Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Usually I start these around Christmas and it can be Christmas of the following year before it gets close to looking like it will in the end, and there's always a chance I'll see something deserving way down the line and add/bump-down.
Just missed:The Arrival, Midnight Special, Bleed for This, Allied, Nerve, Sugar Mountain
It is a particularly exciting year for me at the movies. My two favorite directors, Wong Kar Wai and Brian De Palma released new movies, and a bunch of sleepers are dominating the list.
A Few months ago - I thought that 2013 might have been a pretty weak year for movies, but now that I've come to the end of the watchlist, it was actually a VERY GOOD year for movies. Seldom do I have so many 9's in my top 25, and seldom do the 8's go nearly to the bottom of the list like this. By the time I'm done there may not be a 7 on the whole list. Amazing.
will edit as I see films that deserve a spot on the list. (last edit was out of NINETY-THREE films viewed from 2013). Will likely/eventually be out of about 110.
Sometimes my top 25 lists(see previous yrs) might include films that imdb says were released the previous yr... but I go by the us dvd or major u.s. theatrical release dates... not festivals etc..
at times it was rough. had to cycle through some rough patches... Spring Breakers... it "looked" good, but what the heck was that about? Pain and Gain... much, mUCH more pain than gain... Rapture Palooza? Take me Away.
here's the Just missed list:26.The East 27.Mental 28.Blue Jasmine 29.Only God Forgives 30.The Prey(french)31.Warm Bodies, 32.StarTrek:Into Darkness 33.Maniac, 34.Fruitvale Station, 35.Before Midnight, 36. Disconnect(last of the 7's) Captain Phillips, Redemption, Grandmasters, Rush, Eden, Side Effects, Man of Steel, Gangster Squad, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, Oblivion, Last Vegas, Trance, Dark Skies, Extracted, Hatchet 3, Stoker, Olympus Has Fallen, Red 2(last of the 6's)
I suggest inverting the list.............................................\/
Seriously though, these 'sex-romps' did carve out their own little genre - especially from '82 to '86. That's part of what made 1990's "Ski School" such a delight... it was a throwback from the mid-80's...I know it's out of the timeframe by a couple years but it belongs on here.
Nearly every movie on here save "Weird Science", "Just One of the Guys", "The Woman in Red", and "Once Bitten" are R-Rated with plenty of Nudity, but I thought those films belonged because of their heavy use of sexual themes, and when they were released. The Woman in Red is the only PG or PG-13 film that I know of that has full-frontal nudity(however quick it may be). :) Look ma, no more hairy palms.
some flicks were left out for other reasons... "Summer of '42" for timeframe, "Oddballs" for cleanliness(and terribleness), and all the new-age sex-romps like "The Girl Next Door" or "Bachelor Party 2", even though both are great examples of the genre... everything on this list falls from '79 to '90, and I'm going to keep it that way... Although I'm always on the lookout for stuff I missed. Also, I'm only listing films I have seen, so if you have any suggestions, leave a comment.
These are definitely films that, while not great or academy award-winners - certainly could put a smile on the face of nearly anyone, especially those who grew up during the era. Most weren't blockbusters(some were like ROcky4), but many garnered VHS rental fame, or had the campiness or unbelievable, unabashed fun to make them eligible for my list.
Sticking with 100 - so here's a short just missed(let's call it 'a little bit TOO guilty'):Bad Taste, Pumpkinhead, Rolling Thunder, Waxwork, Halloween 2, cherry 2000.
just missed list:26.The Assassination of... 27.Ratatouille, 28.The Hunting Party, 29.Talk to Me, 30.Spiral, 31.Knocked Up, 32.The Mist, 33.The Brave One, 34.Kite Runner, 35.3:10 to Yuma, 36.American Gangster
just missed:The People Under the Stairs, Curly Sue
sad to watch Kingsley and Hopkins here... truly.
This is a really bad movie. One of the worst I've seen from 2016.
Both Hopkins and Kingsley are terribly out-of-place here, albeit we are starting to see more of this "selling-out" from both of them. Kingsley's character, in particular, is the worst character in terms of concept and writing that may have ever graced the screen with an Oscar in his pocket. It's cringe-worthy.
Hopkins character isn't much better.
Some of the action scenes have some decent CGI and some passable real-action as well, that makes them look pretty good, but that might be the nicest thing I can say about this film. The lead(nic hault) is utterly forgettable, as is the story.
The film attempts to throw in some humor, one can only imagine to lighten the mood, and that mood is "this movie stinks". Someday when you see a posthumous collage at the Academy Awards for these two actors - you WILL NOT see clips of this film.
I yearn to see "Baby Driver" this week so I can see what this genre/storyline should look and sound like.
Please pass. I rushed this back to the redbox as fast as humanly possible.
The first time I watched Zodiac I didn't really watch it. I wasn't in the mood for something that "involved", and I probably made it a third of the way through-it and wound-up doing something else. Many years later I revisited the film.
"Zodiac" is an amazing film. I don't know of many(if any) films that spans such a large time-frame, so effectively. THe film just feels so real. THe violence is shocking AND shockingly well-done. It comes in short, quick, realistic doses.
THere are also some genuinely scary scenes, and despite the films length, it's paced evenly and stays engrossing throughout. It's like "All the President's Men(8/10)" met the original "Maniac(6/10)", only it's significantly better than both.
One of my favorite things about the film is the effective misleads, and Gylenhaal's relentless but smart, shy lead.
I'm seriously considering rating this as the 4rth 10/10 from '07(There WIll Be Blood, King of Kong, U23D), and the 49th out of 4600+ ratings. It's at least worthy of a 9/10 and I find it a little mind-boggling that it's under 8 on this site. I would have expected about 8.2-8.4 here, but hey, like I said, the film will beat you up ala Sorcerer('77) or TWBB('07). It's not for everyone - except for film buffs and the older generation that doesn't have to have all that CGI and non-stop action to be entertained. Excellent film.
The Rezort (2015)
Clear negatives and positives
"The Rezort" has solid production value. The CGI is passable, the camera- work is pretty good, and the acting is fine. It's a British "living dead" pilot clone that would've garnered a series if that were the case. But it's not a great movie. The characters and dialog just don't have the teeth to make this a 7+.
It tidy-ups quite nicely. The last 30 minutes is pretty solid, nail-biting action. It makes-up a bit for some of the occasional absurdity, repetitiveness. Dougray Scott's character is criminally under- written/developed, and the film is quite predictable.
It's no "Train to Busan" that's for sure. I'd say more on par with the average world War Z with lesser acting, only in this case its not lesser it's just less acting. The female lead does a fine job, as does the cocky kid.
It's worth a harmless action/zombie-lovers viewing for the last 30 minutes. There are some genuinely scary and tense moments down the stretch, but the rest is somewhat forgettable. Still a bit better than I expected, and a notch better than its score here. Jmo
You'd like this if you liked: Maze Runner(about even or slightly better than this), The Running Man(slightly better), Train to Busan(much better), or Parallels((slightly below).
Blame It on Rio (1984)
Naked Ladies and Clever Writing Go A Long Way
Super-mild spoilers(you'd get tenX as much from the trailer or packaging summary). The worst thing about this film is the opening and closing credits. One might stop there and say nothing else, but I feel an obligation to say more.
"Blame it On Rio" is a light-hearted, yet ultimately serious-enough adult sex-romp/love-triangle shot in Rio with decent performances. The storyline is definitely taboo, and imo, a big reason this film is rated so low. There's a solid script here and the film IS entertaining.
The film tides-things-up rather nicely - no easy task! And the films' latter-half really has a few knockout jokes... extremely clever moments. A few extra twists add to the fun. I didn't know the ranking here until after I viewed the film. I was shocked. 5.7? Really? OK. Genuinely surprised as I enjoyed-it. It's definitely not pc, but that is so the point. This is pure 80's sex-romp at heart, only extremely well-written with above average performances all-around(it is a comedy after all).
It doesn't all work. Some of it, a lot of it, is a little far-fetched(and improper -again, the point?) The cast and writing douses those fires quite a bit. There's one particular sequence in the middle of the film that is either a poorly executed short dream sequence, or a just a mistake/inconsistency in the story.
You get a young Demi Moore in a smaller role, albeit her part is nice addition/dynamic to the overall storyline, and Michelle Johnson is just a knockout here. Absolutely an enjoyable, adult spin on the sub-genre. I laughed-out-loud a few times down the stretch, and I've seen my share of comedies rated over 5.7 that didn't make me do that, certainly with this much frequency. The cat and mouse tension is nicely executed. Eh, it doesn't surprise all that much, the score, but the film is better than 5.7 imo. I'd say more like 6.7/67/100.
You might like this if you liked(or also ck out): 10(dudley Moore/about even or ever-so-slightly below), Woman In Red(not as good), or Oxford Blues(even or a smidge below). Soft 7. Good fun.
Into the Night (1985)
What A Strange Trip Its Been
Now here's a film where literally nothing works.. for Jeff Goldblum anyway. It may not be as smart or funny(or as good for that matter) as "After Hours", but John Landis' "Into the Night" is still an entertaining, albeit long-winded affair about a nerd gone rogue, who falls for a manipulative, extremely non-committal, yet undeniably beautiful(make that smokin' hot) Michelle Pfeiffer.
Decent music, cool cars, good cast, occasional laughs and undeniable quirkiness.. "ITN" is, ironically, insomnia inducing. The right mood or drink may be in order before hitting play. And know when you do there's no going back. The films harsh tonal shifts are eased when the viewer succumbs to the inevitable continuance of this nonsense. It's a hard film to recommend, for fear of someone taking any of it seriously. The films 2 hr run-time feels like 3, and the extreme violence really doesn't fit at all. It's still interesting and oddly entertaining. I give it a soft-7? Nah, Hard 6.
The film effectively plays with the insomnia theme, placing it in the center of plot turns and the climax(is there a climax?), and in some weird way justifying the films length. You may forget your name while watching this, maybe fall asleep only to wake up suddenly, disturbed, press rewind to find where you left off, only to find-out everything you already knew, yet keep watching, wondering if the night will ever end. What have you got to lose?
Paradise Motel (1985)
Right with Frat Vaca and Loosin' it.. as a Decent Sex-Romp.
Soft 6 for this consistent little romp. Think Karate Kid meets Last American Virgin.
Paradise Motel is a delightful little gherkin about fitting-into a new school(among other things). Hats-off to Bob Basso who gives an excellent performance as Sam's father. The rest of the cast is steady, if not a bit better than usual for this type of flick.
It has the perfect balance of charm, laughs, heart, high school drama, and skin.
This is a b-movie worth checking into.
Definitely falls into that time-capsule category as a harmless, unspectacular, albeit entertaining 80's "leaving-of-age" brilliance that reaches and speaks a little deeper than some if its counterparts. I can recommend this. I'm proud to own this sinking vessel.
Shoot to Kill (1988)
First 40-45 minutes = spectacular
"Shoot to Kill" is a decent sleeper of a action/thriller from the '80s starring Tom Berenger and Sidney Poitier.
The film starts with an incredibly intense and very clever set-up. From there it quickly turns into more of a wilderness picture. In this middle segment there is some great scenery and action, but the film does start to have a few notable issues. The most glaring of which is how the film turns Berenger into a bit of a wilderness novice after they establish the character as the opposite. At least when this happened in "White Water Summer 7/10", it was a serious injury that justified the role-swap.
The third segment when they get back to civilization is the weakest - a bit far fetched and anti-climactic.
All that said, for the first 75 minutes this is an edge of your seat, thrilling adventure. Sidney is spectacular as usual. Berenger is decent, more sabotaged than a weakness, and Kirstie Alley is pretty good here.
I can recommend this as a fast-paced sleeper from the '80s that may have flown past your radar. Certainly worth a first look or a revisit. It's a very high 6 for me, borderline almost 7. On the other hand, if we could go back and apply some quick touch-up paint we'd have an 8.
Hope it helps.
Nocturnal Animals (2016)
Ford Channels His Inner De Palma - Niiiiice!
I will admit that I'm a sucker for this type of film. Multiple narratives, brooding violent thriller, polished 80's De Palma-esque.. yea, definitely a kid in the candy store moment.
Nocturnal Animals is very clever. It uses one narrative to express the feelings of the characters in another.
Ford's film looks absolutely fantastic. The pacing is perfect. I know not everyone will love it, mostly because it does not have a cookie-cutter Hollywood payoff. The shock-symbolism of the opening credits may be a bit much for some too - even me. It's like 1998's "Great Expectations" met 2016's "Hell or High Water". Speaking of, it just moved into the #2 spot ahead of the latter, as the 2nd best film I've seen from last year, 54 films through a watchlist of 89 films. It is fresh in my mind so I could flip-flop those back later. It will likely hold a top-5 spot when all is said and done.
The film asks a lot of questions about fate, social classes, and the strength of men. The audience keeps questioning the reality and significance of the parallel narrative until after credits role. That's the aspect that put this in the 9 range for me.
Worth another view, and soon. There's still a few more pieces of the puzzle I might have missed. A thought provoking, excellent film. Kudos to the entire cast and the director. If you want to watch a sharp, thought provoking thriller, look no further.
In Pursuit of Honor (1995)
WOW.... here lies the most over-rated flick on IMDb
I went in with no expectations. I bought this for 95 cents because of it's rating. It sat on the shelf for a few months before I got to it. I own 1500 films, give or take. Premise sounded interesting.
First, the writing is deplorable. Second, Gabrielle Anwar isn't the best actress. The set-up is weak. The production values, aside from some nice big shots in the plains with the herd, are very "TV". I know it WAS made for TV, and it kinda shows.
That's just where the problems begin. For a film that seems to be about this "great" story where soldiers "save" horses, the film seems to spend an AWFUL LOT OF TIME on the graphic slaughter of horses. Too much time. THey made their point with it early, and then made it again, and again, and again. I'm not pulling' a PETA here - I'm just saying it was WAY too graphic and WAY too often. It wasn't necessary. It truly could have had the same impact with far less gore and frequency. Not only is the film a little disjointed, but then I find out after the fact that there is some serious question to the accuracy of its' story-telling. As in very little to no facts that substantiated over 90% of the plot.
The real kicker is that the movie just wasn't that good. The budding love story runs into a brick wall, the aging retiree subplot does the same, and the back-story on the characters is non-existent. When the highlight of the film is an unrealistic drunken scene for Don Johnson, you know you're in for one hell of a bad trip.
It's not terrible, but it's not good. It's not good even if you don't have a problem with the over-done slaughter-stuff. The rest of the film is pretty plain, and like I said, the writing is awful. The actors literally seem like they're talking to someone who doesn't speak English just to fill in time/space for the dialog. It's borderline funny. Plain. Dry. The ending is abrupt and stupid. I wish it was even more forgettable.
7.4 people? Really? What movies are you guys/gals watchin'? You don't have to give this a good score/review because you like to save horses. Who doesn't wanna save horses? The movie stunk with or without the dang horses. It's a good copper-tone/krispy kreme powdered-donut ad, but a good movie it is not.
What in the world are the people giving this low reviews thinking? Only mild spoilers.
I mean I suspect the subject matter might be hard for some to overcome, and rate this film on its own merits. If one does, you'd have to come to the conclusion that anything under a 7/10 is ludicrous. I'm stuck between 9 and 10, and a little disturbed how so many films hover in the mid-8's for so long and then this is at 7.7.
This is a fantastic work of art. "Moonlight" follows its protagonist through three segments of his life, each powerful on its own. All the actors cast to fill the roles make the transitions seamless, even though the characters change physically and emotionally.
Production-wise, "Moonlight" is a ray of light; each frame, in my opinion, a work of perfection. The cinematography, lighting, and soundtrack create a rich, deep world of pain, healing, hope and style. This is near flawless story-telling, and the films balance between the homosexual drama, and the tough ghetto setting shreds stereotypes, and makes everyone rethink the subject.
The 'boring' reviews are flat-out ridiculous!
At first the "Boyz in the Hood(10)meets Brokeback Mountain(8)" comparison sounds crass and ridiculous, and both are good films and worthy company. This might be as good as Singletons similarly groundbreaking film(the acting is even stronger)and it IS clearly better than Brokeback -a far more in depth examination of its protagonist and those around him. It's really more like Scorcese's Goodfellas in how the film looks, sounds, and in the end, works.
This is a clash of two worlds in part because no one has told the story. The entire film took guts to make, and obviously a deft touch to make it so well. .
SUperb film! 1/10 to 3/10 reviews are as ridiculous and as unfair as any I've seen, especially in these numbers, but then again, what did I(or should we) expect. Take your agendas out of movie-rating. Well-deserved Best Picture nod. No controversy here about anything, unless you're the one bringing it to the table. Moves in front of "Hell or High Water" for the current top spot in my top-25 for 2016, 49/90 through the watchlist.
Let me put it this way. Even if one thought the films' story or characters, or acting was subpar(which im having a hard time even typing), you still would have to concede this film looks superlative. The camera-work, lighting, and sound alone would deserve a 6, All by themselves. And the realization that this is a feature film debut, from a reviewer who's seen nearly 4400 films, is truly mind-boggling. One film in, I will watch everything this director makes.