Line's Top 100 Films of All Time

[Line]

Stanley Donen, 1963​

Despite the popularity that Cary Grant has garnered over the years, most people that I have come across have not seen this fun, little film starring him and Audrey Hepburn. Charade, or as some may know it, The Truth About Charlie ( ) is an exciting yet easy-going thriller; a film that takes you back to the good ol’ days of cinema and its stereotypes.

Audrey Hepburn stars as Regina “Reggie” Lampert, a recently widowed woman who finds her husband was found murdered and that in his passing, left a large sum of dept unto her. Hepburn here is as glamorous as ever and her presence and wardrobes do nothing but help accentuate the somewhat naïve and often-flustered Reggie. While vacationing she comes across the character of Peter Joshua (Cary Grant) who is as sharp-tongued and witty as he’s been in any picture. There’s something about the chemistry between these two from the start of the film that holds you in curiosity as he is far more aged than her at this point. Still, both play off the dialogue and each other perfectly and even subtle laughs and expressions such as sighs and “uh huh”s seem to be so intricately placed throughout the script, perfectly written for these, and only these two actors. Even when they meet at a ski lodge, there’s already the making of something fantastic to come. For instance, when leaving, Hepburn asks if they’ll meet again stating:

Reggie Lampert: Well, wasn't it Shakespeare that said, "When strangers do meet in far off lands, they should e'er long see each other again"?
Peter Joshua: Shakespeare never said that!
Reggie Lampert: How do you know?
Peter Joshua: It's terrible. You just made it up.

At her husband’s funeral we are introduced to three men, all whom knew her husband, the late Charles Lampert (Voss being his real name), and all of whom want to collect that money from no other than Reggie herself. She naturally learns of all this information from Mr. Bartholemew (Walter Matthau), an agent, or a dispatcher of agents to be exact, who does his best to guide Reggie through the troubles that are to come.

Already we have the makings of a wonderful film. The cast alone is noteworthy and the quick-thinking dialogue is top notch. While it’s not in itself a ridiculously complex or thought provoking film there’s always an element of fun and surprise and that’s very much evident even during the first thirty minutes.

Then trouble comes, not concerning the quality of the film itself, but for our lead, the young Miss Hepburn as the young Mrs. Lampert. Attacks and threats begin on her and naturally she turns to that stranger she met some time ago. They whine and dine but further deception strikes and Reggie becomes fearful for her life. Trapped in a hotel with as many as four people who want money she isn’t aware she has and, if all else fails, want her life instead. Peter himself gets mixed up in things and while Regina doesn’t truly trust him he uses his quirky charm to persuade and woo her time and time again.

Once again, this is a pure testament of just personable this film is. The two are constantly feeding off each other instead of chewing scenery and there even appears to be many inside jokes, most notably how they joke about the large age gap between them.

Reggie Lampert: Here it comes, the fatherly talk. You forget I'm already a widow.
Peter Joshua: Well, so was Juliet, at fifteen.
Reggie Lampert: I'm not fifteen.
Peter Joshua: Well, that's your trouble. You're too old for me.

In the end there’s quite a twist, but not one that feels forced or cheap and far from some contrivance that’s used in order to simply tie together lose ends. Here we have a very calculated conclusion that’s more than appropriate within the context of the rest of the film. And, not that this is a spoiler, Grant gets the girl, but the journey there, both of which the characters take and also we as the viewers, is a more than rewarding, rewatchable, gleefully fun experience.

 

[Line]

No one's seen Spinal Tap?

 

[Line]

Wolfgang Reitherman, 1973

The first of what I will expect to be quite a few overlaps between the lists of Lemonz and I is a childhood favorite of mine. Despite all of its hilarities and ingeniously broad characterizations, Robin Hood remains brave in the sense that it has the audacity to portray its hero as an outlaw and makes no reservations of what is commonly labeled as a character flaw. I for one have had a bit of a rebellious and questioning nature to myself throughout my life and I believe I owe much of that spirit to this film, a lesson far too many learn at too old an age; if at all.

The pictorials we’re presented with regarding each character plays greatly as they are not only afforded the traits of their original story counterparts but the selection of the animals used in portraying them could not have been executed better. Who better to play Robin Hood, a man who out rightly and without reservation steals from members of the hierarchy to meet the demands of the downtrodden, than a cunning fox? The distinct characteristics of each player meshes well with the animals chosen to portray them in this joyfully believable situation where the villain is not strictly characterized as a singular being but just a bad apple amongst the bunch.

While there is a clear-cut case of good and evil in this situation, its unadultered stance provokes thoughts of what is truly right and wrong, even if the former is damned by law. In most films of this nature, many films steer clear of such a contemptuous message an instead cop out by using the anti-hero device, especially in a film targeted at such a young demographic. While the story itself certainly isn’t original the point being made by the film is painted in broad strokes dealing with corruption and abuse of power amongst the ranks. The villains are merciless and the townsfolk are helpless. There’s a society existing here that knows no class boundaries when it comes down to whether or not someone is a good or bad person and Maid Marion is the most appropriate example of this.

Needless to say, there are fun aspects of the film that aren't nearly as poignantly philosophical as the aforementioned. The animation, while somewhat gritty, is an appropriate filter to see our picture through as we’re dealing with issues that remain topical. Many memorable scenes appropriately clutter the picture, allowing pleasure for viewers of all ages. Also, through a very telling romance that exists throughout the picture we again see themes dealing with the boundlessness of class importance and how those coming from any background can indeed live in harmony.

Oo-de-lally, Oo-de-lally, golly what a day indeed.

 

[Daniel Andersson]

Robin Hood :werdrun_2:

 

[Line]

Trey Parker, 1999​

Let's get some admissions out of the way early here before we begin. First, Rent sucked. Moulin Rouge! had some saving moments but ultimately was an over-saturated exercise in visual excess and while the music was fitting and it did have some saving graces, the aspects involving emotional depth and provocation took a back seat to its craft. Rent sucked. Chicago is commonly regarded as one of the weaker Best Picture winners in recent memory. Sweeney Todd was a competent adaptation but had it's flaws nonetheless. Oh, and Rent sucked...as did season 2 of "South Park".

After the unforeseen success of the show's first season, creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker let the celebrity associated with a hit show go to their heads and created its abominal second season. Critics and fans alike began throwing around adjectives relating to arrogance ad nauseum. Eventually the smoke cleared (probably literally) and they swore to themselves that a motion picture would be birthed from this downfall after which there would be no going back. What Parker and Stone delivered is one of the best musicals and comedies of all time, a point I'd gladly debate with any one.

What makes South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut so brilliant is its blatantly obvious cynicism towards the MPAA in regard to their ridiculously hypocritical nature dealing with profanity in film, as well as the failure of many American parents to take responsibility for the actions of their children. Despite having worked on the script before the incident, this film debuted within months of the Columbine massacre, a pivotal example of societal downfall in regard to this same issue. While there's no specific mention to said event, both Parker and Stone have made it very public that they had close relations with the school and were devastated by what had happened that afternoon of April 20th, 1999. It was quite the audacious move as public spokesmen of the arts to step forward and say that communicational problems between children and their parents is a mainstream downfall within our culture as our busy-body ways take far too much focus off of family values and the sharing of enjoyment amongst those closest to you.

Aside from the social commentary present in almost every frame, lie jokes that only these two comedic geniuses are capable of and we probably have them to thank (or blame) for the boundaries being pushed in terms of freedom of speech in terms of the expressive mediums we enjoy today. To put it statistical terms, there are 399 total swear words used and a body count of 312...yeah. Of course, all these points are moot and would fail to communicate their points as "believable" within its specified realm if it had a standard narrative; the idea to make the film a musical was genius and the songs are better crafted, edgier, and sharper than most others released within the genre of today. While the song "Blame Canada" which offers political commentary on both our administration's willingness to please public demand and to shift blame to other cultures, was nominated for an Oscar, the standout piece is "La Restistance (Medley)". The latter song borrows heavily from such classics as Les Miserables and, oddly enough, a Broadway director of Les Mis called Bigger, Longer, and Uncut the best musical of the past 25 years. I'm inclined to agree.

 

[Line]

Wes Anderson, 2001

Throughout his fairly young, still blossoming career, Wes Anderson is an auteur who is unfairly criticized for constituting overly repeated themes that offer familiar and superficial subtext. Unfortunately, such claims that his films are indeed unexpansive in terms of goal and aesthetic quality go unjustified as he's already a master at creating universal realms in which his films exist and said settings are direct reflections of the tonal qualities of his films. Is the one trick pony label valid? Perhaps, but each film offers a unique perspective with a trademark style which he obviously isn't willing to compromise just to please detractors. I personally find many of his films to be quite experimental in terms of craftsmanship and storytelling via different narrative techniques and oddly fitting contrasting settings. Even as a big fan of his work, I feel he is teetering on the line of self parody but unlike Soderbergh's recent experimental efforts I'm hoping that Anderson can once again channel his talents into a compelling and more complete work that relies just as much on subtextual challenges as well as superficial pleasures. Only time will tell whether this is true or not, but needless to say I find this particular film a standout in his limited filmography.

To go through and and explain the importance of each character would be quite a daunting task and I, as your humble writer, am not up to it at the very moment. However, as I look behind my desk and see a poster for the film reading "FAMILY ISN'T A WORD...IT'S A SENTENCE" is quite the appropriate tagline; a trait I rarely give stock in unless it provides any insight. What we're presented with through Anderson's intertwining story about a multi-charactered, multi-layered family is a battle of personality and deception, of settlement and conflict, and ultimately of acceptance. Putting aside the performance that the notable cast offers unto us, each character in its own right fits appropriately into the world in which Anderson creates; a faux-New York with just enough quirks to make it passabley distant to the actual city. Such a movement is key to Anderson's work as, despite a few moving scenes, he generally is the first to point out the shortcomings of his characters with the realization that they do not exist merely in an imperfect world but of another world entirely.

It's hard to sum up the well-crafted character arcs of a piece featuring more than six primary players but we do learn through our pseudo-title character Royal Tenanbaum (Gene Hackman) as he shows us the great excesses of pride when it comes to protecting one's own bloodline and name. The film's title is perfect in the sense that Royal himself depicts his family as a great one versed by tragedy instead of humor, a pleasure only we as the audience are privy to. Even after long lapses of disconcern with his family, he's quick to act when his position as the figurehead lead of the Tenenbaum pack is in jeopardy of being usurped. This movement actually takes us back to the most primitive motifs of man when dealing with protection and the stake of one's kin, even if a serious emotional disconnection has occurred between them throughout the years. The distinct personalities can come off as being caricatures, but it has always remained a common movement of Anderson's where his characters represent the confinement of mood, hence there exists very changes in costumes and appearances of which only occur after a dramatic tonal shift.

Despite the film being labeled as a piecemeal effort of a few standout scenes, mostly ones that invest themselves with musical counterparts (even detractors have to give credit to Anderson's musical choices), it's the subtle scenes dealing with dark comedy that fully develop our characters and challenge us to look deeper than the overtly superficial nature of Anderson's character as a director. Why I do not believe this is his finest work, it remains an important one in terms of balancing thematics, mood, and aesthetics; qualities that many films overlook or even bother to concern themselves with.

 

[Flex]

South Park movie made your list?

 

[Line]

South Park movie made your list?

It's one of the best musicals and best comedies of all time.

 

[Daniel Andersson]

oooh Line....South Park.....

 

[Mygeeto]

DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUDE.... Spinal Tap is freakin' gay
even me as a super obsessed metal head.. i cant watch that movie.

 

[Glex]

I can only assume you were talking about His Girl Friday in the gym.

Spoiler

Or maybe This Is Spinal Tap.

 

[Line]

DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUDE.... Spinal Tap is freakin' gay
even me as a super obsessed metal head.. i cant watch that movie.

This post fails moreso than I thought one could.

 

[Line]

Alfred Hitchcock, 1938​

It's hard to put into words why I hold this film in such high regard, especially now more so than ever due to my ever-growing, self-admitted pretensions. While there has been a few movies so far on this list that have catered less to the philosophically deep than others, few of said films are left to be found in what lies ahead for myself and my loyal readers. In a way, I find that the more I think of this list I've put together, the more it directly reflects where I am in my undertaking of cinephilia. Despite being young, I often found myself fussing about with all sorts of technical nit-pickery, rarely bothering to look what lies below the surface as long as the film is "by the book" good. While I do enjoy to be challenged, there is still said room for such an emphasis on the level of a director's craft which, as Bergman puts it, makes one more of a technician than an artist but that's not to say they can't both be inspiring.

Often times when I think of Hitchcock, particularly his earlier films, I see an incredible emphasis of the superficial, what's happening in the now in contrast to what's happening below the surface. By focusing on said intents he was slowly able to begin putting more and more meaning underneath within the subtextual confines of what his mighty lense produced and it became very apparent how his regally intriguing title, "The Master of Suspense" came to fruition. I don't want to continue to prattle on like and old fool about issues that disconcern the movie's content, I have been talking about such things because I believe that The Lady Vanishes is largely underdiscussed jumping-off point for this soon to be inspired director. While it's true that he had made some engaging pictures before 1938 I believe that this particular film is often robbed of the credit of which it deserves due to falling between to markedly more "notable" films: The 39 Steps (1937) and Rebecca (1940)*. In the prior we many notable examples of fitting storytelling devices and framing/blocking techniques and the latter provides us with a somewhat reaching attempt of explaining his trademark shock-inspired events by examining the human psyche, for which it receives far too much credit for. Somewhere between the two extremes is where this film appropriately lands in his cannon and its excellence of narrative and technical craftsmanship, I believe, led way for Hitchcock to begin taking on more artistic and intrusive cinematic movements.

Honestly, I don't much want to discuss the plot of the film but I will make note of some of the more worthy progressionalist areas. While it had been done before and after this work, the idea of confining a protagonist to a central area in which they have no control or leave from and having the realistically unimaginable happen is carried out here better than anywhere else. Iris (Margaret Lockwood) leads the way after coming to the conclusion that an elderly woman has mysteriously disappeared from a cross-continental train she's on. The tonal shift in increasing our concern for Iris before she gets on the train itself is very well executed and having such a prominent female lead turned out to be not only a chance worth taking but a refreshing one, especially for the viewer who patterns themselves merely off of modern cinema. The more subtle themes regarding that of loyalty and identity are not only impecably carried out but also serve as not only a breakaway moment for Hitchcock's career and thematic experimentalism but also that of other aueteurs worldwide. As a whole we're left with a film that is all but technically perfect and begins to scratch the surface just enough in terms of self-doubt and perspective that we as the audience realize Hitch's take on said exploration will only lead us to greater films...as will this list hopefully.

_______________
*There were three other films other than The Lady Vanishes released between the release of these films but they are often largely dismissed as not being particularly relevant to the growth of Hitchcock or suspense cinema and, likewise, I'm dismissing them.

 

[JS316]

I really didn't like the Royal Tenenbaums... what is it about the movie that you liked?

Lol at that Spinal Tap snippet you posted.. seems funny

 

[Storm]

Line, would you mind wirtting down a "previously, on line's list" every say 10 films? It's kinda difficult to follow it with all the responses and such. It's true i could do it myself but i'm sure you have this already written somewhere so it's just a copy and paste.
Thanks buddy.

PS: there are already some of my favs on this list.

 

[Flex]

Line, would you mind wirtting down a "previously, on line's list" every say 10 films? It's kinda difficult to follow it with all the responses and such. It's true i could do it myself but i'm sure you have this already written somewhere so it's just a copy and paste.
Thanks buddy.

PS: there are already some of my favs on this list.

Refer to the first post of this thread.

 

[high_five]

South Park movie made your list?

South Park outta nowhere

 

[Storm]

thanks a lot flex!

 

[Flex]

South Park outta nowhere

It was. It was like...

1.) Gone with the Wind
2.) It's a Wonderful Life
3.) SOUTH PARK

 

[Line]

I really didn't like the Royal Tenenbaums... what is it about the movie that you liked?

While most of Wes Anderson's films remain distant to the viewer, The Royal Tenenbaums remains and interesting study on what a man is willing to do in order to get his family back. In a way, it takes us back to primitive, instinctive ways in regards to protecting and caring for those close to us only when another threat is present. The jealousy represented in Royal is played off brilliantly by Gene Hackman and he, along with every other character, undergoes a complex arc representing what family means to each of them. The visuals tend to complete the world in which Anderson's characters exist, making it forgivable that we are put at arm's length from them in the first place.

I'm also doing this list on Rotten Tomatoes but with write ups that are fairly in depth. If you guys want I can copy/paste them here after I finish them, but you're a few films ahead of the game right now.

Refer to the first post of this thread.

Thanks, Flex.