Do they not make 'em like they used to...?

If you were to look up the American Film Institute's "Top 100 Films of All Time", only 6 were made later than 1990. The best one of these is Schindler's List at number 9 but the second best of these, Silence of the Lambs, does not appear until number 65. The rest of the group are as follows:

71. Forrest Gump
75. Dances withe Wolves
84. Fargo
94. GoodFellas

These films all share human qualities, the case of an ordinary man facing extraordinary experiences. In modern times, films with big box office receipts are considered successful but do not appear on these lists. Big box office is usually not synonymous with expert storytelling and expert storytelling is what is highly regarded by the AFI.

Personally, my favourite movies change on a regular basis with the top 3 usually rotating between Heat, This is Spinal Tap and Zodiac.



I personally love the cinema and am not averse to watching films and subsequently coming out declaring them to be in my Top 10. When I saw The Bourne Ultimatum for the fourth time, I was convinced that Jason Bourne was my favourite film character of all time. All this said, it is apparent that adrenaline is a powerful thing and adrenaline is what I get from movies. Avatar is another such film which, with the benefit of hindsight, isn't likely to be troubling the AFI list anytime soon. Technologically, the film is incredible but it benefits from being seen in 3D because in 2D, it's Fern Gully. No offence to James Cameron but his way with dialogue sometimes leaves a lot to be desired.

Ultimately, when all is said and done, my gripe here is that there have been many fantastic movies that have been made in recent years ('95 onwards if I'm putting a limit on it) that are failing to make it onto the AFI list (long regarded as the definitive of definitive top movie lists). The list gets updated every year with the top twenty or so films usually staying within their ranks (give or take the odd change by one place) and the films placed from around number 80 and lower are also interchangeable. If I could wish for some movies to get on there, it would be any of the following:

Up
Fight Club
Three Kings
The Departed
The Dark Night
Tell No One

Admittedly, I do enjoy these movies myself but it is more than that. The acting, the writing and the feeling you get after watching these make these movies important aspects of our lives. Three Kings stands up as critical satire of the Bush Administration, and Up is just joyous.

The most ardent movie fans usually say that the best films were made in the forties and fifties so what marks the difference between then and now? Is it that political correctness means that people are less open to being shocked these days? If that's the case then Borat and the Saw franchise would never have gotten off the ground. Is it that the directors were better? Well, perhaps but let's not overlook the wave of consistent talent which is continuing to sweep New Hollywood; I'm talking David Fincher, Edgar Wright, Christopher Nolan, Jason Reitman and many many more besides. Also, let's not forget that the brat pack from the seventies are still making movies and winning awards today: Steven Spielberg, James Cameron, Martin Scorsese et al. Directors aside for a second, maybe it's because the actors were better? Well, let's look at those actors who made their careers years ago in movies on the AFI lists and who are still working today: Robert Deniro, Al Pacino, Jodie Foster, Clint Eastwood, Gene Hackman, Ellen Burstyn, Julie Christie (majestic in Away From Her)...

...and on and on...

Here's an interesting thought, though: Is it a generational thing...?

People viewing movies made in the 40s several years later feel they were better. People viewing movies made in the 70s now, feel they were better. By this reckoning, people could start viewing movies made in 2000s as being the best in roughly 20 to 30 years time. Movies which represent the zeitgeist are usually those which stay firmly in the memory and I do believe that we will see the likes of The Dark Knight and The Departed featuring on these lists in the coming years. Give it another few years and we're likely to see The Lord of The Rings on there as well.

In my opinion, I'm not even sure if the AFI counts for as much as it used to. Do the writers, actors and directors count their films as being successful if they appear on the list? Or do they consider their film to be successful when a handful of people come up to them on the street and regale stories of how it changed their lives, or how it had an incredible emotional impact on them. Fincher is one such highly regarded director yet his movies don't tend to trouble to Box Office (Zodiac is still to make it's budget back, and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button didn't win half of the awards it was nominated for). It all comes down to opinion and conjecture...

Ps. Click here for the full list: http://www.afi.com/tvevents/100years/movies.aspx

Sam Rockwell

Two years ago I saw Iron Man and loved it. It was fast, sharp and utterly enjoyable. It was also not a well-known comicbook character to rival the likes of Batman and Captain America, but it had a steady fanbase so overall it felt like the audience were starting out on the same level. It also ended up surpassing everyone's expectations and grossing over $100million during its first weekend at the US Box Office. It also didn't harm it to have Robert Downey Jr., long been one of the most exciting and talented actors of his generation, positively nail the role of narcissistic entrepreneur, Tony Stark.

So comes the sequel and while I thoroughly enjoyed it, it hasn't left me proclaiming it to be my favourite movie of the year like I did with the last one. If anything, it suffered from "Spiderman 3 Syndrome", that is to say that two many subplots spoiled the broth. I think the first one worked because people weren't expecting it to but this one had so much pressure riding on it that perhaps the producers felt they had to give the audience more bang for their buck. Thankfully, Jon Favreau, the director a.k.a Pete from Friends (am I the only one who cannot believe they are same person??) still maintained Downey Jr's cheeky spirit and the fight scenes are exciting but for me, what totally stole the show was Sam Rockwell.

After Lawn Dogs, The Green Mile and the criminally underrated Moon, it's refreshing to see him play a relatively cleancut character and by that I mean that it was good to see him look dapper in a sharp suit. During the film and his relatively short screen time, this suit (much like Iron Man's itself) masked a second personality; a personality which harboured a deep insecurity that he just wasn't as good as Tony Stark. AsJustin Hammer, he has the money and he has the status but ultimately, he doesn't have the brains and so he took to saving Ivan Vanko (a creepy Mickey Rourke) in order to create a copycat suit which he could then sell to the American Military and hopefully outdo Stark's alterego. He's only in the film for a total of about 40minutes but his scenes bristle with a desperation and an almost sleaziness which, for me, stole the show from Downey Jr.



He doesn't look much like Hammer in the comic books but who cares? When you have Rockwell in your movie, you're sure to have the best acting one man can produce. I read somewhere that he was originally the first choice to play Stark himself but the studio wasn't confident enough with his status (their loss) so it is good to see him in these movies if the lasting thought is wondering just how good it could have been with him. That isn't to take anything away from Downey Jr., but still...this is Sam Rockwell and he is in a class of his own.

So I am now waiting on two movies of his (Gentlemen Broncos and Choke) and will probably go for a few more as well (did you know he was in Frost/Nixon? I didn't...) but I already know how this will end. He's up there with John Cusack and Mark Wahlberg for me. And you know how much I love those guys...