Re:View - Back to the Future

 

Mike and Jay look back at "Back to the Future."

The Night Before (1988)

 

Did you know there's an 80's romantic comedy with Aunt Becky and Keanu Reeves as the two leads? This was news to me.

In "The Night Before," a guy (Reeves) wakes up on the street in the bad part of town, with no memory of what's just happened. He seems to be disheveled, though wearing a tuxedo, and has no money and no car. How did he get here? Steadily, memories of the night's events come back to him. He's supposed to be at the prom with a date (Aunt Becky) who doesn't like him, she's dating him because she lost a bet. He recalls that he and his date took a series of wrong turns which lead them both to the ghetto where their innocence gets them into increasingly more trouble.

This is one of those comedies where things go from bad to worse, to even worse, up until the end where things magically end happily. This is "After Hours" meets "Judgment Night" meets "The Hangover." It's not bad but not my cup of tea. The main high point of the movie is that Keanu is still in his "Ted 'Theodore' Logan" phase of acting, which is just the best.

The Secret Identity of Jack the Ripper (1988)

 

In a previous post, I mentioned it was the exact anniversary of Jack the Ripper's first murder. I would like to correct that, or adjust that slightly. London in 1888 was full of murders and there is some disagreement about what the official Jack the Ripper murders are and which are not, so the day of the first one is a matter of dispute.

But also in that post, I mentioned the possibility of tracking down a documentary from the 1980s which I saw as a child and which somewhat haunted me. The above video is that documentary, in full, on youtube, not to be confused with the TV miniseries "Jack the Ripper" also from 1988.

The first surprising thing about it is this: it's actually quite good. I was expecting to post this as an ironic joke but I'm posting it now as a legitimately entertaining video.

A special TV event from 1988 where a group of experts is going to determine who the real Jack the Ripper is sounds like it should have aged poorly and come off as a joke in network tv cliches. That's fully what I was expecting but this isn't that. It is somewhat dated, for sure, but it's actually well-made, compelling and holds up quite well. Yes, some of it is dated - I love the "going live" to London for no real reason as well as the solemn and pointless studio audience. But those are minor details.

One of the points on which I think the documentary is laughable is probably a matter of controversy. I may be in the wrong, and call me an uneducated rube but am I supposed to believe that even though we haven't the slightest clue who Jack the Ripper was, the FBI can tell that he came from a broken home and had a domineering mother, etc., etc? I try to keep an open mind but it sounds like a parody of real investigation. Not buying your Freudian nonsense. Do better, FBI. (Is it "do better" or "be better?")

My second surprise is this: I watched this as a child and can't fathom how. It starts with a viewer discretion warning, there's rape, prostitution, murder, Satanism... a ghastly crime scene photo (fortunately for my child-self it was an 80s television low-resolution version, the modern one is horrific)... syphillis... suicide... and more murders... that I would see anything like this makes no sense at all. NO sense. I was thinking maybe there was an edited version but any info about where and how it aired is hard to come by. The internet can't even agree whether it was for British television or American. I can't explain the circumstances by which I saw this - you solve a mystery you open a new one.

The host of the program is Peter Ustinov who. is having definite. trouble reading his. cue cards. I immediately imagined the Best of the Worst guys laughing that he was drunk or on drugs. He's not slurring and he lived a long while after this so I think he maybe just didn't care. What a coincidence that in the same time of life and in the same location I saw this, I also fell in love with the Disney version of "Robin Hood" in which Ustinov plays Prince John (and King Richard.) I wonder if I recognized the voice as being the same. Doubtful.

Popcorn in Bed - Lethal Weapon

 

8:51 - Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

It's been a long time since I watched, or thought about "Lethal Weapon" but it really is the perfect 80s action movie. I'm watching Murtaugh's wife and thinking, "She looks like Darlene Love." It IS Darlene Love. That's the first time I realized that.

Re:View - The Garbage Pail Kids Movie

When I was a kid there was a certain restaurant that sold Garbage Pail Kids and had a few arcade games and a pinball machine. I remember going there for breakfast and getting a quarter to play the arcade or getting money to buy Garbage Pail Kids. It was so much fun, so exciting.

So that's my memory of GPK. Now the movie on the other hand, I think I was unofficially not allowed to see it. At least that's my memory. So I have no nostalgic connection to the movie whatsoever.

The association of the He-Man movie and this movie is apt. They were both about things that I was obsessed with as a kid but I didn't see either movie until well after the magic had passed. And when I did see these movies, I was still excited for them but subtly or subconsciously aware that they weren't great.

I have The Garbage Pail Kids Movie officially rated as 2/10, which is extremely rare for me. I can't remember the last movie I rated so low. It's almost like it was their goal to make a movie with no redeeming qualities, for some reason. Yeah, I don't get it.

The Munster's Revenge (1981)

 

There is not one, but TWO Munsters movies.

As the movie begins, the Munsters are visiting a wax museum and admiring their own statues. Immediately we're presented with two mysteries. First off, why do they have wax statues in a museum? In the Munsters Universe, they are not famous, as far as I remember. The movie doesn't explain. Secondly, their little boy Eddie who was about 12 in 1966, is still 12 in 1981. I don't get it, are they the same people? Are they not aging? Time travel? The 1966 movie created controversy by replacing the actress who Marilyn in the show and now both Marilyn and Eddie are both different.

So anyways, these wax figures exist but it turns out they're not just wax figures, they're actually robits. The owner of the museum (played by Sid Caesar, who the kids know from nothing) is using science to make the robots go out and commit crime. When witnesses describe the assailants, the police go after the Munsters. Now the family has to prove that they're innocent by convincing the police that it wasn't them, it was evil robot Munsterses.

I don't know the extent, but the premise sounds somewhat similar to "Kiss Meets the Phantom of the Park" which came out in 1978.

The difference between this movie and the last Munsters movie is immediately obvious. Though the canned laughter is still missing, the absence isn't noticeable. This movie has better jokes, more jokes, funnier situations and snappier dialogue. It is still dumb, make no mistake, but it's dumb in the best way possible - it's The Munsters, what do you expect? If you see only one Munsters movie this holiday season, make sure it's "The Munster's Revenge!"

And special recognition to Fred Gwynne's performance as Herman Munster and the character in general. Watching the hulking mass act with naivety and gentleness is a pleasure to watch. He is the quintessential gentle giant. Gwynne was such an enjoyable, talented actor; it was unfortunate that he was typecast, though it's understandable in the sense that he was so good in this role. Either way, I'm glad "My Cousin Vinny" was as big a hit as it was, at least we got that.

Lost Version of Planes, Trains and Automobiles to be Released

 Almost 2 years ago, I shared that there is a 'Lost' version of "Plains, Trains and Automobiles."

That footage has now been found and will be released on Blu-Ray later this year. According to TheHDRoom, the set will include:

Over and hour’s worth of newly discovered never-before-seen deleted and extended scenes from the archives of John Hughes are being packaged on an additional Blu-ray in this set. The 4K disc will house some legacy extras noted below.

• Getting There is Half the Fun: The Story of Planes, Trains and Automobiles
• John Hughes: Life Moves Pretty Fast (2-Part Documentary):
• John Hughes: The Voice of a Generation
• Heartbreak and Triumph: The Legacy of John Hughes
• John Hughes for Adults
• A Tribute to John Candy

The Lost Version of Planes, Trains and Automobiles

 There really aren't many Thanksgiving movies. As a major holiday, it's really underrepresented in movies.

When I think of Thanksgiving in movies, the main one that comes to mind is "Avalon". This one doesn't really translate though because, even though Thanksgiving plays a major part in the movie, it's more of a July 4th movie.

The main one most people think of is "Planes, Trains and Automobiles". It's considered a classic. But it's interesting to learn that another, completely different movie could be made from the footage that John Hughes intended to be included.

Stand By Me

Today I re-watched the film "Stand By Me" and I happened to watch it on the very day that it takes place. I wasn't meaning to do that, it was just a funny coincidence. Technically, it takes place over two days.

It's still a great movie.

I watched it when I was almost as young as the kids in the movie and now I've watched it when I'm about the age of the adult in the movie. I remember being a kid and thinking how sad and unthinkable the ending is. Now that I'm an adult, it's even sadder because it's not unthinkable.

Movie Review: Shoah (1985)

Shoah (1985)

"The hollering and the crying and the shouting which was going over there on, it was impossible. Their cry and their holler was in your ears and your mind for days and days - and at night the same thing. From that howling, you could not sleep a couple night[s] of that. All of a sudden, everything stopped, like by a command."

"Shoah" is a 9 1/2 hour long documentary about the holocaust.

Here, the term "documentary" is stripped of its Ken Burns-like implications. The movie is real, yes, but there is no narrator, there are no historic photos, there is not a second of archival footage, there are almost no historians, there is no chronological re-telling of historical events, there isn't even much chronology at all... This is a movie as a series of interviews with eye witnesses. It's perhaps specifically aimed at those who would deny the history. In countless specific instances it says "Here is a victim, this is them describing things they experienced. Here is a Nazi officer, this is them describing what they did and saw. Here is a citizen who lived near the death camps, this is them describing what they witnessed first-hand."

The film is purposeful and stark. But there are some "stunt" interviews. In one sequence, the director goes to a bar and strikes up a conversation with a bartender there. The bartender does not want to talk on camera. We learn the reason he's being interviewed is because he's a former Nazi who worked in the camps. He does not wish to answer any questions. The "interview" started with innocent questions but he locks up instantly. It's as if he saw the camera and immediately knew what it was really about. I think he was living in constant fear of this very thing for decades.

There are also times when the placement of interviews is suggestive. An interview with a man who visited the Warsaw ghetto shows him recounting the horror in minute detail, clearly still reliving it once again, 35 years later. That interview is immediately followed by an interview with a German official who was partially in charge of the Warsaw ghetto. He says he doesn't remember much from the war period. Then, when the names of people he worked with everyday are read to him, he squints as if straining to remember. When a few dates are read to him, he writes them down so he'll have them.

The horrors of the holocaust might be easier to accept - perhaps - if we could attribute them to a few high-ranking Germans - or even if we could place blame on only the Germans. Some of the most deplorable moments of the film are when ordinary Poles are interviewed and asked how they reacted when Jews were being exterminated in their towns. Sometimes they're even asked what they think of the Jews today. It's evident that anti-Semitism was not limited to one country or one time period. And it's amazing how easily it can be found today - it only takes a few probing questions from some "everyday" people.

The heart of the documentary is obviously the interviews with the Jewish victims. The events they describe are unspeakable but they recount them anyway, many times out of an obligation to history. It struck me how rare crying was. There is crying, certainly, but most of the time they recount the events plainly and without flourish. It's as if there are pains so deep that there is no emotion left, they turn cold. In a way, this is more impactful - the events are presented, the emotion is left to the viewer.

In place of archival footage and photos, the interviews are interspersed with footage of the historical sites today. Overgrown grass, trees, some bricks, these are mostly quiet pauses that allow the viewer to reflect, to absorb, what has come before it. There is one shot though that startled me more than any other I can think of. There is a first-person shot that slowly creeps down the railroad track leading to the entrance to Auschwitz. It's such a simple shot but I don't think a more haunting, more nightmarish shot has ever been devised, or ever will. How could it?

As I said, "Shoah" is a documentary that eschews many of the trappings of conventional documentaries. But there is one holdover: the film begins with a scrolling text introduction. Within only a few seconds, the introduction sets the tone of the entire movie. In essence, the introductory text says... There was a death camp in Poland near the town of Chelmno. 400,000 men, women and children were sent there. Of the 400,000 people, 2 survived.

Movie Review: Field of Dreams (1989)

Field of Dreams (1989)

The problem of male-male affection is a tough one. Boys will stop kissing their dads around 7 or 8 (if they ever did at all). Around 14, it becomes uncomfortable to give their dad a hug. Into adulthood, physical affection will devolve to, but at least stop at, a handshake. Men will rarely examine what their father means to them (or anyone for that matter but especially their fathers) and, even if they do, are the group who's least capable of expressing those feelings.

For most sons (at least in the U.S.) one of the earliest and fondest memories we have is "having a catch with dad". It will be ingrained in their memory forever right next to the smell of grass and the way the hot sun feels. Throwing the baseball is a physical expression of love that never "goes out of style" even if you may stop doing it. The thrower imparts a strong visceral sensation on the catcher but does it indirectly, through the baseball, from the "safe" distance of several yards. And, done in the unassailable name of "sports".

Which brings me to the climax of "Field of Dreams". I will not begin to cry when Kevin Costner asks the simple question, "Hey dad!... Do you want to have a catch?". But that's only because I'm smart enough to start crying a few minutes earlier... in preparation for that line. Because I know it's coming. And I know what comes next. Note the way Ray (Costner) catches the ball and pauses briefly - he knows the exact meaning of that sensation and that moment. Hopefully, we do too.

Ray describes the years he spent estranged with his father: "I wanted to come home but I didn't know how"). We, as the audience, know that time cannot be undone by anyone. Whether the reasons are major or minor, in big ways and small ways, we can never go back home again. The fantasy of the movie allows us to witness one man who is suddenly excepted from that law. Whether that's cathartic or tortuous, it's both perfectly unique and extremely emotional.

9/10.

Super Bowl: Steelers vs. Magnolias

Of course I have an ongoing project to boycott the Super Bowl as long as I don't have a rooting interest (Pre-2011, 2011, 2012). This year, the theme I chose was "chick flicks". But which ones? I tried to think of the two most prominent "chick flicks" of all-time. I debated and discussed it at length with others - and thanks to everyone who contributed! My conclusion, controversial as it may be, was that the two movies at the very top of the list must be "Steel Magnolias" and "Beaches".

That was my decision. Then I called an audible... the third series of "Downton Abbey" and the new episode was airing opposite the Super Bowl anyway so "Beaches" was scrapped. "Downton Abbey" is a fantastic show but as much as I love it, it certainly qualifies for the "feminine" moniker. I feel no shame. As long as John Bates and Anna Smith end up together, everything will be just fine. Also, I hope Lady Edith Crawley finds someone - she's been so unlucky in love! Poor, poor, Lady Edith...

Alright....

Steel Magnolias (1989)

"Steel Magnolias" is about a group of women. These women love each other. They're there for each other - in good times and bad. They gossip, discuss clothes, do their hair and vent about their relationships. In this world, Men do exist - but only barely. Men are a net evil on the world but only marginally... and these women, supporting each other as they are, can persevere past these problems.  Separately, life might be impossible... but together, they know they can make it through. I know everything with them is going to be A-OK... and, oh yeah, the script calls for just one more thing.... BRING ON THE TERMINAL ILLNESS!!!

Given that I've still never seen "Beaches" or "The Lake House", seeing and enjoying "Steel Magnolias" in the theater is my greatest "chick flick cred" achievement. If I listen to the conventional wisdom of society, I shouldn't really enjoy it. But, watching it again, I still really like it. I like dramas where the plot is completely character-driven. I like dramas that follow the characters over a period of many years - showing the full spectrum of life experiences. And the dialogue is real and smartly written. The Lifetime "melodrama" (such as it is) only comprises a small percentage of the movie - most of it is large portions of southern fried comedy - but even so, it is touching. The acting (Shirley MacLaine, Olympia Dukakis, Sally Field, Julia Roberts, Dolly Parton) is absolutely top-notch.

One of the few male actors in the movie is Tom Skerritt who has the unhappy task of informing "the ladies" that Goose died. That guy can't catch a break.

Overall, a really, genuinely good movie. Not earth-shattering, of course, but better than most.

Better Than "The Notebook" / 10.

Movie Review: The Emperor's Naked Army Marches On

The Emperor's Naked Army Marches On (1987)

"You had your way and I had mine. We can't be born together and die together."
"But we all have something in common. We did something terrible."

Kenzo Okuzaki fought for the Japanese in World War II in New Guinea. Even though he survived the war, he found he could not escape it. He decided to devote his life to shouting the truth about the war from the rooftops in order to prevent anything like that from happening again. Early on in the movie we see him driving around in a truck covered in giant billboards that denounce the Emperor, see him being hassled by the police and hear him talk about past arrests without shame.

In this Japanese documentary, we watch Okuzaki investigate the deaths of two of the men who served in his unit. Okuzaki believes they were sentenced to death by their superiors and then executed but the details are unclear. Throughout the film, he shows up unannounced at the homes of the former soldiers and confronts them on camera. One by one details emerge but, like a real life "Rashomon", all perspectives conflict. Were they killed before the war ended or after (when such an execution would be murder)? One says they tried to desert, another says he wasn't there, another says that yes he was. One says the execution was ordered, another says the captain was acting on his own.

When Okuzaki feels the interviewee is not telling the truth, he sometimes gets violent. Not very common to see in a documentary. He brings the surviving relatives of the victims along to increase the pressure to tell the truth. But when the relatives no longer want to participate, he hires actors to play them.

One of the dead soldiers relatives believes her brother was killed in order to be eaten. And that isn't even the most shocking thing that happens.

This is an astounding look at buried pasts, the horrors of war and people's ability to ignore guilt. I can't believe I've lived this long without ever even hearing about this movie. This is a must-see documentary with scene after scene of mind-blowing revelations. More than most other documentaries, it is proof that truth is truly stranger than fiction.

8/10.

Drinkinstein

I'd like to think that my blog can, in some ways, be educational. And so it's extremely tempting to explain the following clip and place it in the proper context. But I will resist that temptation.

Great art stands on its own terms. It should be presented to the viewer unfiltered. It stands above any ability of mine to add or detract.

The observer comes to each piece with their own set of views and experiences, and great art simultaneously reflects and transcends those views and those experiences. The back and forth between the viewer supplying their input and the piece feeding back its own interpretation forms the intimate relationship between the observer and the observed. What kind of a person would I be to try to insert myself into such a relationship?

And so, without further ado, I present to you "Drinkinstein":

Movie Review: Glory (1989)

Glory (1989)


During the American Civil War, an all-black volunteer regiment is formed and leads the battle to take Fort Wagner.

 One of the main traits that identify movie "epics" is the ability to step away from dialogue and allow the pictures and music to convey an emotion. With all the weight of history, this movie features battle scenes that are both sweeping and brutally graphic and a score by James Horner that is, in my opinion, the greatest ever. The cast includes both Morgan Freeman and Denzel Washington. Washington and Andre Braugher give career performances.

The largest criticism I've heard about "Glory" is Matthew Broderick's performance as Col. Shaw. At the time of filming, Broderick was about 26. At the time of the events depicted Shaw was 25. If Broderick appears to be too young and or simply out of his depth, I believe that is precisely the point.

There are so few perfect movies in the world. To me, this is one of them. This is the Nth time I've watched it but there are still very few scenes that don't make my hair stand on end - either from the fear of battle or the welling up of emotion. Transcendent.

10/10.

Movie Review: The Decalogue (1989)

The Decalogue (1989) 

A Polish mini-series, the Decalogue is 10 1-hour films, each dealing with one (or more) of the 10 Commandments. Far from cautionary tales, each film's association with a commandment is often loose and sometimes cryptic. The films explore the murky complexity of ethics in the modern world where "the right thing to do" becomes a slippery, sometimes contradictory, term. The point is not to answer questions, but rather to raise them.

It's been said that all the events of "Magnolia" take place within a square mile (10 blocks). All the main characters of all the films of the Decalogue live in the same apartment complex. Sometimes they cross paths. One character appears in almost all of them but his presence is never explained.

Kubrick felt The Decalogue was the only masterpiece made within his lifetime. Although it didn't affect me quite as much as that, there's no doubt it's expertly crafted. Ambiguity abounds, every minute is a subtle clue to something else, endings are usually not resolutions, most everything is subject to interpretation.

7-9/10.

IMDB 250 7.7 - Come and See (1985)

Come and See (1985)

"And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see. And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth."

During World War II, a boy in Belarus decides to leave his home and join a Belarusian resistance force. Sitting between Nazi German and the USSR, Belarus is a fierce battleground. He'll grow up quickly as he faces the realities of war.

The first third of the movie feels like a coming of age tale - the main character, a boy of about 14 fights with his mother, plays on the beach and meets a girl. In these scenes, and in some that follow, some of the acting is poor or overwrought and some of the direction seems amateurish. But these scenes will be overshadowed by what's to come.

Based on true events, the movie will descend further and further down into Hell on Earth. It depicts the horrors of war not in the usual sense of bullets, tanks and the heat of battle. Rather, in the sense of soldiers rounding up an entire town, locking them in a barn and setting it on fire. Or the scene of a man begging for his life as he's being dowsed in gasoline. It's the kind of movie that's so brutal in its subject matter and so matter-of-fact in its depiction, that it's difficult to talk about.

I don't know when you'd be in the mood to witness atrocity but it's undeniable that its depiction here is sobering and extremely powerful.

8/10.
Total "Top 250" Movies Seen: 356.

IMDB 250 Challenge Revision 6 Complete

It's been a year since I completed Revision 5. Can you believe it? A year! And it was only 4 movies. What happened? Well, I wasn't really interested in seeing the movies and kind of put it off. There are a lot of movies that I could write a lot of words about but not these movies so I'll keep it short.

Let's begin... [Ed Note: Fonts may suddenly change without warning. It's a weird blogspot error and fixing it would be too difficult.]

The King's Speech (2010)

My Rating: 7/10.

Based on historical events, this movie tells the story of King George VI who takes the throne when his brother unexpectedly abdicates. The problem? The King's job is to make speeches, particularly in times of war, and George (Colin Firth) has an extreme stutter. Geoffrey Rush plays the speech therapist hired to train the King to speak but if we're doing this, we're doing it MY WAY. No shortcuts, no "buts", it's my way or I walk! Cue the Rocky-style training montage in which the King helps a Russian peasant through the snow.

This movie is extremely well acted, well directed, and well cinematographed(?). It's interesting and worth watching. It won loads of awards. The weakness is the core of the story. Even as the editing and music artificially creates tension, the idea that the King could have trouble with a word isn't the most earth-shattering nail-biter that's ever graced the screen. Still, it's interesting and entertaining. A simple story, well told.

Shutter Island (2010)

My Rating: 7/10.

An insane killer escapes from a mental hospital located on Shutter Island and is missing but presumed to be alive. Detective KidFromTitanic is assigned to the case of eerie music and periods of long silence punctuated by sudden surprise. As he investigates the mental hospital itself, he begins to worry that his life is in danger. As he discovers that he can't trust anyone, paranoia builds, and with growing paranoia, can he even trust himself?

This is a suspense/thriller and is therefore not my kind of movie typically. But I still found it enjoyable as a compelling mystery and a 1950's period detective movie. The psychological twists and turns are reminiscent of "The Sixth Sense" but the twist ending isn't very satisfying.

X-Men: First Class (2011)

My Rating: 6/10.

I've watched a few X-Men movies as part of this list so you know some hardcore fans are out there voting vigorously but I don't understand the fanaticism. That said, this one is slightly stronger than others.

The movie tells the story of the origins of the X-Men as they discover their powers and find that they're not alone. Watching a character first discover that they have a superpower and attempt to harness it is inherently more interesting than watching a character who's known for years and just takes it for granted. So in that sense, it's got a leg up on the other X-Men movies. The other big plus is that the movie is set in World War II and the Cold War. Rooting the story in such weighty history gives it a little more gravity than the average "comic book" movie.

Other than these two aspects, it's the same old. People have highly unrealistic mutations, they choose sides based on whatever's convenient for the story, they debate their place among the fearful normals and they have flashy CGI-vs.-CGI battles that I don't care about.

The fact that this is now the 50th best movie of all-time is a sad reminder at how prevalent the fan-boi culture is and how little respect people have for good movies. In comparison to "The Dark Knight" or "Raiders of the Lost Ark" this is mediocre rubbish.

Castle in the Sky (1986)

My Rating: 4/10.

I'll let Netflix describe the plot:

"In this children's anime adventure, young miner Pazu and mysterious girl Sheeta (who wears a magic pendant arounder her neck) team up to find the long-lost island of Laputa, which is rumored to have great riches and gems. Accompanied by a band of bumbling air pirates led by the quick-tempered Ma Dola, Pazy and Sheeta are pursued by government agents who want the riches of Laputa for themselves."

Yeah, that old story. I just don't have any patience for anime. If you love anime, this is probably worth checking out but I have to be true to my own experience and I was bored silly.

----

Having completed this revision, I'm already a year behind! Hopefully, I'll tackle the newest changes a little faster.

Movies This Revision: 4.

Average Score: 6.

Best Movie This Revision: The King's Speech.

Total "Top 250" Movies Seen: 348.

IMDB 250 Challenge Revision 4 Complete

As you probably know, I have a (continuing) mission to watch every movie on the IMDB Top 250. As ratings fluctuate and more movies are released, movies slip out of the 250 and others take their place so I have to continuously revise my list and watch the new ones to keep up. I finished the fourth revision earlier today, finally watching the movie "My Neighbor Totoro". Here are the latest movies and a few thoughts.

Avatar (2009)

My Rating: 7/10.

Obviously, one of the new movies on the IMDB 250 has to be Avatar. A sci-fi action flick in 3D, it doesn't really need any explanation or any more hype from me. There are few movies out there as polarizing as this one. I've heard that it's the best movie of all-time and I've heard that it's garbage. Straight away, it's certainly not the best movie of all-time. At best it's a lesser retelling of "Dances With Wolves" which IS great and IS amazing and IS one of the greatest movies ever made and yet is sadly not on the current IMDB 250 list). But I also don't want to go too far in the "don't believe the hype" vein to say that it "sucks". I maintain, at least for now, that it is an entertaining movie, that is fairly well-done and kept my interest. So, I have to give it a 7/10 though bordering on a 6 and at the same time, I don't understand what all the "best movie ever" hype was about at all other than mass temporary insanity.

I wonder if it was the 3D experience that did it. Does the sensory experience of amazing 3D imagery elevate it into a "higher" experience? Should that be considered against the usual criteria of emotion, plot, acting, directing, score, etc.? For my purposes, I'm leaving it out and judging it by its 2D aspects. For that, its current position of #109 all-time is a sad joke.

Zombieland (2009)

My Rating: 6/10.

I don't remember much about this movie. I could sum up my review of it in three words: it was alright. Attempting to blend comedy with action/horror and taking advantage of the "zombie craze", it occasionally succeeds. But it's not a terrific success and you'd be better off rewatching "Ghostbusters" or "The 'burbs" (a severely underrated movie). The special surprise cameo (which I won't spoil) was completely wasted, I thought. This movie since being on the list of 250, has slipped out of it which I think is absolutely correct.

Unadjusted for inflation, this is the highest-grossing movie in the US to begin with the letter "Z".

My Neighbor Totoro (1988)

My Rating: 5/10.

Another anime movie and it seems all anime movies on the list have the same elements in common: they all are beautifully animated and feature hyper-surreal, hyper-imaginative visuals. As best as I can recall, they're all "family" movies as well. This movie is no exception. With their mother in sick in the hospital, two sisters and their dad move into a new house that's said to be haunted by forest spirits. With their father's encouragement, the two sisters soon find the tales to be true,

There's nothing wrong with this movie, it's fine as far as movies for kids go but there's also nothing that stood out for me either. The visuals are very nice and maybe if I was watching it as a kid I would feel differently but as it is, I didn't really like or dislike it. Therefore a 5/10.

Blood Diamond (2006)

My Rating: 7/10.

Probably the best movie on this short, arbitrary list, "Blood Diamond" tells the story of a group of people caught in the blood diamond trade (diamonds from Africa whose profits are used to fund civil war). Leonardo DiCaprio is suprisingly good and Jennifer Connelly doesn't hurt the movie either. The strongest performance is Djimon Hounsou who probably should have been Oscar-nominated. This movie is well-written, well-directed, and well-acted. It's very good but a bit too long and ventures too far out into the "action movie" territory to rise to the level of being great. My 7/10 rating borders on an 8.

Movies This Revision: 4.

Average Score: 5.75.

Best Movie This Revision: "Blood Diamond".

Total "Top 250" Movies Seen: 333.