My 48th – 50th Favorite Motion Pictures

50. The X-Men Trilogy (2000-2006)
In between all the Lord of the Rings, Spider-Man, Hulk and Fantastic Four crap, there stands this trilogy of very very entertaining sci-fi flicks. Unlike Lord of the Rings, you don’t have to be an expert on the source material to understand what’s going on. And, unlike Spider-Man, Hulk and Fantastic Four, this series seemed to realize that, while special effects are lots of fun, they are nothing without an intelligently written story. As absurd as this may sound when talking about a trilogy involving mutants, the characters are believable and the multiple stroy arcs all fit together and ensure that there’s never a dull moment. The characters are not defined by their abilities, like in so many other sci-fi pictures, but by their personalities, and, indeed, many characters seem to embody such qualities as intelligence, coolness, insecutiry, sexiness and wisdom. Conversely, unlike much sci-fi drivel, no character is defined in terms of ‘good’ or ‘evil’. There are differing ideologies, to be sure, but no one is totally pure and wholesome of motives, and no one is there simply to be ‘the bad guy’.
I saw all three of these movies at the theater and, each time, I found myself wishing for more. I wish I could say that about more movies.
Why not rate this film higher? One reason why I wanted each movie to last longer was because a few of the storylines are frustratingly underdeveloped. There are so many loose ends that the third film seems to have trouble tying them all together. Oh – and that third film, while certainly a respectably entry in the series, is notably the weakest of the three. The great charcterizations of the first two take a back seat to explosions and quick-fixes.

49. Rebecca (1940)
My list is very Hitchcock-heavy (pun intended). So let’s start off with one right here at #49: Rebecca. Often cited as a “chick flick” in the Hitchcock canon, this black-and-white picture is the only Hitchcock film to win the Oscar for Best Picture.
The film begins in a humorous tone, and gets steadily more serious as details of the characters’ lives are revealed. It is, basically, the sotry of a young wife finding herself living very much in the shadow of her husband’s former (and now deceased) first wife. While the husband, Max, seems to love his new bride, it is the housekeeper that seems to have trouble accepting the new lady of the house. In between this triable of characters are plot twists, symbolism, and slases of humor typical of a Hitchock offering.
Fun game:Try to figure out the name of Joan Fontaine’s character.
Why not rate this film higher? Like I said, it’s a “chick flick” or, as much of a “chick flick” as Hitchcock ever made, and I am no chick. Also, time has been unkind to certain aspects of the dialogue and story; it’s a little bit dated. Oh, and it’s also a little too long, in my haughty opinion.

48. Ingen Numsil (2003)
During the first few minutes this film shows us just how vital the camel is to the well being of the family. So, it’s somewhat of a problem when one of the newborn camels is rejected by its mother. The remainder of the film is spent showing us the different ways in which the family tries to get the mother to accept its calf. The different approaches progressively get more extreme and time consuming. Some of the family’s efforts are comical, but most were quite frustrating.
The final fifteen minutes or so is the best portion of the film. And, if you’re gonna have a “best portion of the film”, it’s a good idea to put it at the end. I don’t want to give away the denouement, but suffice it to say the infant camel is only marginally hanging on to its new life by this point and the situation has become desperate. The fact that camels can cry was a revelation to me. Coupled with the somber music (the only soundtrack in the whole film!), the conclusion was quite emotional.
This film has to be one of the best examples I’ve seen of the style of cinematography perfectly matching the story being told. The slow, plodding intro gives us a glipmpse into the family’s pace of life. The bleak, minimal soundtrack and sparse editing match up nicely with the barren landscape upon which the story is told. The shots are often hand-held, giving it a more documentary feel, again befitting the life of the characters’. Indeed, the documentary feel is best exemplified by the fact that on a couple of occasions, non-actors in the background actually look right at the camera (typically a no-no). To give the viewer more of a “this is our family” feel, like so many home-made videos, the camera is, a couple of times, struggling to get the best shot of the action. A good example is during the camel’s birth: while shooting the scene, family members run right in front of the camera and the cinematographer is forced to dodge and weave around them in an effort to get the footage.
If you do see it, know that the film fades back in. Twice. And you’ll be glad you stayed for those two “footnotes”.
Why not rate the film higher? Well, as I’ve said, it’s a little on the slow side. A little too slow for my liking. And while it is a moving, passionate, story, it is just a smiple story. Not that that’s a bad thing, but it does lessen the impact on further viewings.