Let's do it, Top Ten Greatest Films with 10 Honorable Mentions!

Layout: Name of Film (Release Date, Director(s), Country)

Let us start with the honorable mentions:

10. The Red Shoes (1948, Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger, England)

9. Noz w wodzie (Knife in the Water)(1962, Roman Polanski, Poland)

8. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948, John Huston, United States)

7. The Birth of a Nation (1915, D.W. Griffith, United States)

6. Brazil (1985, Terry Gilliam, England)

5. The Leopard (1963, Luchino Visconti, Italy)

4. Shadow of a Doubt (1943, Alfred Hitchcock, England)

3. The Great Dictator (1940, Charles Chaplin, England)

2. M (1931, Fritz Lang, Germany)

1. Contempt (1963, Jean-Luc Godard, France)

The Top Ten Greatest Films of All Time

10. There Will Be Blood (2007, Paul Thomas Anderson, United States)

9. The Rules of the Game (1939, Jean Renoir, France)

8. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968, Stanley Kubrick, England)

7. Napoleon (1927, Abel Gance, France)

6. Jules et Jim (1963, Francois Traffaut, France)

5. Ikiru (1950, Akira Kurosawa, Japan)

4. Meshes of the Afternoon (1943, Maya Deren, United States)

3. 8 1/2 (1963, Federico Fellini, Italy)

2. Raging Bull (1980, Martin Scorsese, American)

1. Citizen Kane (1941, Orson Welles, American)

lou reed sings in my ears...

Okay, so Milk was a poor films for many reasons; first, it moved way too fast, like it was trying to pour as many information into two hours, despite loosing character development and a comfortable setting for which to settle down into the film. Too bumby. Secondly, Sean Penn's performance was just like his performance in I Am Sam, which is to say he acted like he was mentally retarded in the most stereotypical way possible. He was terrible. Third, it had almost exact elements of other biopics like Ray and Walk the Line. So we've seen it before. A million times. Now we just have different character names, and instead of drugs, the title role struggles with homosexuality. Like it's a disease. Lastly, and the most disappointing thing about the film, is that it was no where near a Gus Van Sant film. I've seen films by other filmmakers that have more elements of Gus Van Sant then this one. The only thing that is somewhat Gus Van Sant is the part where Milk and Scott are looking in each other's eyes. That is all you'll find of him. Just so people know I am not being biases, I waited for this film for a year, I've studied all of Van Sant's films, I love them all (except To Die For which is awful), Gerry might be one of the best films ever made, and then he hits me with this. The thing is he's gone mainstream before with Good Will Hunting and Finding Forester, and they are still fantastic films. This was just generic garbage that will be looked at the least of his pictures. I am shocked and heartbroken that he turned out such a mediocre film. 'Cause next to films like Ray and Walk the Line, it's pretty good. But compared to Gerry, Elephant, My Own Private Idaho, and even Good Will Hunting, it's unrecognizable. It's truly a shame. I'm one of the many who adored his last film, Paranoid Park, and I remember when it got over, my dad said to me, "His next film is going to be Hollywood trash, because they don't let people make films like these for nothing!" And I said, "No, Gus can go back and forth without anyone noticing." I trusted Van Sant. Oh well.

I'm a blogger too

Well, well, well.

The world of blogging. It reminds me of Live Journal oh so far down the road. In fact, it's about the same, just more... grown up. It's as if Live Journal has aged. And well. 

God, I'm tired.

I could use some coffee.

I really don't know what to write about; I'll probably get out a lot of ranting here. I think my first post will be about the Gus Van Sant film Milk, which blew. I'll tell you why later, but for now, I need coffee, or alcohol or something.

Bye bye.