies – you rarely take notice of her because she’s always playing “the help”. She has 96 credits listed on IMDB, and I bet you half of them she was billed as “Maid” or some other nameless servant. She built a solid resume during the 1930s, but after Gone with the Wind she rarely got any decent roles anymore. She left her Oscar to Howard University when she died in 1952 – but the Oscar went missing during the race riots of the 1960s, and has never been found. She was wonderful in Gone with the Wind, and I wish she had been given more a chance to act in her life. She truly did deserve this Oscar.