My Favorite Movies

This has the best music to any film ever (score by Basil Poledouris). Only possible exception is Tangerine Dream's Legend score. As a film it works but it's a bit slow and sketchy on characters you care about. Baldwin is a cold Jack Ryan though Connery is good.

Quite slow but interesting.

Nicholson's best film for twenty years. Climax is an emotional bombshell.

I think this is where the idea for flubber came from. Harmless Disney but not very inspiring.

This is typical of later Eastwood: solid, interesting but not at all spectacular. Hackman's penchant for playing bad authority men reaches its climax in this Eastwood potboiler: he actually plays the president. It's a by the numbers thriller, to be sure; but, of course, it has that inexplicable Eastwood gleam.

Need to see it again. The special edition is too long though.

This is interesting and funny. Cage does some good acting.

There is a better Robin than Costner and Connery. And his name is Errol F lynn.

Rathbone singing 'I Do Like To Be Beside the Seaside' is not to be missed. I think one of only two period/costume Rathbone Holmes films.

Slightly odd premise but very watchable. It was a notoriously treacherous location shoot. Bogart proves able to handle comedy.

Kinski is a melodramatic powerhouse and this is perhaps his finest film. Looks and feels very authentic too. Very real.

Need to watch this again.

Very silly but probably 70% of the jokes work.

Good cast. Solid old-fashioned filmmaking.

This is bizarre and fairly boring but really nice to look at.

Not bad but Williams' genie begins to grate early on.

Can't remember a thing about this.

This is really creepy. But technically very interesting.

Really really slow in the light of its sequels. Good production design though.

Need to see this again.

Need to see this again.

Totally pointless.

Starts REALLY slowly and just gets better. Excellent climax.

Good sections but this isn't Disney's best effort.

Can't remember enough of this.

Not much to recommend this unless you like Hudson or are studying Sirk or melodrama.

This is really confusing but Redford and Hoffman are good. Those familiar with the actual events will appreciate it more.

Its a bit like Spinal Tap but more modern. Fairly manipulative though so be careful.

Can't fault this. Not QUITE as good as everyone says though.

Highly-strung morality story that doesn't try to make your mind up for you. Very unpleasant in parts though. Norton and Furlong are good.

Little-known early Capra which is totally charming and teaches you a bit about New Deal economics in the US.

Very good.

Jon Voight stars so of course it's worth a look. Pretty bad though.

Has got some funny moments.

Stewart is pretty good in this.

Pretty slow and pretty nasty.

One of Cagney's best. "What do you hear, what do you say?" And a very good moral message too. Should be remade with 50 cent or the Game to persuade the asbos of the world to stop being such little 'characters'.

Not Sandler's worst but not Nicholson's best.

Good solid authentic Eddie Bunker prison tale. Toned down from the book though.

Pretty gut-wrenching for a kid's cartoon.

A Bug's Life is far better. This tries to aim for both kids and adults and just comes across cold.

Stone should stick to history. Good raging from Pacino though.

Almost entirely pointless waste of money. Good for spectacle but far too long and an utterly pretentious (anti)climax.

Can't remember enough of this.

A very interesting concept. Great performance by McKellen.

Spiders are scary. Need to see this again but it's not going to be pleasant.

A resounding success. The little pig is very sympathetic and the human characters are well-interpreted and well acted. Production design second to none. A very charming tale.

Not as good as its precursor but interesting and entertaining nonetheless.

As far as I can tell this is entirely unique. Good CG/bluescreen effects for its age too. Little emotional investment is possible though.

Works both as a worthy installment in the series and as a wry parody of Westerns. Exciting action too.

I don't remember liking this very much at all.

Need to watch it again.

This is very good. Spencer Tracy is often overlooked these days; this is perfect for those unfamiliar with his work. Very good violence too.

Fairly interesting.

Remember being unimpressed by this but it deserves another chance.

Pretty funny. Good acting by the child too. Very profane. Bernie Mac is always dependable.

Impressive low-budget effort. GSOH.

This is supposed to be really really really good but I think its attitude stinks and is only quite good. It's truly cold and heartless.

Unpleasant tripe. Nobody could ever wring anything worthwhile from this. It's not even professionally made.

Need to watch it again.

Need to re-watch.

Pretty funny in a bad way. (Conan - Schwarzenegger) x 2.

Watched it because it stars Bogart but it's really really boring.

Didn't finish watching it. Promising though, and Redford and Fonda are very easy to watch.

Remember liking this a lot but cannot remember it enough. Goodman is generally excellent, and Turturro can be if he wants to be.

Fairly silly and violent and melodramatic but very watchable.

This is really good if you can get hold of an uncut version. I think the studio got rid of a classroom shooting scene and made other cuts. Find a version that's 102 minutes rather than 97 minutes. It's very powerful though.

Can't remember it.

Need to see it again.

As always with Burton the setpieces, characters and prodcution design are wonderful but the structure and pace is really really bad. The ending seems to go on for about an hour and a half.

An interesting premise but the characters are not sympathetic enough and a bit too hysteric for my liking.

This is really difficult to watch because it's silent and there are no identifiable characters but still holds a certain power, and is useful for those studying editing and montage.

This is pretty bad. Liz Hurley could never act in the best circumstances, and this film isn't that. Fraser is his usual gaping gormless self.

There's not really much of worth here. The action doesn't stand out, Owen Wilson doesn't do straight drama very well and Hackman is purely Hackman, no more no less. If one were to be needlessly cruel, one might suggest that this is what Wilson was watching when he did what he did! OOOOOOOOH BURN!

Professionally enough made, but I cared for neither John Cusack's unusual appearance, or what I saw as the film's self-consciously 'quirky' attitude.

Didn't like this at all. All shooting, violence and cheapo action; barely stops long enough for any story to be properly told.

This is good, thoughtful, 'what if' courtroom thriller stuff. Will seem slow today but it's well worth the effort.

This is Boorman at the peak of his talents: real life modern history integrated with a believable fiction story. Think Oliver Stone's Salvador or The Killing Fields. Better than the former, lesser than the latter.

I watched this for a second time this morning and, though its flaws were more apparent, it still stirred up emotions like not many films can. That Williams and Columbus - both capable of ghastly levels of insidiousness - are ultimately responsible is a testament to the strength of the central idea and the adaptation. In scope and ambition - if not technically - its every bit the equal to AI, and the humanity that is central to the story puts it far ahead of I Robot.

Isn't life too short for something this slight? It's been said that with this film De Sica builds massive drama and consequence out of a simple action: perhaps I'm too obtuse or not cosmopolitan enough to appreciate it. I suppose I should watch it again, and care that the man had his bike stolen... but that's not going to happen.

It's Hanks mugging as frantically as physics will allow, and that ginger boy from T2. No thanks. I honestly think I'd prefer Robin Williams in Jack.

This is one of Burton's best. Charming and imaginative from start to finish. McGregor is very good, as are the rest of the cast. Constantly surprises and delights, and has moments of pathos too.

Fairly gritty and low-profile 50s noir with a tough hero whose goodness and integrity is not as assured as usual. Interesting and, I think, raised the bar slightly for on-screen violence.

This seems to be championed by people who like to think of themselves in terms of Bridges' 'dude' character, and who think that Cheech Marin is an appropriate role model. There is an appeal to such an apathetic character, but it's limited. Goodman's proactive Walter redresses the balance, and quite a bit of comedy comes out of the tension between their two polar attitudes. The story's typical Coen Bros fayre: fairly pedestrian, and seems better than it actually is due to above-average dialogue, black humour and an overabundance of stylistic touches.

Anyone who can extract a story that makes sense from this quagmire deserves a medal. Good script and acting though, and it's one of Bogart's iconic performances so it certainly deserves a watch.

The concept is interesting but the characters would appeal only to teenagers living in the 80s/90s. Slightly better than its prequel due to its abstract view of life/death.

The concept is interesting but the characters would appeal only to teenagers living in the 80s/90s.

A decent cast in a decent gangster film. Hoffman makes a good, vicious Schultz; Kidman is sexy and Willis makes a good henchman - slightly weary, as always, and perhaps foreshadowing his Sin City role. The boy is acceptable too.

Like The Full Monty before it, I have no interest at all in whatever small triumphs were won by irrelevant, uncinematic characters in dull northern towns in the late 20th Century. Does anyone other than those who can directly relate to these insignificant little ventures and pseudo-heroes?

This is pretty poor even by Sandler's standards. The dull-minded may enjoy it.

The effects look a little shaky now, but not nearly as bad as may be expected. Even if it's less entertaining than it once was, there's much to be learned from this in terms of editing, structure, suspense and how to effectively create tension. The schoolyard/climbing frame sequence is absolutely textbook.

Cannot remember this enough to rate it.

Utterly useless. Looks even less professional than Hercules in New York and that's saying something. Why this was deemed worthy of a DVD release remains a mystery.

Very interesting early Bogart film. One of Warners' 1930s social problem pictures with a story 'ripped from the headlines' as they were so fond of doing. Be careful if you're used to Bogart as a hero and don't want to see his other side.

This gets 4 stars for its excellent first section, i.e. up to the point where boy and horse get rescued. After that it's all Mickey Rooney and training for the race and whatever which is of no interest to me.

One of a dozen or so terrific 70s thrillers (Marathon Man, Parallax View etc) which I can hardly remember now other than it was great. Very hard to get hold of in the UK, apparently.

Not at all impressed.

August 7, 2007 I remember being totally nonplussed by this but it deserves another chance.
August 8, 2009 (having watched it again) No it does not deserve another chance. Why on earth does anyone like this film? It is SO boring. And now it looks really really dated.

Not at all impressed.

Two excellent things about this: someone knocking out a horse with a single punch and the outlandish ending. Most of the rest is not that funny, and a lot is in pretty poor taste.

This is barely watchable, and instandly forgettable when you have watched it.

Early Cagney capers with the lovely (and blonde) Joan Blondell. Some good con tricks are shown in decent detail. Top class filmflammery and all with the best motives/intentions.

This is pretty poor. Was made during one of Cagney's 'breaks' from Warners. Go figure.

I'm not too keen on Depp, or cannabis, or cocaine; but if you like either of these three you'll probably like this film.

Another example of De Palma trying to be Hitchcock: it doesn't turn out as badly as Dressed to Kill or The Fury; it's more along the lines of Body Double. Travolta is OK and the story keeps your interest for most of the time. Good interesting premise too.

Excellent WWI film set on the side of the Germans: high melodrama amongst fighter pilots, their battles over women, rank, kills, class etc. James Mason is superb, as is the rest of the cast and the aerial action is unsurpassed. The story is ripping and fraught with drama and tragedy. A real treat if you like modern warfare, expensive 60s films and aviation.

Singlularly sinister and disturbing film featuring what must remain Hopper's most manic performance. He completely overshadows the rest of the cast. Freud and Jung would have had a field day. Decent tension and (sometimes unintentional) comedy too.

Typically extravagant sub-Hitchcock De Palma nonsense, though better than most such efforts. Good horror, action and suspense. Lurid and creepy.

Can't remember much about this other than that it was fairly stupid.

Hanks in a shit film is slightly worse than Hanks in an otherwise Ok film. No thanks. Treated differently, with a different lead, this might be acceptable.

This is 100% peerless and flawless. Both its content and style are massively important for what was, at the time, the future of Hollywood in particular, and for filmmaking in general. The same can probably be said about a dozen or so films; none of whic are anywhere near as fun and as watchable as this is. Also, its tone changes like no other film, in a manner entirely in keeping with the film's context. If there was no Cagney, this would be the best film ever made.

Fairly interesting, but with somewhat gratuitous detail and some hollow, soulless humour.

Better than some British films, but I wouldn't want to see it again.

Superior family entertainment, with a lot of work having been put into the action pieces and effects work. Refreshingly free of unnecessary sentiment, too. Along the lines of Babe. Well worth a look.

Need to re-assess this.

This is an interesting counter to the more famous Mutiny on the Bounty (MGM's 1930s Charles Laughton version) because it is sympathetic towards Bligh, and is apparently recognised by historians as a more credible account of the real-life events. Hopkins is very good as the troubled but skilled mariner and Gibson, in an early role is believable as the Fletcher Christian swayed by the exotic temptations of the South Seas.

This is a very exciting, well-made and original espionage action/thriller. It feels as authentic as Bond feels fake: in fact, Bourne is the antiBond.

If Moore could be a bit more objective he could make a good documentary about what is certainly an important subject. But I'd rather make up my own mind having heard both sides of an argument, than have him do it for me after showing only his.

The video copy I saw of this was almost unwatchable but I caught a glimpse of a taut thriller through all the static. Post 1945 Naxi hunting is a very interesting subject usually, so if you agree then this is worth watching.

Cannot remember this well enough to comment.

Because of the fun-loving, extra-silly tone of this film, the extremely high blood and guts level (perhaps the highest in the history of the cinema) does not offend as much as it might. Very GSOH, and inventive too. Exactly what you'd expect the director of Bad Taste to do with more money to spend.

Famous for the worst acting by Hollywood's worst actor. But other elements might be OK so it needs a rewatch.

This is an odd, but engaging tale of household appliances taking on human characteristics and trekking, by their own power, across town and country to find their boy owner. A rollicking tale of persistance in the face of adversity.

Haven't ever managed to watch this properly so will reserve judgment. Is probably OK though.

I remembered this being poorly structured, like most of Gilliam's films, but fairly nice to look at with some inventive ideas.

This is a thriller superior to almost all its peers. A really tight, tense story with believable characters you wholly believe, and care about. Its first act is shot through with a Hitchcockian sense of mystery rare in a film this young. Absolutely thrilling from start to tremendous finish.

For what it is, surprisingly interesting; more so as a historical artifact than for true entertainment value. Ferris Bueller's Day Off is better in that respect, as it's far more dynamic, less serious, and isn't stuck in the same room for the majority of its duration.

This is a very long, very serious, very thought-provoking film. It's really hard to watch at some points but at the same time fascinating and compelling.

Fun, profane, violent, sexy and dynamic. Probably seems very dated now, and film bores will tell you it's not as good as the French film it borrows from. But - so long as you like Gere - this is far easier to like.

An interesting concept, but Pryor's incessant babbling wears thin very quickly. Probably better off seeking out one of the older versions (either 1935 or 1945), though as I haven't seen either I cannot recommend them.

For me, it was utterly impenetrable but still really really good. Need to see it again to concentrate on the content rather than the style.

This is always interesting, but never very exciting, and the third act dissapoints. Good sets/locations and acting though.

This has some excellent, epic war action but is too long and its parts too disparate. It does, however, boast one of the most the most impressive casts in Hollywood history. $26m in 1977 was a huge budget, (2x Star Wars) and you can see most of it on the screen.

Probably the best example of 30s/40s 'screwball comedy'. Parts (particularly the farcical elements) are really, really funny even today. Brilliant comic turns by Grant and Hepburn.

Something about this isn't quite right. Perhaps Slater isn't a strong enough presence to lead an action film of this size, or perhaps I have a problem with Woo's style. Decent climax though.

Ed Harris can only ever be a good thing, and the rest of the cast is decent too. Cannot remember it well enough to score it though.

Easily the best Pixar film. Appealing characters (esp the hero), a vicious, hateful bad guy and a really good setup. The middle doesn't drag, as is so often the case with this kind of film.

This one, coming a year after Goodfellas, is a resolutely oldi-fashioned biopic-style gangster film very much along the lines of the old Warners gangster classics. Even The Godfather looks postmodern compared to this; and Goodfellas looks like Tarantino by comparison As something of a reactionary I think it works well, and the production values give it an extraordinarily rich, luxurious texture - something that those old Warner pictures certainly didn't have.

One of the less famous Warner gangster pics still holds water in the 21st Century, for those with the patience to withstand the inherent, expected shortcomings.

This is pretty nasty, sweary and shouty, but interesting nonetheless. Hopefully most middle class American kids are not like this.

Extremely poor horror film, aimed directly at the Friday the 13th/Nightmare on Elm Street audience. This is probably one of those films the characters in Scream talk about. I think the young George Costanza has a few half decent lines but that's about it.

Obviously Redford and Newman are a winning team but I need to watch it again before rating it.