Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
I'd also like to note to all the people with a list of 400 or so movies they regard as the best, that they should probably put more thought on the number of films. I personally thought 100 would be a pretty good number based on the fact that I've seen around 2500-3000 movies, which means 100 is roughly 3-4% of all the films I've seen. That sounds about right. That sounds like a ratio of the total which can be regarded as "best" as opposed to "somewhat better than the other rubbish I've seen over the years".
Hopefully I'm at least somewhat idiosyncratic and at least someone finds a movie they can love based on this list. Or maybe someone rediscovers a great movie. Either way, enjoy.
I've also included 10 honorable mentions which are representative of movies I like, but were under represented or completely unrepresented in this list. These are not the 101-110 movies.
Besides the last 10 movies, these are in order.
In Animal House, the English professor played by Donald Sutherland notes that the Devil is probably the more interesting character. Some of these definitely make the movies they appear in more interesting.
In no specific order. I'm focusing on action here. Comedy and horror could very well be a focus of similar list as well.
PS. I'm not saying you should feel ashamed of watching action movies, just that they are not as well regarded as drama.
Pork Pork in Space (2009)
Feels like a parody of what you'd imagine comes out of film school courses
I recently purchased the Red Letter Media Archive Volume 1. It was generally... interesting, but not very good. Besides the excellent 48 hour film project Western Ore Musical, this movie is one of the hidden gems in the collection.
I can't really call it good, but I did enjoy it. It was weirdly funny. Not like LOL-funny, but funny none-the-less. The performances are actually kind of great. I especially enjoyed the guy giving the main character hell and his little character arc. The concept of the movie is pretty stupid but good fodder for a short film, where you are supposed to be more experimental with what you are doing.
All in all, don't go out of your way to see this movie, but I don't think most people would be sorry to see it. Based on the number of votes, not that many have (although, it's also possible people just don't realize there are many short films on IMDb).
Oh yeah... and I was googling for pictures of the glamor model they used as the female lead after seeing the movie.
Feeding Frenzy (2010)
A mess, but somehow I enjoy it... sort of
Here's my problem with this movie: Since this is horror-comedy and done very cheaply, I keep wondering which parts were supposed to be funny and which parts were unintentionally funny. I sort of feel this is perhaps more a parody on how cheap knock-off movies come to be than those cheap knock-off movies themselves. Obviously this isn't something I should concern myself, but I do.
But hey, even though its like jazz and the "artists" are clearly enjoying themselves much more than anyone in the audience, there are good parts. Some of the jokes do actually work. Not many, but some. We know from all those Plinkett reviews and Half in the Bag that the movie makers have some unique insights on films, so perhaps if I had being more familiar with all the movies they were thinking about when making Feeding Frenzy, I would have enjoyed it more.
The real actors in the movie are pretty good, especially considering how cheaply this was probably made and the material they had to work with.
All in all, the best I can give is a very mild recommendation, but tread carefully, this is probably the kind of movie some people will enjoy immensely, perhaps in some sort of twisted "ironic" way, others will see it as a complete waste of time.
A Gunfight (1971)
Not the greatest of revisionist westerns, but good enough
I picked this up as a part of a set of dozen DVDs worth of westerns. I like westerns and I figured these would be good enough entertainment and wouldn't force me to use my brain after I get home from work.
This was the first one of the movies I decided to watch, probably because I was intrigued by seeing Cash in a western. I knew he did some acting, but I had never seen any of his acting work before. I did notice that a clip from the movie made its way into Cash's video for "Hurt".
I guess this was sort of typical for a movie from the revisionist era of westerns. It explores the themes of becoming old and the world you knew is dying around you. Granted, its no Wild Bunch or Unforgiven, but in its own way it is good. Not much action, which probably lost the movie a good share of its audience, but this isn't that kind of movie. These are men who are past their need for quick adrenaline fixes.
The film puts much focus on the blood thirst of the townsfolk, which is in its way also a comment on the audience. The cruelty of the whole setup becomes quite poignant at the bull fight. The images of the bull being killed and afterwards slaughtered were a nice reminder of what the people were truly after.
The ending isn't a real double ending. The part in which Tenneray actually won the duel, was just a fantasy by Cross. The idea was to show that even if it had ended differently, things wouldn't have been better for the Tenneray family.
Also, any fan of the genre can appreciate the man in black actually winning the final duel. It goes against all the rules of western. Personally, I love it.
However, mostly the film was fairly boring, straightforward and predictable. It wasn't the mind-numbing stuff I was looking for, but it wasn't the great artistic movie experience I look for when I'm not totally tired by work either. It falls somewhere between. I was hovering somewhere between 7 and 8, but in the end it rounded down to 7. Still worth watching, but not worth going through any trouble to see it.
One Shot One Kill (1995)
Could've been interesting
In short, this documentary gives a glimpse into the lives of snipers in the marine core. Their history is covered from the early days when the marines actually worked on sea as protection to the latest developments in the mid-90's. Several well-known snipers are covered as well as stories surrounding them.
The stories are interesting, although they've probably picked up a few extra details over the years. Still, as a sort of modern myths, the stories work very well.
My major complaint is that the document focuses all too much on American marines. There were many other famous, and actually a lot better, snipers around the world. Being a Finn, I'm somewhat familiar with our own two legends, Häyhä and Kolkka. There were also several famous snipers from the eastern Europe during WWII.
The document did offer some insight into the life of a sniper, but all in all, it didn't offer much, just tried to strenghten the myth, rather than actually tell what it is all about. It was recommended to me as research, but it really isn't usable even for that purpose, except maybe finding a few names from which to continue.
Studio Julmahuvi (1998)
Julmahuvi is a group of five actors, although one of them took over the directing duties and is hardly seen in the series. Studio Julmahuvi is not first or the last series made by the group, but it is probably the best. In fact, I'm fairly certain this series - mostly parodying TV-programming - is the best Finnish series ever.
Who could ever forget the psychopath Touko-Pouko, the host of Muksuluuri, a segment for children. His crafting of a soul (blob of black clay covered with iron wiring and with nails driven through it) or the alien (whose message goes along the lines of "You'll never amount to nothing, you will always be a loser").
Then we have the adventures of Mats and Rauski, cruise for convicted criminals, some very interesting documentaries... All instant classics. Not everything is perfect though. I personally find the parts with the Eskimos very dull. They are only a small portion of the whole, though.
The last episode is remarkable. Straying from the usual format, it is a race against time when a broadcast of documentary about a squirrel has a voice track which is way too sexy and it has to be stopped. I know this doesn't make too much sense, so you'll have to see it for yourself.
Ordinary movie about an extraordinary man
Chaplin is a cultural icon. No question about that. So what do you do? Get some old footage, both from his movies and from other sources, combine that with footage of historians and modern celebrities talking about their impressions on the man. The concept is far from original. Basically it's the same as any number of documentaries.
The movie manages to include all the important work of Chaplin in it. However, there's no information that most people with any interest on the subject wouldn't know and how many people who are not interested on the subject would watch a movie like this?
Maybe I've just seen too many of these. Of course, I appreciate and respect the work of the man, but I just don't see the point of these little documentaries anymore. Using at least just a little bit of creativity would have been nice. If I was to do a movie about an icon I love, I would at least try to do him or her justice and set the movie apart from others. It's not all bad, just kind of mediocre.
Full Tilt Boogie (1997)
A different view on film making
The DVD-cover on From Dusk Till Dawn didn't say anything about this little extra. I don't see why not, but it was a nice surprise. Maybe that was the effect they were looking for.
Full Tilt Boogie is definitely not the standard document on making a specific film. It's no where near the quarter to half hour documentaries found as extras on many DVDs. Unlike most, this one doesn't really put emphasis on the stars, director, writers and so on. They are all there, although mostly as part of the crew rather than as individuals making well prepared statements on the movie, which can then be used for promotional purposes.
The whole documentary has pretty much nothing to do with promoting the movie, which is a good thing. It seems like a movie from a young filmmaker who is out to prove herself. And in my mind, she did. She's really interested in everything going on behind the scenes. She's not afraid to take on subjects which some might find inappropriate, but which are a part of film-making. Of course the director is always central, but there is so much more going on and the other parts are hardly ever touched in a movie like this.
I'm personally interested in film-making beyond the glamor, so this is a movie for me. It's also pretty entertaining and shows many of the more famous people in a different light, at least somewhat. Obviously the people on the set are just people, which means many of the things they do are quite mundane, but still a bit weird.
For someone like me, I'd highly recommend this, to others... well, I'd still recommend it, but not very strongly. If the subject matter isn't for you, don't go out of your way to watch this, but if it is - or strange humor from Tarantino interests you - take a looksie.
I can't remember laughing this much in years.
I saw Orgazmo a few years back and I was talking about it with a friend of mine. He told me that I had seen nothing yet and then he recommended BASEketball. Sort of... he couldn't remember the name. He only remembered that it was a combination of two sports. Well, obviously finding the correct movie name wasn't very hard, but finding the movie in Finland wasn't as easy...
... but it was well worth it.
The movie is pretty much what you would expect from a cooperation between Parker & Stone and David Zucker, which basically means politically incorrect humor with a lot more happening than you can absorb with a single viewing... and a classic DVDA song in there somewhere. To me that is a perfect recipe for humour. The only thing missing (in my mind) is the underlying message I've grown to expect from Parker & Stone. Maybe there is one, but since I'm admittedly not a "big sports guy", I might just be missing the point. I do like the intro to the movie though.
In the end, this is the kind of movie I can watch time and time again. It might not be a classic movie, which will be remembered through the decades, but the pure entertainment value is pretty much unrivaled. I guess some people can't handle the humor and should therefore probably stay away from this movie, but otherwise, you probably should go through the trouble of seeing this movie.
Fun watch despite the amateurish acting
Having seen all the earlier Star Wrecks, I was intrigued by what I saw in the trailers for the new one. Who wouldn't be? Normally visuals effects just don't do it for me, but in this case they seemed very interesting. Admittedly, this had a lot to with the fact that the movie is Finnish. Only one Finnish movie using visual effects before this one comes to mind (Rölli) and Star Wreck tops that easily. The visual effects are just another way of telling the story, as they should be.
And what a story. I found it especially interesting that the protagonist is a megalomaniac out to conquer the universe. How often do we see that? Accompanied by an android and a more-or-less homicidal maniac, they actually manage to take over the world, but that is just the beginning.
The acting is mostly horrible and at best campy, but I can live with that. The visuals are easily on par with the professional stuff done on Star Trek or other such TV-shows. Humor is often weak and the "funny" names just don't work. At times it's good, but there are not many moments which are laugh-out-loud funny. Gladly, the more low key humor works in parts very well.
All in all, I liked the movie. I gave it a 9 (out of 10) because it's Finnish, in reality it's closer to a low 8 or high 7. I don't really know how well the jokes translate to other cultures, but hopefully the movie will get the attention it deserves. In Finland, the series has gained a sort of cult status and deservedly so.