Both hilarious and horrific, this exploration (and explosion) of horror movie myths creates a mythos of its own, and fails, thankfully, at one of the worst cliches of the genre: the sequel. Movie lovers will have a wonderful ride, while horror movie fans might very likely hate it. H. P. Lovecraft would have loved it. Also, it's one of the best sounding movies I've heard in a long time.

Unlike the hero of most films, this one (in a brilliant performance by John Wayne) is deeply flawed. And unlike most films, there is no moment of redemption, but there is an epiphany (when Ethan takes Debbie in his arms.) We may not like Ethan at the end, but we surely understand him, as he is a reminder of the faults that lie in the all-too-human heart, and the vastness of Monumental Valley becomes intimately real.

This bright and colorful love letter to Montmartre, Paris, stars the adorable Audrey Tatou in a quirky performance that will steal your heart. It's both humorous and poignant at the same time. Throw in a pinch of mystery, a dash of fantasy, and a dollop of romance, and you have the recipe for the best film Jean-Pierre Jeunet ever made (and he's made some very good ones.)

It doesn't hold up as well as I remembered upon seeing it for the first time many years ago. Still, it's light years ahead of almost every film made in 1929. Integrated musicals were so rare at the time, and Lubitsch's impeccable direction was clearly evident even in this, his first sound film. The editing in the marriage night scene is perfect, cutting back and forth between the newlyweds and the onlookers.

This pre-code comedy directed by the incomparable Ernst Lubitsch may have jettisoned Coward's original stage play for the screen treatment by Ben Hecht, but what it lacks in wit, it makes up in charm. The three leads work so well together, you'd think there was a menage-a-trois going on behind the camera. Miriam Hopkins was never better. Films with this subject matter couldn't be made until thirty years later.

Not half as bad as everybody wants you to believe it is, especially those who haven't seen it and are basing their opinions on box office returns. When did that become the basis for film criticism? You don't have be James Cameron serious to create a living, breathing world, and Andrew Stanton's Barsoom is far more fascinating than the world in Cameron's Avatar, and without all of that enviro-spirituality bs.

A very effective police procedural, Korean-style, that has moments of both gripping intensity and oddly juxtaposed humor. Some may find this off-putting. And if you're looking for a pat solution to the central crime, look elsewhere. This is less a film about a serial killer than it is a film about the investigators of the crimes.

One of the best movies of the year. How can a film be so personal yet so universal? Some say Terrence Malick's reach is beyond his grasp, but at least he attempts things few writer-directors ever even consider. This film is a work of art in a world of corporate cookie-cutter movie-making. Don't watch it looking for a story. It's a slice of life in a universe of lives. Allow it to carry you beyond your own existence.

Kim Ji-Woon's stylish direction with a very clever screenplay that makes the viewer work. The story's resolution is open to different interpretations, but it's not your typical twist ending if you've been paying close attention. The chills come from its atmosphere and pacing. And the girls performances are top-notch. Marketed as a horror film, it's really a psychological thriller, and a fine example of the genre.

It's cases like this when you wish you could rate movies with negative stars. This is absolutely, hands-down, indisputably, without-a-doubt, the worst movie I have ever seen. Joel Schumacher makes Michael Bay look like Howard Hawks. It's too bad to even be funny.

Fassbinder's social satire with threads of von Sternberg's "The Blue Angel", and filmed in colors that Jacques Demy would have loved. Small town corruption is the backdrop for a love story between an incorruptible bureaucrat and the prostitute without a heart of gold, set in the days of West Germany's "Economic Miracle". Third in the BRD trilogy, but the second to be filmed and released, it's the most fun to watch.

Fassbinder's last great film, shot in gorgeous black & white, with wonderful performances by all the actors, especially Hilmar Thate as the reporter. It's a fictionalized account of a true story, but is told in usual Fassbinder style: imagine "Sunset Boulevard" as if directed by Douglas Sirk, with undercurrents of Hitchcock's "Rebecca" and Welle's "Citizen Kane". Sad to think within a year Fassbinder would be dead.

This is one of Fassbinder's most accessible films, and one of his most political, although in subtext. It's both a melodramatic "women's film" about female independence and a socio-political film that is a subtle indictment of post-WWII West German capitalism. Hanna Schygulla's performance is a knockout, and the costumes and set design strengthen the virtues of this period piece.

I saw this the same day as Ozu's "The Only Son", both released in 1936, and it turned out to be a master class in comparing and contrasting the styles of two of Japan's finest directors. Both had pretty much established their signature styles at this point: Mizoguchi's fluid camera next to Ozu's static one; Ozu's focus on contemporary Japanese family life and Mizguchi's on the status of women throughout history.

The same formula that Ozu would use for the next 25 years is present in this, his first sound film: the low-angle static camera shots, the establishing shots, and especially, his focus on contemporary Japanese family life. Few filmgoers would realize the twenty year gap between this and "Early Spring" especially if they watch the new Criterion transfer. Contrast with Mizoguchi's "Osaka Elegy" released the same year.

This film's ending is strikingly similar to two other 1950s masterpieces: John Ford's "The Searchers" and Alfred Hitchcock's "Vertigo" (not the atrocious alternative ending). In all three films, the hero (read: antihero) is left desolate, alone, and still battling his inner demons. Not your typical Hollywood ending. Bogart and Wayne are last seen walking away, while a catatonic Stewart sways on top the mission tower.

There's no denying: Kim Ji-Woon is a technically brilliant filmmaker, but I don't understand why he agreed to direct this, as close to a snuff film as I've ever seen. Somehow I think it could have been less graphically violent and still make its point: that there's a fine line between revenge and murder. Unless you can easily "unsee" scenes of torture, stay away from this one. "Saw" fans should love it.

Sometimes derivative, but done in homage rather than rip-off, this fast-paced movie is the antidote to Hollywood sequel-itis when it comes to action-adventure films. And it's so much fun to watch, especially because of its combination of action and humor. Why is South Korea making better "Hollywood" films than Hollywood?

What starts as a standard Hitchcockian thriller turns in less than ten seconds into an extraordinary exploration into voyeurism, violence, and viewer expectations. Haneke flips the filmmaker-filmwatcher relationship on its head. And when he turns the camera on the audience, we don't like what we see. This is post-modern metafilm at its finest.

One of those films in which the final shot goes straight to the heart and stays there for the rest of your life. Through those tear-filled eyes, Cabiria looks into the camera, smiles at us, the viewers, just to let us know she's going to be alright. And we truly hope she will. Giuletta Masina's performance is magnificent. and Fellini is at the top of his art which would only be surpassed later with 8 1/2.

This film, perhaps Antonioni's finest, is worth watching just for the penultimate shot, lasting more than six minutes. There's a straightforward narrative unlike many Antonioni films. And Jack Nicholson's controlled performance is one of his best. BTW, the screen shot illustrating this film (mirror with birds) is not seen in the film. Maybe it was removed before the final cut.

Maybe it's me, but I just didn't get this film. While I've enjoyed almost every other film by Tarkovsky, especially "Nostalghia," "The Sacrifice," and "Stalker," this film left me cold, and quite puzzled. Many reviews here state it needs to be watched more than once to be appreciated. I believe that's the sign of a flawed film. There were some extraordinary images, but I failed to find any cohesive element.

Defies the "middle film in a trilogy" syndrome by being better than both the first and last parts. (Just like "The Empire Strikes Back"). It also happens to be one of the best war films ever made. The Battle at Helm's Deep rivals that of many great filmed battles (but not the greatest one: the final battle in "Seven Samurai"). Now if only we could get rid of the Gollum sequences, we'd have a five-star film.

Go into this film with no expectations and you'll have a great ride. All the characters are stereotypes, with each actor's over-the-top performance based on roles they'd already played in previous films. I can't imagine how theater audiences in the fifties reacted to this movie. Or is it only 50 years later that we realize just how "postmodern" this film really is? Did Huston and his gang of writers know as well?

I saw this many years ago as a teenager and had fond memories of it. Seeing it again recently, it occurred to me that the casting of Alex Guinness as all eight doomed relatives was little more than a joke. Now I can only see it as a precursor to all the bad Eddie Murphy and Tyler Perry movies where they played multiple roles. Even the "twist" ending was a letdown, after seeing many films that do it better.

The film is constructed around the relationships between Franz Biberkopf and the other characters, but none so fascinating as the one between him and Reinhold. In the final two hours, the "Epilogue", Fassbinder re-imagines the previous thirteen hour-long episodes in a surreal fantasia of images and symbols, followed by a starkly contrasting resolution, which is practically mundane in comparison to what preceded it.

This is my favorite of Kieslowski's trilogy. First, because I was in love with Juliette Binoche, circa 1993, and she is radiantly (and tragically) beautiful in this film. Second, of the three films, this one is a more complete realization of Kieslowski's theme. Third, Idziak's cinematography connects the eye to the brain and follows through to the heart.

"Brazil" is Terry Giliam's finest film, among several extraordinary ones. No one can deny his skill in creating worlds, not just in imagining them but knowing how to re-create them on film. The world of "Brazil" is in turns dark, funny, surreal and all too realistic. And it's the rare instance where the auteur's vision triumphs over the Hollywood money-making machinery.

If there's one single moment that proves that Bill Murray is an extraordinary actor, it's the scene in "Rushmore" when his character learns that Max's father is a barber, and not a brain surgeon as Max had told him. Without his having to say one word, Murray's face expresses everything. The viewer knows exactly what he's feeling. Now that's great (and rare) acting.

Just as it is in dreams, there are no easy solutions to this film's puzzle. The film is the puzzle is the film. Last Year at Marienbad captures the surreality of dreams more than any film before or since. With each viewing I grow more appreciative of the art and architecture of Resnais and Robbe-Grillet's world. Sometimes I think I've figured it all out, only to come to the realization that it just doesn't matter.