1972: Movies Sorted By Tier

Tags: 
  • Great
  • Cabaret
  • Deliverance
  • The Discreet Charm Of The Bourgeoisie
  • The Getaway
  • The Godfather
  • Harold & Maude
  • **Harold is a depressed young man, fed up with his mother's insucient blind dates he feels lonely and lost in a strange world. He passes his days torturing his mother and creating elaborate mock-suicides. That is until he meets Maude, an elderly lady with a lust for life, who seems to understand him. Hal Ashby (Being There) creates a movie that seems to exist in a reality slightly off centre. The film flows in unexpected ways creating utterly charming characters, able to do anything at any time. This creates a reckless zeal that completely enraptured me. It’s like a cinematic breath of fresh air, somewhat akin to early Altman but far more skewed and all the more fascinating for it. A masterpiece of outrageous black comedy and slightly repulsive wrinkled flesh.
  • Jeremiah Johnson
  • Solaris
  • **The film begins with static shots of reeds being thrown about by water and a small townhouse. The main character seems perplexed by his inability to understand his wife’s suicide. He is a cold clinical psychologist…trapped in an emotional infancy he cannot undo. He is contacted by a company (who obviously respect is coolly objective point of view) asking him to leave earth and visit a space station deep in the solar system. There have been certain...”inconsistencies” in their latest transmissions. The film’s fluid direction seems to creep towards some epochal moment that never comes. What is left instead is a deeply personal examination of memory, humanity and communication. Kris Kelvin (our “hero”) comes aboard a space station, orbiting a planet that seems to be sentient, and finds disarray. One person has committed suicide leaving his compatriots to struggle with their demons, who manifest when they sleep. It seems they probed the planet and now the planet is probing them. Each scene carries a sense of foreboding, as if something offensive or horrible were lurking, waiting to attack. The camera drifts slowly toward doorways, creating slow panning vistas that lack backgrounds. You discover slowly that the camera is not focussing on exteriors, but people, always framed eloquently and drenched in fantastic colours. Tarkovsky is subtly telling the viewer that the film is not only about people, but concerns people on a deeper level. We are soon confronted by the “horrible” thing the tension seemed to communicate, his dead wife, sitting in his room. She seems enraptured by the sight of him, she wants always be with him. And so begins the main story, a kinda early 40’s coming of age story. Kris cannot understand what has happened and soon vanquishes his adoring wife. As though her existence had awakened emotions too painful for him to deal with. He in affect murders his wife to escape her, telling himself that she’s a reproduction, not real. These scenes are gorgeous, catching every nuance of skin, the incredible subtle expressions that move across the actors’ faces. The film seems to have an aesthetic energy, drenched in exquisite colour and framed with precision, almost cubist in style. The dialogue seems almost Dadaist, hinting at something but never approaching it head-on. We catch glances of the other scientist’s tormenters but they are never explained, as if the embarrassment were too much. These are people who can understand facts yet they have no ability to process them in a healthy way. They struggle with their apparitions, feel the weight of their selfish emotions and repulsed by their own inadequacies. The fact that this is a form of redemption never enters their mind, until Kris starts to love his dead wife’s (Khari) replacement. Yet she becomes withdrawn and depressed. She becomes an emotionally independent person, no longer relying on his memory to help her function.
    I’ve heard many complaints about “Solaris”, it’s certainly a film that either transfixes or bores the viewer within an inch of his life. Someone once told me, “I don’t wanna see a 2 minute shot of a character walking away. I get it, he’s walking away.” That synopsis somewhat explains this film. The camera considers its characters as a painter would his subject. It seems uninterested in what they say, since most of their interaction is cool and phoney. The camera is probing them, much in the same way the planet it, trying to understand their actions and reactions. Leaving the viewer as confused as the characters they are watching, forced to decide for themselves. Tarkovsky simply presents a story of people unprepared for their encounter with a singular intelligence, leaving the viewer to decide what is this film about. My personal opinion is the film is about man’s inadequacy to handle the notion of god and their ignorance to not search for it in the people they are surrounded by. I’m sure anyone else’s opinion will be different since I’ve read about 10 different opinions of the film. With most people simply picking apart the film and its elements without even venturing such an opinion. Most people think the film is preachy and overwrought or distant and lethargic, quite the diversity of opinion. That’s the joy of films that let you decide.
    I think this is Tarkovsky’s most beautiful film, smothered in adoring colours, with camera movements so coolly observant as to be harshly intense. It reminds me of a painting from the Italian renaissance, all rich colours and subtle visual story telling. The way the camera moves with grace and precision is immaculate and as always Tarkovsky gives the viewer a completely original environment and quixotic notion of what science fiction is and can be.
    Solaris is a considered film, concentrating on minutia. There is no over-powering climax to grasp onto, the closest the film comes is the end scene. It’s an experience you emotionally navigate; the scenes are merely visual maps to help you.
  • Sounder
  • What’s Up Doc?
  • Very Good
  • Frenzy
  • Fritz The Cat
  • Junior Bonner
  • Lone Wolf & Cub: Sword Of Doom
  • **A magnificent chop-socky gore fest is a contender for the title of "most complicated plot in Samurai flick history". The chief executioner for the shogunate, Itto Ogami, has his family slain by a rival clan. The same wily villains frame him, taking his title and honour. Yet our hero mourns none of this, Itto Ogami slices and dices a large chunk of the Japanese samurai population, fights a duel and eventually becomes an assassin for hire in attempts to take the longest route to vanquishing his enemies. And that's just the beginning! He goes by the notorious name "Lone Wolf And Cub", baby cart in hand, strolling to his next assignment. Gory, hammy and very entertaining, Lone Wolf & Cub is truly mesmerizing. Extraneous amounts of globular blood is spilt, tossed or sprayed. The duel sequences are finely choreographed and always suspenseful. The dialogue is think, each character expostulating to the camera vital information in an attempt to make the almost incoherent plot easy to understand. The first of the series definitely found a place in my heart...even if I like Zatoichi better.
  • Play It Again, Sam
  • Silent Running
  • Sleuth
  • Good
  • And Now For Something Completely Different…
  • The Asphyx
  • Bad Company
  • **The film just didn’t do much for me. I appreciated certain witty scenes that illustrate the youthful innocence of these would-be outlaws. One scene in particular has a character throwing rocks at his two ex-friends who’ve just absconded with his horse screaming, “I’m going to kill you!” all the while having a pistol under his belt. These scenes are marvellous and far to many of them include Jeff Bridges being the standout. He’s excellent in

    Bad Company

    playing a braggart know-it-all who’s skin is a bit thinner than he lets on and he towers above the others leaving the lead with acting table scraps. The lead, played by some nameless fellow, plays his part well but his character lacks the development of the rest and rings one-note through most of the picture. It does however gain some spark towards the end culminating in a wonderful closing scene that hints at how good

    Company

    could have been. Instead you’re left with an occasionally brilliant under achiever which is best at it’s most satiric, and unfortunately that’s only half the time.
  • The Chinese Connection
  • Everything You Wanted To Know About Sex…
  • The King Of Marvin Gardens
  • The Night Strangler (TV Movie)
  • **Nowhere as good as The Night Stalker because of choppy direction and over-played laughs. Yet Darren McGavin is so entertaining as Kolchak the movie gains a degree of goodness with his inclusion. A slight yet entertaining pit-stop between the excellent debut and the enjoyable TV-Series.
  • The Poseidon Adventure
  • Slaughterhouse-Five
  • Straw Dogs
  • Travels With My Aunt
  • Guilty Pleasures
  • Horror Express
  • The Last House On The Left
  • The Man With Two Heads
  • Average
  • The Devil’s Daughter
  • Go Ask Alice
  • The Hound Of The Baskervilles
  • Kung Fu (TV)
  • Living Free
  • No Way Out
  • Disappointing
  • Asylum
  • Butterflies Are Free
  • Dr. Phibes Rises Again
  • Dracula A.D. 1972
  • Fellini’s Roma
  • Henry The VIII And His Six Wives
  • Lady Sings The Blues
  • The Life And Times Of Judge Roy Bean
  • The Mechanic
  • The Streets Of San Francisco
  • Such A Georgeous Kid Like Me
  • Tombs Of The Blind Dead
  • Cellar Dwellers
  • Black Mama, White Mama
  • Blacula
  • Conquest Of The Planet Of The Apes
  • Deep Throat
  • Doomwatch
  • Gumshoe
  • The Lovers
  • Sundance Cassidy And Butch The Kid
  • The Big Stink
  • Call Of The Wild
  • Frogs
  • The Magnificent Seven Ride
  • Night Of The Lepus
  • Unfortunately Haven’t Seen
  • Aguirre, The Wrath Of God
  • The Candidate
  • Chloe In The Afternoon
  • The Heartbreak Kid
  • Images
  • Love
  • The Seduction Of Mimi
  • Tomorrow
  • Two English Girls
  • Ulzana’s Raid

Is there really a movie called Sundance Cassidy And Butch The Kid? Talk about causing confusion in the marketplace! Or did you not like Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid so much you're mangling the name intentionally? I have to imagine it's the former, as who could hate the Newman/Redford classic?

It's the elongated title of a movie that was also titled Butch & The Kid. Periodically I lose my mind and decide watching half-assed prequels to great movies is a good idea. It's an early days movies of young reprobates feelin' their oats type of movie that adds nothing to the story of the original and contradicts half of that movie.

Strangely I have the worst urge to watch The Chronicles Of Riddick as well. Listen hard and you may hear the faint sound of money being flushed down the toilet. :?$

How is your personal movie chroncling by year coming? I'm waiting eagerly for the next one.

Tallyho

:?)

Sorry stooky, gotta run, be back 7/11 or so. So sorry to leave you hanging. Have all messages needing reply in my inbox, so they won't be forgotten.

Have fun. Talk to ya when you get back.

Tallyho

:?)

I'm back! So did you see Riddick, or did common sense prevail?

I'll try to get a few more years up in the coming days. I've mostly been doing each year as I see a new movie in that year, but that is proving too slow an approach. Just let me dig myself out from under this slew of mail and I'll try to get cracking.

Welcome back Jim, hope you had fun (whatever you were doing).

I didn't watch Riddick because it hasn't reared its ugly head in my small town.

Slew of mail...check.

Tallyho

:?)

Thanks! It was fun. A few days at a lake, then a week at the ocean. Very relaxing, and I spent zero time in front of computers or movies, which was a big (and surprisingly welcome) change from my usual daily diet of at least 10 hours in front of one screen or another. I'm ready to get back to it though!

Sounds good and refreshing. Every once in a while you need to take a break to make your addictions seem fresh again. :?)

BTW, I recently picked up a copy of a Yimou film called Happy Times, I was wondering what you think of it.

Tallyho

:?)

Oftentimes I go back to reviews I've written and find them lacking, but I just checked my Happy Times review out before passing the link along to you, and I think it still says what I meant to say (scroll down to the "Good" tier). I'm eager to hear what you think of the film!

You might, or might not, find this list interesting. I might, or might not, add a few more comments there. Jim seemed to like them; he was prepared to wheedle for them. But I won't push my luck by teasing him further.

An interesting list (I'm jealous about The Night Stalker, I've been wanting to watch that for about 4 years now). But why 1972, does it has some familial importance or merely a youth vs. puberty connection?

Tallyho

:?)

I chose '72 to represent the period of my movie-viewing life during which I saw nearly all new movies at the drive-in. I was a new driver, it was back when you could still drink a few cans of beer in your car and not feel too guilty about it (something I haven't done for a long time now - drink beer out of cans, I mean :-D). Twinge.

Tres cool. I think drive-ins should replace the giganticor movie-malls of today. Bring back the fresh air!

:?( <---sad has-never-seen-a-movie-at-the-drive-in stook.

What kind of car were you driving? A convertable (mmmmmmmmmm sweet car)?

Tallyho

:?)

Not a convertible - I was always too...conservative...to drive a convertible. Drive-in movie-going was great fun. Except when it rained (except if you had a hot date in the passenger seat). But you had to remember to take the speaker-box off of your car window before you drove away - many a car window has been left in a thousand pieces on the gravel of a drive-in.

Ha! Too conservative.

You should write an article on the joys of drive-in movie-going. So I could read, observe, cogitate and quite possibly get a vicarious thrill. woohoo.

Whadya think?

Tallyho

:?)

Nah...if I wrote that for you Jim would be on my case demanding that I produce several other writing projects I've promised him. He's such a hard taskmaster :-D

Isn't he just though. He's earned the moniker Jim The Merciless.

:?| <---disappointed stook (and that's a sad thing to see)

Tallyho

:?)

Isn't Night of the Lepus about evil rabbits or something?

Yes, sadly it is about evil rabbitsor I suppose put-upon, scientist ravaged, gigantic flesh-eating bunnies would be closer. Silly you say. You have no idea. To watch NIGHT OF THE LEPUS! is to know the meaning of "camp". Check herefor a simple synopsis.

T'ho

:?)

I feel an evil power commanding me to see it...... ;)

I gotta stop making these stinkers sound so enticing. :?\ Good luck with your...um...1 1/2 hours of snickering.

T'ho

:?)

My Dad knew someone who saw that movie, and the guy said the rabbits were normal looking...... I'm disapointed.....

But where did they get the word "LEPUS" from? Does it mean evil rabbit or something?

Well for 1972 you can't expect great special effects. Just lots of obvious minature shots with bunnies stomping around. You may also spot people in silly bunny suits running rampant as well.

Lepus just basically means "hare". Which are from the same "family" as rabbits but they got bigger ears and back legs.

Are you thinking you're not going to watch it now? Not that I'm trying to get you to. Just wondering?

T'ho

:?)

If I am reeeally bored I will, but I do have a certain fondness for really bad movies.... so maybe I will anyway......

Whats this Harold And Maude Then?

Review forthwith squire Rushmore.

:?)

cool, nice review, sounds good i'll check it out! Thx

You thought Solaris was 'Great' - what are your reactions to my review here? (posted below so you don't even have to follow the link :-)):

Solaris (1972) - After enjoying Tarkovsky's attention to both "wow-factor" photography and touching human drama in Andrei Rublev, I was excited to see what he would do with a film set in space. But Solaris is the anti-2001; the story is told almost entirely through the characters, and does not utilize the spectacular setting at all. In retrospect, it feels like Tarkovsky does not like science fiction, and yet he does allow occasional snippets of 'hard' science to slip into his deliberately paced character drama (neutrinos, etc.). I'm sure my reaction to the film results somewhat from my unmet expectations, but Solaris cannot compare to Andrei Rublev in its direction or overall artistic mettle. Though I wish it had been set entirely in space like the novel, it's still better than the recent Soderbergh adaptation.

There's an excellent review here written by a person who paid specific attention to detail. Read happily whilst I write my review.

T'ho

:?)

Dang, I should have watched Sword of Doom as my first Lone Wolf & Cub. Not sure how I ended up seeing Baby Cart to Hades first. I've read the first few volumes, so I wasn't lost, but I still meant to watch the first one first.

Yeah...Baby Cart To Hades was a dissapointment after all I'd heard about the series. Have you seen Sword Of Doom yet? I want to read the original "comics" but too much money. :?\

T'ho

:?)

Nope, Baby Cart is the only one I've seen so far. I may check out another someday, but I'm not in a hurry.

You'll love it, that's a promise, oh yeah and there's this too, any comments you wanna make feel free. Take a look at the coding, if you can figure an easier way to gain control please gimme a holler.

T'ho

:?)

Alas, Netflix only has these three cubs.

Pretty wild style. Is it achieving what you desire though? It looks like you're trying to make something blink (you bastard!), but I see no blinking (thank god!). Also there's something wacky going on with that arial declaration at the end that doesn't seem to take hold, and finally, did you intend to suppress the bullet by your favorite movie of the year?

Yes blinking is happening on my browser, but not for much longer, I wonder why no blink on your side. :?) BTW other people have told me that the blinking is scary and sucky and downright bad, so it's getting the axe. Why no love for the blinkage? :?(

Okay so here's how it's going, Mozilla seems to be fine, IE isn't blinking and hasn't accepted the change of font stylings. But that's okay cus anyone using IE needs a serious reality check (just kidding).

I've married some CSS2 into my style sheet and that may be causing the prob.

And the bullet I did intend to supress (hence the slash before-hand) is supressing on Firefox & IE. I never use Netscape or Opera. Well, back to the drawing board. I'm intending to try a little structured pre stylings and giving your list declarations a kick in the fanny. I'm only guessing here, but you've probably put TNR as the standard font inside the body.

I cleaned up my messy css by the way, just in case you wanna know what's going on. :?)

T'ho

:?)

"The Three Cubs", sounds like a mezmerising tail right there. (snicker)

Good gravy man, those are some huge headers!

I'm merely playing with a few ideas, but I'm glad they made an impression...at least they don't blink. (snicker snicker) you've unleashed my pent up HTML-instincts, luckily I have my own website to design so I'll leave it alone for now. But the new idea is...following discussion in an e-mail I'll send this week as not to give any whipper-snappers ideas.

T'ho

:?)

Your headers are big enough that I'm getting a bit of the dreaded Horizontal Scrollbar of Doom. I believe "UNFORTUNATELY" is the culprit.

That's weird, I see "UNFORTUNATELY / HAVEN'T SEEN" on two lines, like that. And I'm using Firefox too.

It breaks on two lines for me also. It's that "unfortunately" itself is big enough to give me horizontal woes (although only a mild case). My resolution is pretty high, but I keep the bookmark sidebar open.

Thanks J for the e-mail comments, working good today without much tweeking. Yipee.

T'ho

:?)

Stooky, you are an HTMLer extraordinaire.

I wish...W3consortium makes changes so fast I can barely keep up with them...although I'm mucho happy with the potential killing off of the font tag much to the chagrin of many a coder.

And as I've said many times, it's not the MB of your computer it's how you use it. :?)

T'ho

:?)