I devour the BFI Best Films of All Time list whenever they deem it necessary to revise and I (invariably) disagree with most of the findings, but I still get a kick out of browsing. Same with Rolling Stone's inane Best 100 Albums (how does Sgt. Pepper drop from #1 to #24 in the latest incarnation?); the anger I feel subsides when I see they've put a couple of Aerosmith albums on the list! We all disagree with that number one but we keep right on scrolling through each choice.
This project, which has been percolating for quite a while, originated from the constant, back and forth, "good natured bickering" between John Scoleri and myself. John invariably loves everything and I hate it all (for more of the discourse, I advise one and all to pick up a copy of bare•bones print magazine and read our debates about streaming and movie theaters to get a taste). I began to think it would be fun to compose a Favorite (as opposed to Best) 100 and compare our selections. Making it even more tantalizing, I managed to talk the third head of Ghidorah, Jack Seabrook, into participating. This could be interesting, since John's never seen a movie the two Georges (Romero and Lucas) didn't have a hand in, and Jack usually favors the flicks that have words at the bottom of the screen (dis-moi que j'ai tort, Jack!). I, on the other hand, can't wait to educate these two gentlemen as to what constitutes good cinema.
Every Thursday, we'll count down our picks two at a time. We're hoping this will generate discourse outside of our trio. Let us know just how crazy we are. This is going to be fun!—Peter
A History of Violence (2005)
"My husband does not know you. He wouldn't know you, somebody like you."
This is a deceptively easy movie to summarize once you've seen it but, while you're watching it for the first time, the pieces take a long time to fit together. Mortenson's Tom Stall sure seems like Smalltown, USA's most loved diner owner, a guy who'd give you that piece of pie and coffee for free if you were down on your luck; he'd be the first one out to the neighbors' place to help put out the barn fire. After some trouble at the diner involving two psychopaths lands him on the nationwide news, you can see he's very uncomfortable with the attention. But surely that's because he really doesn't believe himself to be a hero, right?
When mobster Ed Harris comes to town and harasses Tom, telling him he knows his real identity, it's surely a horrific case of mistaken identity, right? Family man Tom couldn't really be gangster Joey Cusack, hiding from his past, could he? Once you know the twist, you can look for the clues, and David Cronenberg does not cheat. That's a very important point. A lot of these "he's not who he seems to be" flicks will manipulate characters, dialogue, and situations to fit their ultimate surprise reveal, but Cronenberg leaves a trail of breadcrumbs (the way Mortenson watches himself on TV and shakes his head can be construed differently on the second viewing), almost hoping you'll see what's coming. Once we do find out the big secret and Viggo's demeanor changes, it's done organically, as if Tom Stall might just have a split personality.
This cast is top-notch, from Mortenson to the incredibly sexy Bello to the never more hammy William Hurt (in what could only be described as a glorified cameo). In an interesting contrast, Mortenson would work with Cronenberg again two years later in Eastern Promises, a movie that takes the premise of History and reverses it.—Peter
Remarks from the Gallery
Jack: I saw this in a theater when it came out. I remember that my wife and I were on vacation somewhere and knew nothing about it. We walked in cold and I was blown away. This should probably be on my list. Viggo Mortenson and Ed Harris are great in it, but William Hurt just cracked me up. His scene near the end is a classic.
John: Undoubtedly a great flick—perhaps Cronenberg's best. And one that was under consideration for my top 100 but didn't quite make the cut on the day. A fantastic cast (Ed Harris, who is always great, is particularly good in this), but I have to call out the one you failed to mention—Maria Bello. She's great as Tom's wife, who's learning about his history along with the audience.
Remarks from the Gallery:
Peter: You stumped me again, Mr. Seabrook! I've heard of Jack Benny and Carole Lombard but never heard of the flick. I've definitely heard of Joe Tura (inside joke).
John: I was aware of the Mel Brooks remake but too haven't seen either version.
Carnival of Souls (1962)
Remarks from the Gallery
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
"Peter Parker? 'Brilliant but lazy.'"
Growing up, The Amazing Spider-Man was my favorite comic title; its writer, the late, great Gerry Conway, just seemed to come up with hook after hook (most of them used as foundation for the movies). I was lucky enough to experience the wonders of the early 1970s arcs like The Death of Gwen, The Death of the Goblin, The Gwen-Clone, The Jackal/Professor Warren, and The Punisher. When I heard Sam Raimi would be helming Spider-Man (2001), I was thrilled, but the finished product was less than thrilling. It's okay, don't get me wrong, but that Goblin uni pretty much ruins the flick for me.
So, I went into Spider-Man 2 with lowered expectations but found quickly that Raimi had finally figured it out; Alfred Molina's Doc Ock is the best realization of any of the Spidey villains on screen. The trick is to portray the bad guy as a real man and therefore a real threat, as opposed to Willem Dafoe's hammy Norman Osborn. The script (with a helping hand from novelist/comic book enthusiast Michael Chabon) is packed with the kind of self-reflecting dialogue you don't usually associate with guys in spandex. The El scene manages to sustain an incredible amount of suspense even if you do know how it's going to resolve itself. And, as much as I like Tom Holland as Spidey in the new cycle, Tobey Maguire is Peter Parker.
Alas, this was the last time we'd experience that kind of Spidey movie for several years (Spider-Man 3 was a bloated, rambling disaster and don't get me started on the two Andrew Garfield crapfests), but hold on to this one, the second best Marvel superhero movie of all time.-Peter
Remarks from the Gallery
Jack: Ah, for the good old days when Marvel movies were fun! I liked the first Spider-Man movie a lot, but I agree with you that this one was even better, in large part due to Alfred Molina as Doc Ock. Tobey Maguire was a great choice to play Peter Parker. Now you have me wondering what your #1 Marvel flick is!
John: For me, Spider-Man was the beginning of the end (for a while, anyway) of the great Sam Raimi. And while we are in agreement that this one is the best of the Tobey Maguire cycle, I cannot agree that he was the best Spider-Man. Garfield was different, but not drastically better. For my money, Tom Holland is Peter Parker/Spider-Man. 'Nuff said.
Remarks from the Gallery
Remarks from the Gallery



.jpg)
.jpg)



.jpg)


No comments:
Post a Comment