It's an excellent site. They even have director's favorites. For example, here's Martin Scorsese's.

"These are five movies that I continue to live by" - Scorsese

8½ - Federico Fellini
Citizen Kane - Orson Welles
The Leopard - Luchino Visconti
The Red Shoes - Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger
The Searchers - John Ford

I think I saw a movie today, I mean I have a ticket stub that says I did but it doesn’t feel like it. The stub says The Skeleton Key so I reckon I saw it, but when I think back nothing jumps out at me…
I remember going to the theater arriving almost at the start time (I remember that because I LIKE to arrive early to get a preferred seat), then I had to wait for my stepbrother to buy nachos and a coke that as well I can recall with clarity. We got bad seats because all the best ones were taken, I saw some previews (Saw II, King Kong, and Stay) the theater darkened…then it is kind of a blur. I remember thinking that Kate Hudson should be up higher on my list, there was this one really bad shot with an entirely overstressed angle but other than that…
The Skeleton Key is worse than “white-bread” cinema (read: generic) it is like placebo cinema. It goes beyond astonishing mediocrity and into a realm that I believe that I have never seen. This film managed to not excel in any aspect. The parts of the movie separate from each other don’t seem that bad. The setting a superstitious magic filled bayou in Louisiana it not a bad setting, or the vengeful sprits of slaves not that bad of an antagonist. I thought the character of the protagonist had some potential, especially with Hudson playing her but when it was all added together the product was less than the sum of it’s parts. Not that it was that horrible either, I mean even a movie like House of the Dead leaves an impression – even if it is that there is an impending apocalypse. The only thing that left any impression on me was Kate Hudson and as I’ve already mentioned it was only for very superficial reasons. I can’t even think of enough to give it a rating….it did not offend or impress. ?

No I'll stick with what I got. Again, it's only a couple of lines and not an entire thread page itself :p

I saw this late last night on TV.

Taking Lives - (D.J. Caruso;2004;USA/Canada) - *
An FBI agent is called to Canada to catch a serial killer who assumes his victims' identity.
All through this movie all I could think of was Se7en. The opening credits looked like they were trying to be the movie. The whole thing feels like a partial rip-off, with added cliches of what really happened that I see in every thriller today. The cast was nice, but that was pretty much it. A mess of cliche and mediocrity. Overall just another thriller with a "got ya!" ending. Ebert liked it as I would expect, although his review did contain something people should take note on.

They don't even know they're not in Montreal. At almost the very moment we hear "Montreal" on the soundtrack, there is a beautiful shot of the Chateau Frontenac in Quebec City. This is a little like Chicago cops not noticing they are standing beneath Mount Rushmore.

Crash ** (1st time)
2005, Haggis, Ger/US/Australia
Several people are connected by racially involved incidents over the course of two days in LA.
A film not without its explosive moments of potential, but for a melodrama full of dramatic irony and overkill, the final impression is dubious: an ambitious directorial debut effort, and yet it seems to offer no further insight into racism than what we already know.

Mick

Four Brothers

I liked it. For more information go see it yourself!

Better ronnie

I was reading up on the movie (it looked mediocre) but now I'm even less excited about it. I just read Four Brothers is an Urbanized remake of the good John Wayne movie The Sons of Katie Elder.

Rebel Without a Cause (1955; Third time) - ****
Director: Nicholas Ray
Trouble arises when a level headed but rebellious teenager moves into town.

This was the first time I saw the film in about two years. Why I've delayed another viewing for so long is beyond me. This is without a doubt, one of my favorite movies and in my top five. James Dean stars in a legendary role--one of the most familiar in cinema, which ranks up there with Vito Corleone and Indiana Jones--as highschool student Jim Starks. The cast, which includes Natalie Wood, gives a terrific performance, one which is arguabley ahead of his time, and similar to the modern acting styles of today (Remember, at the time the film was made, we were still stuck in the "traditional" style of film-acting, which resemebled the animated style often used in live performances). The cinematography is fantastic as well, as Ray provides us with great visuals. But acting and camera work aside, this film has what too many films lack today; meaning. It has a message and importance in not just cinema, but life. It has so much to say socially, that I just can't sum it without extending the length of this post at an excessive rate. The film sums up the feeling of growing up in an unconventional American family, which is constantly at one anothers necks, but in the end, they manage to pull it all together. Undoubtedly one of the best and most influential films ever made.

Boyz N the Hood

Kinda disappointed it in but I'll still probably pick it up on DVD

I picked up Serpico for $5.99 on DVD yesterday. I watched the whole the thing for the 1st time. I had seen most of it in bits and pieces on TV. Good performance from Pachino. Not the greatest movie, but a good watch. Typical early 70's production value police drama.

Manhattan **** (5th time)
1979, Allen, US
The chronicles of a TV writer's complicated sex life in the city he loves.
Mature conversational piece with a fine balance between Allen's neurotic jokes and realistic observations of human relationships; beautifully shot and acted.
Top 5

A full MFA Top 100 review, which I posted a while back:

Manhattan

Dir. by: Woody Allen
Year: 1979
Country: US
Running Time: 90 minutes

“Chapter One. He adored New York City. He idolised it all out of proportion.”

Woody Allen, the immeasurably influential New York auteur, has always been a director with a unique taste for the unconventional. Somebody unaware of their film history may mistake his Sweet and Lowdown (1999) as a film made in the trend of the likes of This is Spinal Tap (1984), unknowing that it was Allen himself, with his debut feature Take the Money and Run (1968), who coined the mockumentary into a recognisable success. In Annie Hall (1977) , Allen’s unconventional approach is at its most acute: the opening talking head addressing the audience directly with an old joke accredited to Groucho Marx; the flashbacks within flashbacks; subtitles revealing subconscious thoughts while a real conversation takes place; split screens showing two parallel psychiatrist meetings; characters revisiting their past as third person onlookers, a device taken straight from Bergman’s Wild Strawberries (1957).

With Manhattan, Allen embeds in us his usual flair for the cinematic bold. Its success relies on several interdependent facets, which, while not as overtly avant garde as Annie Hall , are more subtly ‘classic’ and cinematically mature. Gershwin’s Rhapsody in Blue, Gordon Willis’ loving black and white photography, the sublime acting, script and direction, and the wonderful feel for balanced editing. But its cultural popularity and sustained social importance must nevertheless be questioned. Here we have a series of scenes in cafés, restaurants, libraries and bedrooms, in which people discuss their marriages, affairs and failing careers. A gamble, really, for, when it comes down to it, who wants to watch a film which depends so much on wordy psychobabble and neurotic misanthropy?

Isaac (or Ike, played by Allen) is a television writer with problems. His best friend Yale (Michael Murphy) is having an affair with a journalist Mary (Diane Keaton) who hates Bergman and mispronounces Van Gogh; his second ex-wife, now a lesbian (Meryl Streep) is about to publish a book about their failed love life; his own sex life exists only with seventeen-year-old Tracy (Mariel Hemingway). Ike happens to meet Yale’s mistress Mary, and, due to the fact she is as neurotic as Ike, he begins to like her…

This is as fine a blend of humour and insight as you’re likely to see. Much like his later Hannah and Her Sisters (1986), which diverted Allen back into the grand themes covered here after much lighter comedies, Manhattan’s success comes from its stuttering dilemmas and genuinely moving character arcs. The writing (co-scripted by Marshal Brickman) is extraordinary. Each of the characters has their own way of speaking. Mary, for instance, is the only character who, when pushed to the extreme, is honest enough to throw away her highbrow, Philadelphia façade and drop the F-word. When offered tokenism from Yale, who breaks off with her and suggests meeting with Ike, she stutters and bursts out with truth: “Fuck off, Yale.” Isaac, meanwhile, internalises when he is hurt. Between brown water and a strangling parrot noise, he tells Mary that he never gets angry; “I grow a tumour instead.”

The very personification of the anti-hero, Allen is bespectacled and small, paranoid because he is all-too fully aware and proud of being Jewish. He is foolish and cowering, growing tumours which are in his mind, awake all night because he believes somebody is strangling a parrot upstairs. When out in a thunderstorm with Mary, he makes sure he has his fair share of the newspaper to keep his head dry. Allen has always been aware of this. True, he may not be an acrobat, but his physical shortcomings are no different to those of the bumbling tramp or unsmiling, accidental hero, (Buster) Keaton. He exploits them, makes fun of them, laughs along with his would-be mockers. And the joke is, then, on those who doubt this guy’s sex problems. Allen the intellectual, perhaps for the first time in his career, far outweighs Allen the skinny man.

That we feel for Ike and empathise with him pays testament to two major points: again, Allen’s ability to depict the human condition and say something important about the lives we lead; and two, that deep down in us all, we share the same fears and insecurities as he does when it comes to love. Allen comes dangerously close (knowingly, too) to Chaplinesque sentimentality, with postcard shots of Ike and Mary under the 59th Street Bridge, and a final line of optimism which only just rings true. But, also like Chaplin, Allen gets away with it, moving from soppiness to sophistication like a sneaky chameleon worthy of a role in Zelig.

Thanks for reading,
Mick

I saw the last half of Misery last night on TNT. It wasn't necessarily a great movie, but I did enjoy it. James Caan gave a terrific performance.

Coach Carter

It was ok but not as good as everyone made it out to be

Guess Who

A pretty funny movie but another unnecessary "urbanized" remake of a classic

Two cheap DVDs I bought in a mega 10 DVDs for $10 in a buyout sale of a terrible videostore going out of business. Yes, the perks of ripping off the losers of capitalism!

CODE 46 (2003) - ***/5

BUFFALO SOLDIERS (2003) - ***1/2 out of 5

Both will eventually be reviewed here at RRA'S VIDEO BIN REVIEW!

Sin City (2005) - ***1/2 (Second time - First time on a home entertainment system.)
Director: Robert Rodriguez, Frank Miller
Special Guest Director: Quentin Tarantino
A film-noir lover's heaven consisting of three stories; An ugly mug named Marv avenging the death of is one-time lover, a vigilante named Dwight on a one-night mission to help some women friends beat the Mob, and an old cop on a one-decade quest to protect a young girl turned exotic dancer from a crazed child molestor. Based on the graphic novels by Frank Miller.

Very entertaining, and the year's most visually stunning film. I reccomend it to anyone (granted you aren't bothered by Tarantino-esqe violence), but keep an open mind about things. The way you would rate/view this film is similar to that of a Star Wars flick (began they began to suck). You sure as hell don't pop in A New Hope for the nonexistant drama. It's all about the style, visuals, special effects, and interestingly constructed story-lines. In the years top ten, in my oppinion.

I just watched Mean Streets for the first time. I LOVED IT. I would rank it at least Scorsese's 4th, probably 3rd best film behind Taxi Driver and Raging Bull. I think it's better than Goodfellas because it has a deeper meaning. Goodfellas was just a story.

I agree. It is better then Goodfellas. The only thing Goodfellas has over it is being more well made opposed to the gritty, Indie filming for Mean Streets although that's pretty much what was needed for it. Mean Streets is also Scorsese's most personal film.

Wow, I think I have a new favorite movie. Man that was a good fucking movie. Wow.

Mean Streets is the epitome of Scorsese's work; his most important film.

Mick

Jeder für sich und Gott gegen alle/Every Man For Himself and God Against All of Them/The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser **** (1st time)
1974, Herzog, WGer
In 1828 Nuremberg, a 16-year-old boy, with no previous interaction with the world, is found, his origins unknown.
An extraordinary cinematic achievement; storytelling of the most powerful order, with a sterling performance from Bruno S. in the lead role. Herzog's vision portrays the limitations of society and its methods of education with powerful, often ironic impact.
Top 100

Me and You and Everyone We Know ** (1st time; big screen)
2005, July, US/GB
A newly divorced shoe salesman struggles to connect with a customer who he happens to like, an eccentric performance artist.
A refreshing romance which goes beyond its principle characters to take on themes of adolescent yearning for sexual recognition, and pre-pubescent perceptions of life. If it has too many ideas for ninety minutes, it is a painless, mostly pleasant ride, with moments of brilliance.

The Graduate **** (2nd time)
1967, Nichols, US
A college student is seduced by the wife of his father's partner, but instead falls in love with her daughter.
An exemplary social comedy, and summation of the generation gap at the late sixties; it made a star of Hoffman.

Être et avoir/To Be and to Have **** (1st time)
2002, Philibert, Fr
A year in the life of a primary school in rural France.
An extremely simplistic documentary full of comical insights into the untarnished world of children and their colourfully innocent lives; funny, touching and revealing.
Best of 2002?

Mick

Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes/Aguirre, Wrath of God **** (3rd time; first time with commentary)
1972, Herzog, WGer
In 1560, an ambitious soldier in Pizarro's conquistador army leads a mission on raft down the Amazon River, and slowly goes mad.
Epic in all but running length, this is an ambitious and haunting study of despair and destiny, told in a visually inspired way; from Kinski's intense title performance to the on-location filming, it is one of the great achievements of cinema.
Best film of 1972? Of the 1970s? Of all time?

Mick

Come on...

In all fairness, I think we can accept that The Godfather isn't the best film ever for everyone.

Maybe so, but best of '72 has to be The Godfather.

Maybe so, but best of '72 has to be The Godfather. [/b][/quote]Have you seen Aguirre, Wrath of God?

Aguirre, Wrath of God is the greatest portrait of human descendency into madness, I think. It was a film made in less than three months, on location in the Peruvian jungles and rivers, for a modest budget of $350,000. Blessed with a phenomenal performance by Klaus Kinski (even before this rewatch, I've always said that, for onscreen physical presence, Brando pales in comparison to him), it is Herzog's most memorable vision of humanity--and that's saying something, for a genius who is quickly becoming a favourite of mine.

The Godfather, as far as American films go, was the pinnacle film of that year, with John Boorman's Deliverance not too far behind. Coincidentally, the man-at-odds-with-nature theme of that latter film shares uncanny comparisons to the Herzog film.

Mick

Original Sin - (Michael Cristofer;2001;France/USA) - **
A wealthy Cuban man orders a wife from America only to find there's more to her then meets the eye.
A film that could've been a great noir, but fails. It becomes poorly written, melodramatic, and predictable. The cast is good, but it doesn't save the movie from mediocrity. The music and cinematography were also good, but again it failed to save the film.

This in my opion is one of the best films of the last few years

butterfly effect