What Have You Got for the Pot?

I wanted to do a movie review.  I’ve recorded Barry Lyndon and was going to watch it.  But I got home late from work and the movie is three hours long and I thought I might fall asleep before I could write a review of it.  So, I’ll wait for a better opportunity.

But it got me thinking about all those lists of the top twenty, fifty, one hundred or two hundred movies of all time.  So, I looked at a bunch of lists.  Some by leading directors, some by professional critics and some by just regular people.

I was horrified.

So many movies that I know are truly awful get on these lists.  It makes you wonder if there can truly be a list of the top twenty movies of all time, never mind the top one hundred.  One list from IMDB had, “The Shawshank Redemption” as the second-best movie of all time.  It had, “Raging Bull” as the fourth-best.  I find both of these rankings impossible.  There are literally dozens of movies better than either one of these (in my opinion).  By the same token, the list made up by famous directors also had movies listed that I’ve seen that were awful.  Any top 100 list that includes, “Eraserhead” needs to be scrutinized very carefully to see if the judges have been using LSD at the time of the survey.

Okay, maybe there is no such thing as an objective list of the best films.  But surely there must be a way to write an algorithm that incorporates several criteria to eliminate the worst excesses of either hyper-artistic avant-gardism and knuckle-dragging philistinism and provide a solid dependable list of very good films to look at.  I think it can be done.

One thing though.  I think it is necessary to divide the list into categories.  Comedies, dramas, action-adventure and other genre movies need to be judged separately.  It’s too difficult comparing films in different categories against each other.  And in a way it’s unhelpful.  Someone who hates comedies isn’t going to agree that any comedy can be better than the films he likes.  And vice versa.

But for today’s post I’m going to ask the audience to take an active role.  Pick one movie that you think has been neglected by critics that deserves to be elevated to a loftier status.  And then pick a movie that is hailed by critics or the public as outstanding that in your opinion stinks.  If you can only do one or the other, please feel free to provide that.  I’m always looking for good movies to watch and I think it will be interesting to hear what movie you think doesn’t deserve the acclaim it currently enjoys.

I’ll start the ball rolling.  Hitchcock’s, “Vertigo” always ends up in the top twenty movies according to high-brow critics and top flight directors.  I’ve seen it and think it’s terrible.  I’m not sure what exactly all the hype is about but it must be the “cinematography.”  Something about camera angles.  Well, they can keep it.

A movie I think has been overlooked is an earlier Coen Brothers movie, “Miller’s Crossing.”  Gabriel Byrne is the protagonist; a gangster named Tom Reagan who works for Leo O’Bannon played enthusiastically by Albert Finney.  John Turturro and Steve Buscemi are also part of the cast.  True to the Coen Brothers style, there is over the top violence and emotional havoc in all directions but the effect is powerful and very interesting.  If you like gangster movies this one is worth a watch.

So, what has everyone else got for the pot?