I haven't seen Memento, it just doesn't appeal to me for some reason, it should but I just can't ever stop thinking of Guy Pearce as being Mike from Neighbours. Stupid I know.

 

A Clockwork Orange is brilliant, I went to see it in the cinema when Kubrick's personal ban was finally lifted and I loved it. It's a vicious depiction of lost souls in a dystopian future and the danger of heavy-handed Government rehab techniques. The filming is top-notch and Wendy Carlos' soundtrack is simply untouchable.

#48

 

Angel Heart

 

 

Year - 1987

Director - Alan Parker

Starring - Mickey Rourke, Robert De Niro, Lisa Bonet

 

Why You Should See It

In 1955 New York private Investigator Harry Angel (Mickey Rourke) is contacted by a mysterious man (Robert De Niro) to locate former big band crooner and WWII veteran Johnny Favourite. Favourite suffered severe mental trauma in the war and disappeared without fulfilling his contract. The case takes Angel to New Orleans and into the world of voodoo where he meets Favourite's illegitimate daughter Epiphany Proudfoot (Bonet) and various other friends and associates who all start being murdered one by one.

Angel Heart is a clever mix of Film Noir, Thriller and stylish Psychological Horror that was controversial at the time for its casting of The Cosby Show's Lisa Bonet and the blood drenched and graphic sex scene which required trimming to pass for an R rating and though it only did reasonably well at the box office has since become a cult favourite among fans of many genres. The cinematography and sense of 50s New Orleans brilliantly realised and shows off the beauty and poverty of the city. The score by future Hollywood favourite Trevor Jones is widely acclaimedand gained him much recognition. At its heart though is a career standout performance from Mickey Rourke who still had his looks and undoubted screen presence to draw on. At the time he was probably best known for Erotic Thriller 9 1/2 Weeks and this was a departure for him. Despite this performance bad choice of roles, personal problems and his notoriously difficult persona would see his star decline and directors refuse to work with him until he turned his back on acting for boxing. Eventually he would again earn acclaim in Sin City and The Wrestler yet many still argue this is his best performance and film. De Niro is electric in his portrayal of the mysterious busniessman and Bonet threw off he good girl image. Many have cited this film as the cause of her leaving the all American family sitcom The Cosby Show and it is arguable that despite such a good performance her career has never recovered.

If you are looking for a dark Thriller with nods to the works of Hitchcock and Film Noir than they don't come much better than this and its 1950s setting has prevented the film from becoming dated. Something not many 80s film can claim.

I havent heard of Angel Heart before, looks interesting *adds to Lovefilm list*

Premonition by Sandra Bullock!

Premonition by Sandra Bullock!

:manson: Oh please!!

Edited February 15, 201114 yr by Severin

Clockwork Orange... One of those films everyone tells me to watch but I never get round to it... You only have it at #50 though so maybe its a bit overrated...

Premonition by Sandra Bullock!

LOL LOL LOL

 

My mum actually made me watch that! What a waste of fucking time that was.

Angel Heart is a great film and is easily Mickey Rourke's finest hour.

Clockwork Orange... One of those films everyone tells me to watch but I never get round to it... You only have it at #50 though so maybe its a bit overrated...

Even if it were the 50th best film ever it would be brilliant but this list is not presented as a countodwn to the greatest film ever. Simply 50 films that I feel will enrich your appreciation of the art of cinema. However I will save my top 3 til the end. Beyond that it is impossible for me to rate them so strictly

#47

 

Triumph Des Willens

 

 

Year - 1935

Director - Leni Rienfenstahl

Starring - Adolf Hitler, The German Nazi party

 

Why You Should See It

Another hugely controversial film and I think it's only right that before I begin I explicitly state that I in no way agree with the actions or policies of the Nazi Party. Quite the opposite in fact but this is a list of films you should see and not necessarily like so there will undoubtedly be some that are difficult to stomach.

Riefenstahl's film is concerned with the 1934 Nuremburg Rally, the first after the party swept to power under Hitler bringing about a wave of National Socialist fervour. It wasn't the first ever filmed and nor was it the last but it has become the most enduring and discussed. It was controversial from day one because of the limited amount of screen time given to the Wehrmacht. Riefenstahl was originally said to be reluctant to the film and preferred to concentrate on making drama films ue to her political naivety but was finally coerced into this by Hitler himself after promises that the film would be entirely her own and not open to interference from the Minsitry for Propoganda and it is here where most of it's controversy stems. Riefenstahl consistently claimed that it was not a Propoganda Film but Cinema Verite. Simple a documentary detailing evenet as they happened during the rally. However its power as Propoganda is undeniable. Right from the very start Hitler arrives Godlike from the heavens aboard a JU52 aircraft - a luxury few could afford back then. There are numerous shots of churches and Religious themes throughout the film and virtually all trace of anti-semitism (often a key componenet of Hitler's speeches) is missing. Instead Hitler is portrayed as the great unifier and empowerer of a German people all but crushed after The Great War. There's no doubt his speeches are powerful and that he was a great orator of his, and probably all time, but is this a genuinely true portrayal of events or the work of a propogandist.

There is little in the film to find agreeable subject-wise given the subsequent events under the Nazi regime but it is in the film-making techniques where the one can find its lasting legacy and undoubted influence on cinematic history. Aerial photography, moving cameras and the use of music and long focus lenses are part and parcel of film-making today but back then were new and groundbreaking ideas. Filming Hitler from below in order to give the impression of power. Many of the most iconic and enduring views of Hitler are derived from this film and references to it can be found in films as diverse as Star Wars, Citizen Kane, Spartacus, Starship Troopers, The Lord Of The Rings, The Lion King and Gladiator. In fact any film with marching colums of soldiers or flags fluttering in the breeze owes a great debt to Triumph Of The Will. Many of the greatest directors in history - Steven Spielberg, Ridley Scott, Orson Wells, George Lucas, Frank Capra, Stanley Kubrick and many more have all cited this as an influence on their works at various times.

Perhaps most interestingly though was not its influence on the German people, to which little was ever attributed but its influence on the Allied nations. Yes, it was popular in Germany and probably persuaded a number of German's to take up the cause but it is arguable that Hitler did that himself. Yet overseas it caused outrage and led to many more pro-Allied Propoganda film to made than would have done without it. Ostensibly doubling the anti German feeling in Britain, America and other countries. Riefenstahl herself was blacklisted in Hollywood and it effectively ended her career outside Germany. A career that would likely not last after 1945 anyhow. She was imprisoned after the war as a Nazi propogandist and tried hard to fight these claims up until her death in 2003. The films remains banned in Germany for it use of Nazi imagery and pro Nazi stance and can only be viewed for educational purposes. I also think its right that this period in world history should not easily be forgotten lest we make the same mistakes again and again.

For a director who only made a small number of films her name is extremely highly regarded in terms of technical expertise and her legacy remains undimmed. Indeed the next time you view a War Film, Royal Wedding or Party Political Conference note just how much of its content owes itself to the techniques first used in this film.

i had no idea the use of low angle shots to show power derived from this film, i think that was one of the first things I learned in Media and probaly wrote it in countless media and film essays.

i had no idea the use of low angle shots to show power derived from this film, i think that was one of the first things I learned in Media and probaly wrote it in countless media and film essays.

To be fair Fritz Lang had used the technique briefly before in M and others may have also but Riefenstahl used it much more heavily and certainly used it to its greatest effect before anyone else did

#46

 

Star Wars - Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back

 

 

Year - 1980

Director - Irvin Kershner

Starring - Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher

 

Why You Should See It

Where does one start with Star Wars? At the beginning? Or at the second beginning.? For me it began in 1977 aged 5 and whilst A New Hope (or simply Star Wars as it was originally known) was without a doubt a massive game changer for cinema and Sci-Fi in particular I've picked the follow up as for me and the majority of others it is the best film of the series. But first the background. George Lucas' original entry in the story, along with Spielberg's Jaws, virtually invented the 'blockbuster' movie and the two films proved massive draws although both aimed at different audiences. Episode V revolutionised special effects in movies and brought an onsluaght of Sci-Fi action films whereas the genre had previously been far more about the science and less about the fiction. The film essentially took much inspiration from Akira Kurasawa's The Hidden Fortress, fairytales and Western films, telling the story of a Princess imprisoned by an evil tyrant who is rescued by our heroes. The film was and still is brilliantly inspiring to every new generation of movie makers and audiences, creating a massive franchise that all but invented the action figure, tie in novel and movie merchandise. But where A New Hope really succeeds is it it's charm that overcomes a weak story, poor script and only one really solid acting performance - Alec Guinness - who lamented his involvement but appreciated that the deal he made to receive a royalties rather than a one off payment meant he need never work again. He suggested Kenobi be killed because he preferred not to continue reading such awful dialogue and claimed that he 'shriveled up' inside every time the film was mentioned to him. Yet Lucas still cites him as one of the driving forces in the original films success.

 

And so onto Empire. The story picks up as I'm sure you all know after the Rebels succesful destruction of the Death Star and with them in hiding on the remote world of Hoth (Norway) and the vengeful Empire hunting them down. From this grim opening the film soon provides the series best moment with the four legged AT-AT walkers attack on the Rebel base. Which is successful and our band of heroes chased through an asteroid field. Except Luke who goes off to further learn the ways of The Force. Eventually they are all lured into a trap by Vader. Han Solo is taken by a bounty hunter because of his debts moments after he and Leia decalre their love for each other and Luke has his first face off with Darth Vader in a lightsaber duel, with grim consequences and the Rebel forces scattered throughout the galaxy.

 

The inspired choice of Irvin Kershner to direct had to very simple but effective results. Kirshner realised the bleak nature of the story and directed the film to complement this. He downplayed the humour without sacrificing it and created an atmosphere of brooding menace unlike any of the other films in the series. In doing so he created the template that sequels should be darker than the original. Secondly he was able to cover over some of George Lucas more cringeworthy dialogue and get better performance from his cast. The action sequences and effects are equal to and more often better than A New Hope which is in part to a bigger budget and lessons learnt from the first film. The film also has a much more ambiguous emotional core hinting a a 'dark side' in all of us. It also has what was at the time one of the greatest shock endings in cinema history, at least for the young audience who first fell in love with the characters. The now classic 'I AM your father' line has been much copied and parodied over the years since. The cinematography and set design is better than any of the other films and even the normally comedic Yoda has a few moments of foreboding. A character with more depth than would ever be realised with him merely becoming a self parodying, backward talking annoyance. John Williams' score is as brillaint and memorable as before but includes the stunning Imperial March for the first time. IF there is one criticism of the film it would be that it doesn't work as a stand alone film. It has to be bookended by the IV and VI episodes although this was an intention.

 

It would be unfair not to mention Return Of The Jedi which is again another great film but lacks the depth of Empire and reverts back to large doses of humour despite its opening promise on Tattooine. The Ewoks intentionally targetted the film at a younger age than before and this misfired on many children who had grown over the intervening years. Something the Harry Potter series skillfully sidestepped as the films and books kept pace with their original audiences growth. Jedi aims for the charm of the first film but doesn't master it quite so well and the prequel series is often left best forgotten. Lucas insisting on directing them all himself except the vastly improved Revenge Of The Sith where he returns to a darker theme. Yet the prequels are bogged down in Lucas' trademark hokey dialogue, poor acting (Hayden Christiansen and Natalie Portman I'm looking at you) and an over reliance on CGI and visuals. They flesh out the story and provide lots of fun but are ultimately hollow even if they do turn the series into the story of Annakin Skywalker's rise, fall and final redemption before his son.

 

Now if only George Lucas would follow up on the promise he made years ago to make the full 9 movies in the series...

Edited March 8, 201114 yr by Severin

#45

 

Psycho

 

 

Year - 1960

Director - Alfred Hitchcock

Starring - Anthony Perkins, Janet Leigh

 

Why You Should See It

No list of must see films would be complete without one from dear old 'Hitch' and I don't intend to break that tradition.

 

When young secretary Marion Crane (Leigh) is entrusted by her boss to bank $40,000 cash she is overcome in a moment of weakness and flees with the money in order to use the funds to help her and her married lover begin a new life together. After leaving town she stops off at the quiet Bates' Motel and after a quick chat with charming but slightly usettling owner Norman (Perkins) decides to retire to bed before returning the money the next day. Before bed however, she decides to freshen up with a quick shower...

 

Make no mistake Psycho is among the most influential films in the Horror and Thriller genre of all time. Psycho is the daddy of all slasher flicks and is an incredibly daring piece of film making from one of history's most highly regarded directors. Without Psycho there would be no Hallowe'en, Friday the 13th or Scream series and yet many of the tricks employed within are rarely bettered. Few Horrors (and indeed few films) are bold enough to give the films villain such a complex and likeable character and Perkins plays Norman with exceptional ease and skill. Handsome (in his own way), affable and vulnerable, yet a the same time darkly twisted and sinister and constantly belittled by 'Mother'. The films great masterstroke however was not only in casting thethen hugely popular Janet Leigh as the heroine but killing her off in the iconic and shocking (for the time) shower scene. One of the most notorious scenes in film history. Leigh is shown being killed in bright light and completely naked yet despite running for a near 3 minutes and including over 50 cuts not one piece of intimate anatomy is ever shown. Nor is the knife ever shown to piece her flesh. The symbolism here is important too. Marion is cleansing herself of her guilt in a manner akin to a baptism but this attempt at redemption is cut short brutally by Bates. Leigh upon seeing the film developed a fear of taking showers thereafter being acutely aware of how vulnerable one becomes. Hitchcock originally intended for the scene to be played out without any kind of score but after Bernard Hermann begged him to hear what he had come up with he agreed that it intensified the scene and indeed the whole experience of the film. By killing the star actress so soon in the film the audience is thrown in confusion. The only character they could empathise with is suddenly taken out of the film and this creates a sense of alienation and unease at what will happen next. What does happen next only intensifies this when private investigator and expected new hero Det. Aborghast is quickly dispatched too. After this the audience has no idea what to expect next. Time has clearly dulled the impact of these two key moments but in 1960 audiences were unprepared for such a turn of events and Psycho became notorious.

Psycho sits comfortably among the best rated Horror films of all time and equally among Hitchcocks best. It isn't my personal favourite of his (The Birds is, and that also contains my favourite scene of his - the crows on the climbing frame) but it remains a landmark of cinema not only in the plot, acting and direction but also in Hermann's legendary and often imitated score. The shower scene motiff has passed into being one of the most recognisable pieces ever comitted to celluloid. Hitchcock always had a way with building unease in the audience and I'll leave the final word with him...

 

'There is no terror in a bang - only in the anticipation of it'

 

 

Agree with pretty much everything you said about Empire Strikes Back... superb film, and the original trilogy is still possibly my favourite series ever. The Phantom Menace was a massive part of my childhood so I still regard it with affection, Attack of the Clones was weak but Revenge of the Sith was a solid return to form.

Oh, and best film poster of all time imo.

 

http://www.starwars.com/img/vault/collecting/20090519/teaser.jpg

Love your inclusion of Psycho Severin. My favourite scene is the Arboghast one. Hitchcock has made very, very few films that I dislike though.

 

Kath

#45

 

Psycho

 

 

Year - 1960

Director - Alfred Hitchcock

Starring - Anthony Perkins, Janet Leigh

 

Why You Should See It

No list of must see films would be complete without one from dear old 'Hitch' and I don't intend to break that tradition.

 

When young secretary Marion Crane (Leigh) is entrusted by her boss to bank $40,000 cash she is overcome in a moment of weakness and flees with the money in order to use the funds to help her and her married lover begin a new life together. After leaving town she stops off at the quiet Bates' Motel and after a quick chat with charming but slightly usettling owner Norman (Perkins) decides to retire to bed before returning the money the next day. Before bed however, she decides to freshen up with a quick shower...

 

Make no mistake Psycho is among the most influential films in the Horror and Thriller genre of all time. Psycho is the daddy of all slasher flicks and is an incredibly daring piece of film making from one of history's most highly regarded directors. Without Psycho there would be no Hallowe'en, Friday the 13th or Scream series and yet many of the tricks employed within are rarely bettered. Few Horrors (and indeed few films) are bold enough to give the films villain such a complex and likeable character and Perkins plays Norman with exceptional ease and skill. Handsome (in his own way), affable and vulnerable, yet a the same time darkly twisted and sinister and constantly belittled by 'Mother'. The films great masterstroke however was not only in casting thethen hugely popular Janet Leigh as the heroine but killing her off in the iconic and shocking (for the time) shower scene. One of the most notorious scenes in film history. Leigh is shown being killed in bright light and completely naked yet despite running for a near 3 minutes and including over 50 cuts not one piece of intimate anatomy is ever shown. Nor is the knife ever shown to piece her flesh. The symbolism here is important too. Marion is cleansing herself of her guilt in a manner akin to a baptism but this attempt at redemption is cut short brutally by Bates. Leigh upon seeing the film developed a fear of taking showers thereafter being acutely aware of how vulnerable one becomes. Hitchcock originally intended for the scene to be played out without any kind of score but after Bernard Hermann begged him to hear what he had come up with he agreed that it intensified the scene and indeed the whole experience of the film. By killing the star actress so soon in the film the audience is thrown in confusion. The only character they could empathise with is suddenly taken out of the film and this creates a sense of alienation and unease at what will happen next. What does happen next only intensifies this when private investigator and expected new hero Det. Aborghast is quickly dispatched too. After this the audience has no idea what to expect next. Time has clearly dulled the impact of these two key moments but in 1960 audiences were unprepared for such a turn of events and Psycho became notorious.

Psycho sits comfortably among the best rated Horror films of all time and equally among Hitchcocks best. It isn't my personal favourite of his (The Birds is, and that also contains my favourite scene of his - the crows on the climbing frame) but it remains a landmark of cinema not only in the plot, acting and direction but also in Hermann's legendary and often imitated score. The shower scene motiff has passed into being one of the most recognisable pieces ever comitted to celluloid. Hitchcock always had a way with building unease in the audience and I'll leave the final word with him...

 

'There is no terror in a bang - only in the anticipation of it'

The original is much better than the crappy 1998 verison

 

Some films should be left alone to do a updated verison of the film

#44

 

Cannibal Holocaust

 

 

Year - 1980

Director - Ruggero Deodata

Starring - Robert Kerman, Carl Gabriel Yorke

 

Why You Should See It

If there is ever a list of the most controversial films of all time this is surely near the top. It is by no means for the faint hearted or squeamish. And the controversy is for once perhaps justified due to the inclusion of animal death. It must be said that all animals killed in the film were used for food for the cast and crew but whether this was neccessary or done with any degree of consideration for the animals is a long standing and reasonable question. Yet despite this Cannibal Holocaust remains an often overlooked piece of groundbreaking cinema. It all but singlehandedly invented the 'lost footage' genre and films such as Blair Witch Peoject owe a massive debt to its influence and whilst some of the acting, notably Kerman, is pretty ropey some of it is quite astonishing. Deodata's amost sadistic direction is by far and away the strong point and his harsh treatment of his stars brings out level of performance and reality you don't often see in films like this. The director fell out with his stars, the stars fell out with each and there were daily arguments over the films content, pay and treatment of the extras and animals. But the end result is a truly remarkable film. It remains banned in many countries the world over and is considered one of the ultimate 'video nasties'.

Critics remain divided on the film, many citing it as purely exploitative whilst others see an unflinching social commentary. Sergio Leone himself wrote to Deodata and proclaimed 'what a movie! The second part is a masterpiece of cinematographic realism, but everything seems so real that I think you will get in trouble with all the world.' And he was right, so realistic was the movie that upon release magistrates seized copies of the film and proclaimed it a snuff movie. Deodata was put on trial for obscenity and murder charges and it was only afterthe actors were brought out of hiding (a deliberate ploy for publicity) that the case against him collapsed.

The story begins with New York professor Harold Monroe heading into the Amazon Jungle to locate the lost documentary team headed by Alan Yates that disappeared a few months back whilst filming local tribes the Yanamamo and the Shamatari. Monroe locates the two tribes and is eventually given their video footage and allowed to leave unharmed. The second half of the film follows events that lead up to the deaths of the documentary team and we see Yates' brutal and manipluative filmmaking techniques become ever more risky and dangerous. It is here where the films really comes alive. There's a genuine sense of rising dread throughout and the final chaotic scenes have been much imitated over the years. Right down the the final shot.

 

So not a film that many will enjoy. Gore fans adore the film but it is so much more than that and compared to similar fare such as Cannibal Ferox or the Japanese movie Men Behind The Sun this is a much more adept and smarter movie. The social commentary is clearly there should you look for it, the second half is an undeniably defining piece of cinema and if you can stomach the brutality of it this is a film that you may not enjoy but can enthrall you as much as repulse.

#43

 

Eraserhead

 

 

Year - 1977

Director - David Lynch

Starring - Jack Nance

 

Why You Should See It

One of those that is almost impossible to classify. Dark, surreal and virtually plotless it is more of an experince than a film. It has a dream-like, nightmarish quality and a sense of dread that permeates everything. If there is any film to compare it to it would be Salvador Dali's Un Chein Andalou. The film takes place in an urban, industrialised landscape and is sparse with dialogue. The musical score is the sort of thing Throbbing Gristle would be proud of.

 

Jack Nance plays Henry, a printer who is on vacation throughout the movie. He is informed of a dinner invite by his girlfriend which turns into the most hellish experience imaginable. He discovers his girlfriend is pregnant and shortly gives birth prematurely to a barely formed child. A child that cries day and night, so much that she cannot bear it and leaves Henry to look after the child alone. It is during this night that Henry embarks on a bizarre serious of encounters including a sexual liason with his neighbour, the 'man in the planet' and the oddly hypnotic 'Lady in the radiator' who sings 'In Heaven', an unsettling beautiful song. There is no apparent reason for these encounters and seemingly nothning makes sense. After this there is the dream sequence whre Henry's head is replaced by the baby's and collected by a young boy who takes it to a pencil factory. Here Henry's head is determined as suitable material to make pencil erasers from. Awaking from his dream Henry goes to visit the girl next door who then has a vision of the baby and is horrified by him. Henry returns to his apartment as the baby begins crying once more and hsitantly removes the bandages covering the child's body. What follows is a shocking revelation for Henry and a surrealists delight.

 

Eraserhead is an almost impossible film. It is about as Arthouse as you can get yet George Lucas was impressed enough to offer David Lynch the directors reigns for Return Of The Jedi. Lynch turned it down fearing it would be Lucas' movie more than his and Lynch took up the offer of The Elephant Man next. Stankley Kubrick used the mood of Eraserhead as inspiration for The Shining. Lynch has subsequently gone on to become one of Hollywood's most unique and original directors as well as creating legendary TV show Twin Peaks. His other great films include Blue Velvet, The Lost Highway, Wild At Heart, Mulholland Drive and The Straight Story all with varying degrees of coherence but Eraserhead remains unique in his cannon as being almost unfathomable in its concept and narrative. It is not his best film but is the very definition of a cult movie and an experince into the nightmare world of dream states. Unsettling and difficult to watch at times but still highly influential. Millions of students, upcoming and aspiring have tried to replicate the atmosphere and visuals on show yet none I have ever scenehas come close.

 

If you want to see a film that will confuse, astound, question, unnerve, even frighten and more importantly make you actually THINK about waht you are seeing than I fully recommend this.

Edited May 6, 201114 yr by Severin