Movies That Could Qualify as Antiques and Why They Stood the Test of Time

In February two things happened that allowed me to delve a little further than I had previously into the great world of classic and foreign films. The first thing was that TCM was playing the past’s best Oscar nominated movies non stop all month, so I just set my DVR to record everything I could. The second thing was that I got a library card to my local Austin Public Library.

Sidenote: Holy shit, have you been to a library lately? I mean, you walk into the place and it doesn’t look any different than it used to. Shelves of books with protective plastic and the kind of random eccentricity that screams “purely donated.” But then you get a card and they tell you that they have 80 locations in your city and you can borrow and return to any location as well as go through an online catalog and request something get sent to your local branch free of charge. They have e-book’s too, so you can just rent books straight from your Kindle. They let you keep everything for three weeks with very loose renewal policies and you can have five movies and some ungodly number of books at a time. I don’t know if this is just another testament to how sweet Austin is or if every library is like this now, but I urge you go get yourself a card. Libraries are not worth forgetting about.

Anyways, back to the point at hand. With my new super-powered library card and the little red light ensuring me movies are being recorded non stop, I took some time in the last two months to watch some movies that I had never had the chance to watch before. I’ve decided to choose some highlights for this post, and those were:

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington directed by Frank Capra in 1939

Casablanca directed by Michael Curtiz in 1942

North by Northwest directed by Alfred Hitchcock in 1959

On the Waterfront directed by Elia Kazan in 1954

The African Queen directed by John Huston in 1951

Ikiru directed by Akira Kurosawa in 1952

Scandal also directed by Akira Kurosawa in 1950

The 400 Blows directed by Francois Truffaut in 1959

Port of Call directed by Ingmar Bergman in 1948
This is, for all intents and purposes, a random list. Beyond all being made over 50 years ago these movies share little in common with each other outside of a few actors or directors doing double duty on this list. Another trait they all share is that I really enjoyed all of them, which also shouldn’t be surprising since I chose these movies off of a slightly bigger list of movies I watched in the last two months. But there’s a reason I liked them beyond seeing them under the impression that they would be classics, and there’s a reason I wrangled them all together for this post. But before I get into that, a few short words about these movies.

Mr Smith
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington- Already having been a fan of Capra as many probably are, I was able to sit down and watch what has become my favorite movie from him. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington follows simple Mr. Smith, a hardworking and honest young man who is thrust into the position of a state Senator after a quick and exposition heavy opening sequence. The conflict arises when his honesty and determination to do good clashes with his fellow Senator’s plans to use their position of power to profit. It’s a great look at our Legislative process and Jimmy Stewart is as likable as ever.

Annex - Bogart, Humphrey (Casablanca)_10

Casablanca- Everyone has to see it for the first time at some point, right? It’s funny when you watch a movie that so many movies since have borrowed from and so many pop culture references based on. For example, I had no idea before watching this movie that Out Cold (2001) is practically a remake of Casablanca. Humphrey Bogart was at some career highs for coolness here, and that’s saying something, while the story was as touching and exciting as I would have hoped a movie that tops so many lists would be.


North By Northwest- Another oft referenced movie. I’m sure you’ve seen a reenactment of the crop dusting plane scene in at least five different places and the surprise ending is so worn out by now that any fifteen year old could watch it and say, “Saw that coming.” But there was enough Hitchcockian camera use and enjoyable acting from Cary Grant to keep anyone interested. In North by Northwest our protagonist finds himself the target of a spy conspiracy due to a simple misunderstanding. The way information is revealed to the viewer is really well done and the story is as intriguing as it is well acted.


On the Waterfront- Hailed as one of Brando’s best performances, I can’t say I loved the movie overall as much as I hoped I would but I can say the story and the acting were brilliant enough to warrant another view in the near future. Brando really did carry this one on his shoulders and he never crumbled under the pressure. Several scenes caught me by surprise with how emotionally invested I was getting and his character was so well written that the movie around him could have been much less than it was and still be great.

The African Queen- Probably my least favorite on this list, but an epic tale well worth your time nonetheless. It felt like an older, lower budget, yet more pure and higher quality version of Titanic. The story wasn’t exactly my cup of tea, but I have never not enjoyed watching Bogart do his thing. A solid film that was maybe not as up my alley as some others on this list.


Ikiru- Having been on a mission to delve further into Kurosawa’s rabbit hole ever since I saw Yojimbo last year I was delighted to find that my Library carries several of his movies. Ikiru was the first one I picked up, as it seems the complete opposite of Yojimbo. While Yojimbo was light hearted at times, full of badassery, and had the infinitely cool Toshiro Mifune, Ikiru is a much more character based and deliberately paced work with a much more depressing premise. After finding out he only has a few months to live, a boring government worker tries to find out what it means to live and how best to spend his remaining time. Going much more in depth than I thought it would, this was a great look at not only mortality and the meaning of living but also a wonderful movie about how people perceive you and how your actions are tied to that perception.


Scandal- A great mid point between Ikiru and Yojimbo. While the story isn’t as serious as putting an expiration date on a person, it’s not as light hearted or fantastical as an old samurai story. Scandal is the story of an artist who finds himself the center of a tabloid scandal after being photographed with a beautiful and famous singer. Not willing to accept the slander he becomes one of the few to fight back against the lying tabloid, but his lawyer is dealing with his own problems and is tempted to fight for the other side by desperate men. An apt look into the world of celebrity scandals and tabloids fueling the fire that is still as relevant today as it is entertaining to watch.


The 400 Blows- My first Truffaut movie and one of the better coming of age movies I’ve seen. Following a young boy who goes about being misunderstood, given poor advice, and generally being a kid perceived by the adults in his life as a trouble maker who won’t listen. As we follow the protagonist it becomes painfully obvious to the viewer why he acts out or does what he does, yet to the authority in his life he is just another unreachable youth and that is the real tragedy of this movie. An exercise in empathy and understanding, The 400 Blows is another movie that helps us remember that sometimes problems are easier to see than we think.


Port of Call- Another first but this time for Ingmar Bergman. One of his earlier works and somewhat similar to 400 Blows except that one could be the before story and the other the after story as to how troubled youths are dealt with and processed in society. Following a suicidal young woman who falls for a sailor that doesn’t know about her institutionalized past, Port of Call focuses on not only the relationship they build but the many ways in which society puts restrictions on our protagonist due to the state of mental health their very institutions imposed on her. I remember applauding Dirty Dancing after having seen it for being a movie that dealt with real issues like abortion, yet Port of Call comes in handling that and other disturbing events 40 years before and does it with great reverence.

So what do these movies have in common? And not just these movies, but movies from the larger sample of classics and foreign films that went beyond their own borders? What makes a story great, what makes it timeless? The answer is simple, relatability. The problems proposed by these movies, whether it be the troubles of a misunderstood youth or the pain that comes with not being able to be with the one you love, skewed public perception or a battle of the few honest against the many greedy, or being a pawn in something larger that you aren’t allowed to understand, these are stories that will always be relevant. They not only depict the time and place in which they happened to perfection but they also show us that no matter the time nor the place these are problems that don’t have real answers and will always be present in our lives as long as we feel.

The other day I saw a question posted to /r/movies that asked why we loved movies. Why, above all other art forms and ways to spend our time, why it was movies that we chose to watch and analyze and practically fetish over. And I thought about it for a while. I thought about all the ways movies have steered my personality or all of the moments I’ve been able to watch over and over and all of the props I wished I had simply because someone filmed them and how much I would stupidly be willing to pay for them. And that’s all great as to why movies entertain me, and why they are so accessible to everyone. But that’s not why I love them, or more importantly, why they are worth watching.

Movies are simply the most easily consumable form of storytelling, but no matter how good your movie looks or how interestingly you used a new filming technique, in the end the mark of quality in my eyes is in the storytelling and character. And the reason is because storytelling is how we as people learn to empathize and tolerate those around us. Listening to a story from the perspective of someone else reminds us for a moment that everyone around us is a main character in their own life and everything they do is the result of a lifetime’s worth of experience, and not just actions meant to affect you. The more stories we see, the more situations we see people other than ourselves react to, and the more we have to question our own morals and actions due to what we see on screen or read in a book, the more we learn to be accepting of other’s and their actions. And I think that is not only the real reason we all watch movies but also why the above movies were donned classics by those before me and still stand the test of time today.

The Thing (1982) Vs. The Thing (2011)

215px-ThingPoster MV5BMTMxMjI0MzUyNl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNjc1NzE5NQ@@._V1_SY317_CR0,0,214,317_


I have watched a lot of movies that were recommended to me by my fellow redditors and personal friends so far, but I was sure to knock out some John Carpenter first because I knew I would dig it.

And I was right. I watched They Live (1988) which was fucking awesome and then I watched The Thing (1982) and it was probably the best horror film I’ve ever seen, though I will admit now I’m not a huge fan of the genre. Anyways, here’s a quick list of things I liked about it.

  • The sense of isolation was strong and added a lot to the overall tone.
  • The effects were amazing. It literally made me angry that CGI is the norm now instead of physical effects.
  • Kurt Russel and Kieth David
  • Paced really well. It was slow and deliberate, but not boring in any sense.
  • Just the idea of a group of isolated men dealing with this premise was fascinating to me. It was a beautiful mix between cat and mouse, witch hunts, and a majority war. They were looking for The Thing, they couldn’t trust each other, and at any moment any number of them could have been it and if the majority had ever ruled that would have been it. What’s more is the fact that they were all men added a savage kind of survival of the fittest aspect. It was perfectly balanced.
  • Blood test scene was incredible.

Okay, so I dug it. Then I remembered that they made a remake, or as I would later find out, a prequel. And I loved it so much I decided to watch it right away. Now, before I go further I want to explain that I don’t really go into movies with a negative mindset. Even remakes have an okay track record with me, but there was something about this remake in particular that bugged me. It seemed like everything I liked about the first one was changed.

First off, let’s talk about prequels and remakes. IMO, remakes happen. There is too much financial safety in familiar franchises to ignore it. And while people often argue that remakes and reboots can hurt the source material, the fact is most of those people are the same ones buying tickets to see the remakes so they can determine whether or not they like it. At that point it doesn’t matter if they like it, the ticket is sold and that’s honestly what Hollywood cares about. So, remakes happen. Kind of like unplanned pregnancies. But also like unplanned pregnancies, they don’t have to be the worst thing in the world. There is a way to do a remake respectfully.

There are a few ways you can do remakes right. One way is to take the source material in a new direction, put a new spin on things. Star Trek and 21 Jump Street did this really well. While Star Trek fans may argue that the 2011 reboot didn’t stay true to the themes of the show it was mimicking, they weren’t able to argue that it was a bad movie. Because it wasn’t, it was really good. 21 Jump Street also took a show and made it into a comedy. But it was a really good comedy. It was funny, self-aware, and referenced itself constantly.

Another way to do remakes is to highlight and accentuate what is good about the source material. Kind of like The A-Team did. I don’t think a lot of people saw that, but it was really good for a summer flick. It was pretty much The A-Team. The actors did a great job staying true to the source characters and just like the show it was bad ass. Explosions and fucking tanks falling through the sky shooting shit, it highlighted what was awesome about The A-Team, raised the stakes by black listing them, and paid respect to itself as a franchise. Kind of wish it got a sequel…

MEANWHILE, BACK ON TOPIC- Obviously The Thing would not have worked as a comedy, or a character study, or a rom com, or whatever to the obvious choice would be to go the second route. Highlight what’s good, bring it to the forefront. Unfortunately, I think they pretty much messed up what was good about the original. Let’s look at my list again.

  • Sense of isolation. I was disappointed that there was a scene in the remake that took place away from Antarctica and in society. It wasn’t that apparent, because the scene took place in a lab so there were no unnecessary people in the scene, but one of the things that made the 1982 version so strong in this area was the fact that we never left the base. It wasn’t an option. The scene in the lab wasn’t even really that important. All information conveyed there could have been conveyed in a well written dialogue throughout the beginning. Also, if you compare the two movies during scenes where the characters are outside, the 1982 characters would have frozen hair and show little more than their mouths and eyes under their coats. The remake had characters sweating outside with no visible frost and the storm wasn’t nearly as strong. If you watch the end of both movies, the weather outside is unbearable, for the last half of the movie anything filmed outside is a wide shot of someone bundled up and running to a different building. In the 2011 version there are often expositions taking place outside in what is seemingly pretty cold weather. There is even a long scene at the end between the two main characters that takes place outside and you wouldn’t have guessed there was any major storm, just some light snowfall.
  • Effects. Were CGI. That’s really all I have to say here. I mean, according to some FAQs they used physical models and effects for the scenes, but edited CGI in when it didn’t look natural. Maybe I’m an asshole but I feel like if you’re remaking a movie that is remembered for its achievement in physical effects shouldn’t you also put some time into that area? There were some nice shots of physical effects but the fact that they mixed the two made the CGI stand out like a sore thumb, and it just seems disrespectful to the snob in me.
  • Obviously you can’t have Kurt Russel and Kieth David. So why did they try? The lead role was a woman, and they said they chose a woman so as not to draw parallels between her and MacReady, but if that’s the case why did they have another character to draw the parallels? Joel Edgerton was a helicopter pilot, like MacReady, with a black friend, like Childs, who took a leading role once the shit went down, like MacReady, and there was even a scene where him and the other guy were accused of being a Thing and it pretty much exactly mirrored the scene where MacReady gets back from his hut and everything thinks he’s a Thing so he gets the flamethrower out. All I’m saying is, if you can’t get Kurt Russel and Kieth David, don’t write them roles anyways.
  • Pacing was still pretty good, actually. Besides my complaints when compared to the original, this was still a pretty entertaining flick. I always knew what was going on, and it wasn’t boring. If this were a standalone movie it would have been pretty good.
  • Okay, so I’m not trying to be sexist here, but I really don’t think adding women to the cast was a great idea. As mentioned before, I liked the almost savage idea of a bunch of men growing more hostile and less trustful. There’s almost a Lord of the Flies element to it. Now, I got nothing against Mary Elizabeth Winstead. She really knocked out the Ramona Flowers role and I’m sure she’s a wonderful lady, but when you add a woman to this equation all you’re going to do is create a weird dynamic in a movie like this. I mean, MacReady took control because he was the most bad ass and least hot headed. When she took control it was odd. I mean, at first they listened to her because she was the PMK (person most knowledgeable) about The Thing. But once it came time for the blood testing, I had trouble believing that all of these angry, afraid, hostile men were taking orders from a woman. There’s an implication that there is still social etiquette there when the point of the story is that all of that is broken down with the trust. I had a hard time believing no one tried to stab her like Clark (The beardie guy everyone thought was a Thing) tried to stab MacReady, and the reason wasn’t because no one wanted to stab her, it’s because if they tried she would have gotten stabbed.
  • Blood Test scene. Oh, wait. There was no blood test scene. Now, obviously since this is technically a prequel they didn’t want to do the tests the same way, but for some reason they still framed it the same way, put it in the same section of the movie, and had the same outcome. Some people just died, let’s do this test, then they expose one and it attacks. But the test was so stupid. I mean, it wasn’t stupid in the way that it wouldn’t work, it was stupid in the way that the Blood Test from the original was a definitive way to find out. The fillings test only separated humans from possible humans. I also had trouble believing she couldn’t come up with a test like MacReady’s. I mean, let’s be fair. She was a paleontologist. He was a pilot. But for some reason he came up with the blood test, and she shined a flashlight in people’s mouths.

The last thing I want to talk about is prequels. Take a look at this list of prequels. You may notice that most were not very good, though there are exceptions. The problem with prequels is we know exactly what’s going to happen, and ultimately that’s why we watch movies. I didn’t know The Thing was a prequel until I started watching it, but once I did I lost almost all interest. I mean, already I know that two of them and the dog as The Thing survive. Movie over. If any humans would have escaped the 1982 version would have brought it up. Also, what was up with the ambiguous ending in the prequel? I mean, you are to assume she dies I guess, but why not just show it? She was perfectly fine when the movie ended and that was honestly the most baffling part of this whole thing. How are you gonna make a movie that explicitly leads directly into an older film and leave a giant loose end? Just seemed sloppy. She could have easily gotten away and while it can be argued that she couldn’t find help before the events of the original Thing film happened there was literally no reason to leave her alive. Just another example of a movie that is afraid to kill its protagonist even if the movie demands it, and I find that really sad.



80′s and 90′s Movie Challenge- Point Break, They Live, Brazil, and 12 Monkeys

Last weekend I made a point to knock out some of the movies on my epic movie challenge.

I decided to begin with some directors I like, or knew I would like. Last weekend I watched:

Point Break

They Live

The Thing

12 Monkeys


So the directors I focused on for this portion were John Carpenter, Terry Gilliam, and I took a look into Kathryn Bigelow’s past with Point Break because I enjoyed Zero Dark Thirty so much. Now, the super observant of you may notice that They Live and The Thing were not on the list given to me by Mel, but they came strongly recommended from some movie forum sites I spend most of my worthless time on.

I have to say, I thoroughly enjoyed all of these movies. First I want to talk about the John Carpenter films. I watched They Live first because it was made the year I was born. Literally that was pretty much the only reason I started with it, and I loved it. They Live was easily one of the more entertaining films I have seen from the 80′s. It’s got everything. Conspiracies, aliens, gun fights, alley brawls, sunglasses, witty catch phrases, and Keith David. I really loved the obvious theme of mass control and I thought the transitions between the world they see when they are asleep and the world they see with the sunglasses was not only well done and eye opening but also kind of comedic. It almost makes me want to decorate a room in my house with posters that say OBEY and REPRODUCE. I also really loved the ending, one recurring theme in the two Carpenter films I watched was that the protagonist died in the end in order to save humanity and I have to say, I really don’t think enough movies are willing to kill their protagonists anymore. It’s almost like everyone feels cheated once the person they’ve been rooting for dies, regardless of why they died. It is definitely something I would like to see more of. I have even heard harsh criticisms of films like Layer Cake (2004, I think?) because the movie ends with the death of a main character, even though a simple analysis of the film would show that the end was necessary to the story. Studios (and by correlation, people) in general seem to care less about themes and narrative arcs as they do about the possibility for a sequel now and I think that’s really sad.

I also watched The Thing and I thought it was probably the greatest horror film I have ever seen. That said, I loved it so much that I watched the remake from 2011 and I have a lot to say about comparing them, so I’m just going to put up a separate blog post about that one.

Moving on, Terry Gilliam is an interesting fellow, isn’t he? Filmmakers like him interest me, filmmakers that have such a unique style that it becomes instantly recognizable, kind of damning the point of being unique. 12 Monkeys and Brazil were interesting and I thoroughly enjoyed them, but I couldn’t help but notice that Gilliam’s bureaucratic and steampunky ideas of the future were so similar while they were also so different. 12 Monkeys takes place in a future where people are prisoners underground being held in a system while the “doctors” and “scientists” in the higher echelon try and find out who released the virus that killed five billion people by sending people back in time to collect information. 12 Monkeys had a really great take on time travel. I loved how the themes of undeserving authority ran rampant in this film. The people in charge in the future were hardly qualified to do so (as the last line implies, “I’m in insurance.”) and because of it they sent prisoners back thousands of years instead of to the 90′s and didn’t even have a thorough understanding of how their time travel worked. It was a great commentary on authority and it was also told in an interesting kind of way that allowed the viewer to understand time travel better than the characters in the movie did by the end.


Brazil, on the other hand, takes place in a future where everything seems to have been swallowed up by corporate bureaucracy. There is a central company that controls the well-being of the citizens and to get anything done you have to fill out several forms in triplicate and get them stamped by the correct people. It’s almost like the character of Hermes from Futurama was inspired by this film. My point is, though, that while both movies show a different depiction of the future, both thematically and physically, I couldn’t help but notice it was the same director. I can’t quite put my finger on it but you can definitely tell when Gilliam is behidn the camera. Something about the relentlessly foggy sets that seem to take away from all the colors he purposely includes is not my personal favorite idea of cinematography, but at the same time I love the ideas his films convey and the fact that he has such a unique perspective on what the future might be like. That said, I’ve read some interviews of his and despite him being the one who translated one of my favorite books by my definitely favorite author (Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas by Hunter S. Thompson) to the screen almost perfectly I have to say, the guy sounds like a majorly pretentious dickhole. Sorry.


a brazil criterion single 720 BRAZIL-4


Point Break. I don’t think I can convey how much I enjoyed and also was very critical of Point Break. On one hand, it was awesome. Bodie was the most interesting and endearing character I’d seen on screen in a while and the plot, while sounding hilariously bad, was actually very well presented. Along with a good setting and some good characters, I was able to see Bigelow behind the camera. I mean, you could definitely tell it was an early work of hers, but her flair for creating tension was there. The scene in which Bodie was explaining to Johnny Utah that they had his girlfriend and what their plan was had the Bigelow seal of tension that is getting her such critical acclaim these days, along with pretty much every scene following the foot chase (which was brilliantly shot) had that layer of tension of who knows what.


Technically it was a very sound movie. Unfortunately, and I really hate ragging on actors and I have a lot of respect for this actor in particular but, Keanu Reeves was just awful in the movie. I have heard people argue that he was great because “he was playing an FBI agent playing a surfer, he wasn’t supposed to seem natural” but I don’t buy it. Keanu Reeves was unnatural almost the entire film. It sounded like he was reading his lines off the page for the first time every single scene. It didn’t ruin the movie, but it was certainly noticeable in almost every scene Keanu was in. Other than that, thoroughly enjoyable. I would call it necessary viewing for the foot chase and skydiving scenes alone.

So far, this challenge is a lot of fun! I can’t wait to see what other cinematic moments I’ve been missing my whole life!



The 80′s and 90′s Movie Challenge- “I came here to watch movies and chew bubblegum. And I’m all out of bubblegum.”




Last week I caused an uproar on Facebook. As a self proclaimed film buff it came as a surprise to many of my friends when I publicly admitted I have never seen Top Gun. I attempted to explain myself, I attempted to tell them all that I was born in ’88 and while I was introduced to my love of film at a young age there was still about a decade of film history I was fuzzy on because I was so young. I took several film classes in college, but they only dealt with classics and modern film. There was no film class for what is arguably the most awesome time in American cinema, which was the 80′s and 90′s.


Luckily, rather than discount my opinions on film from that day on, a good friend of mine and fellow cinephile compiled a list of must see films from between ’85 and ’98. The list ended up having about 268 films on it, or about 15 from each year. Luckily I was familiar with almost all of them, but after taking off the ones that I had seen enough time to know by heart and leaving only films I hadn’t seen, hadn’t seen all the way through, or hadn’t seen in over a decade there was a slightly less daunting count of just shy of 200.

This is going to take a long time but I am going to try and knock out all of these movies before 2014, so I have about 11 months left. 20 movies a month is child’s play for me, but adding those movies to the new movies I want to keep up with as well as the plethora of good TV coming back (Walking Dead, Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Boardwalk Empire, and so on…) we will see how this turns out. Either way, every week I will be making a post discussing the movies from this list I watched that week and why I think they are on this list.


Here are the just shy of 200 (Fucking try and get me to count them again, I dare you) movie list.




Pee Wee’s Big Adventure



The Color Purple

Out of Africa



The Jewel of the Nile

Kiss of the Spider Woman

The Legend of Billie Jean

The Return to Oz

A Room with a View


Top Gun


Crocodile Dundee

Blue Velvet


One Crazy Summer

Pretty in Pink

American Tale

Hannah and Her Sisters


Peggy Sue Got Married

Sid and Nancy


Good Morning, Vietnam

Dirty Dancing

Last Emperor

Wall Street

Empire of the Sun


The Princess Bride



The Great Outdoors


Killer Klowns fom Outer Space

The New Adventures of Pippi Longstocking

Stand and Deliver

The Unbearable Lightness of Being


Born on the Fourth of July

The Little Mermaid

My Left Foot


Driving Miss Daisy

Sex, Lies and Videotape

The Abyss

The ‘Burbs

Do the Right Thing

Drugstore Cowboy

The Fabulous Baker Boys

Gleaming the Cube


Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

Major League

See No Evil, Hear No Evil


When Harry Meet Sally



Total Recall

Dances with Wolves




Dick Tracy

La Femme Nikita



Mo’ Better Blues

Pump Up the Volume

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles



City Slickers

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves

Boyz in the Hood


Don’t Tell Mom the Babysitter’s Dead

Jungle Fever

My Girl

My Own Private Idaho

Naked Lunch

New Jack City

Nothing But Trouble


What About Bob?


Basic Instinct

A Few Good Men

Bram Stoker’s Dracula


Scent of a Woman

the Crying Game


The Bodyguard

Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Cool World

Glengarry Glen Ross


The Last of the Mohicans

Malcolm X

Raising Cain


Single White Female



Sleepless in Seattle

Schindler’s List

The Fugitive

The Age of Innocence


Falling Down

Fire in the Sky

In the Name of the Father


The Piano



Interview with the Vampire

Four Weddings and Funeral

The Crow

Death and the Maiden

The Hudsucker Proxy

Immortal Beloved

Legends of the Fall

The Ref




Apollo 13

Waterworld (most expensive flop ever)

Dead Man Walking

Il Postino


City of Lost Children

Dead Presidents

Doom Generation

Empire Records

Four Rooms



Leaving Las Vegas

Things to do in Denver When You’re Dead

Twelve Monkeys

Welcome to the Dollhouse


Jerry MaGuire


The English Patient

The People vs. Larry Flynt

2 Days in the Valley

American Buffalo

Citizen Ruth

Crash (Cronenberg)

Pusher (Denmark)

Romeo & Juliet (Luhrmann)



The Ice Storm


Cube (worst movie ever made)

Event Horizon


Waiting for Guffman


Saving Private Ryan

Shakespeare in Love


Can’t Hardly Wait

Dark City

The Opposite of Sex




Run Lola Run

The Zero Effect