Forget the top 10 of 2008! To offer a glimpse into the personal taste in movies of your humble reviewer, I present my Top 10 personal favorites. I don’t feel I have the right proclaim these as the 10 best films (just too subjective), but all the films listed below, I believe, are truly great. Each made a profound impact on me when I saw them and played a role in developing my love and appreciation for great movies.

1. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick)
Kubrick’s, haunting, out of time masterpiece is both profoundly influential, yet impossible to duplicate. I’ve ranked it first as much for its daring as its artistry. Few other films dare to address the big, unanswerable questions: mankind’s place in an infinite universe; the existence of God; what it means to be human (and can a computer become more “human” than its flesh and bone operators). With this work, Kubrick is walking with Shakespeare and the ancient Greek dramatists as much as with contemporary film directors.

2. Citizen Kane (Welles)
This work by an arrogant, brilliant 26 year old is the dividing line between old movies and everything since. Wells seems to be opening new doors for the art form with every scene. However, “Kane” has become such a film school staple that many film buffs have forgotten a simple, but important point: “Kane” is not only historically significant, but it still works as a very entertaining movie-dramatic, often quite funny and profoundly moving.

3. Vertigo (Hitchcock)
Hitchcock’s greatest film is this intense, deeply personal masterpiece about the eternal battle of the sexes and our inability to force our own happiness. Perhaps the single greatest scene in film history is when Judy’s metamorphosis into Madeline is complete. The thousand different emotions on Judy/Madeline’s beautiful face (Kim Novak’s superb performance is woefully underrated) when she reappears before James Stewart never fails to overwhelm me.

Indiefilmchat: I found Running Funny to be one of the most satisfying independent films I've seen all year. What drew you to the material and did you consider marketability at all when deciding to make it?

I read the play at a time in my life when I felt pretty lost. I had just graduated from college and I didn't know what I was supposed to do with my life. I strongly identified with the characters and what they were going through, so marketability wasn't a factor at all. It was all about the story.


Indiefilmchat: Tell us a little about your background and how you came to make Running Funny?

I grew up in New Jersey and made a few short films in high school and college using borrowed equipment and my friends as actors, so filmmaking is something I've always wanted to do. After I graduated from Rutgers University with a degree in History I came across the play and completely fell in love with it. I decided to get a day job and focus on bringing it to screen.

Indiefilmchat: Most independently produced American films, and frankly international ones as well, suffer from an under-realized script. Given the origins of Running Funny as an extensively produced play, you have a major leg up on the competition in this regard. Was that a factor in choosing to make the film based on the play?

I wasn't actively looking for a play to adapt. The story hit me in the gut and I knew I had to bring it to the screen. That was the only factor in choosing to make the film.

Indiefilmchat: Given that the source material was a stage play, did you find you had to adapt scenes or re-arrange the narrative structure in any way?

Charles Evered and I decided early on that we were going to stay close to the original material, so we only re-arranged scenes to the extent that we had to. We also gave Stan more of a narrative arc than he had in the play. The heart of the story are these two guys living in a garage, and it already worked, so we didn't see the point in changing much.

Indiefilmchat: Many Indie productions struggle with uneven acting. You get excellent performances from two relative unknown actors. Then you go and cast a legend like Louis Zorich. How did you go about casting Running Funny with such a limited budget?

We were incredibly lucky to get Louis Zorich. He's a brilliant actor and such a great guy. He had worked with Charles Evered years ago, so that connection helped, and I think he really liked the script. Max and Gene came to an open casting call we had in New York, and they were terrific. We knew within about 30 seconds of their auditions that they were the guys.

“Stab in the Dark” is, as it says on its cover, “an interactive murder mystery party game.” While designed to be a party game (and it probably would work better with a group than with one player), I played it alone for review purposes, yet still quite enjoyed it.

The plot: a reporter, following a lead on a famous unsolved murder case involving a high ranking political official, discovers a body in a sleazy hotel fittingly known as the Dew Drop Inn. The victim, a suspected mob “exterminator” known as Ronnie Pollack, had connections to the previous unsolved murder. Who exterminated the exterminator? Was it a vengeful federal prosecutor? A disgruntled FBI agent? A mysterious hitchhiker? An ambitious defense attorney? A gun happy trooper? Even the chief of police? It is up to you to figure it out.

Game players are instructed to first read the witness testimony from the reporter, which is presented in the DVD booklet. After reading the testimony, the DVD can be started and each player’s detective skills are put to the test.

The main strength of the game is its simplicity. The main menu is very easy to navigate and information can be reviewed at any time. Players can examine evidence, review an autopsy report, see a video recap of the crime scene and, most importantly interrogate six key suspects in the case (listen carefully-each suspect gives a rather lengthy, detailed testimony, yet vital information hidden within each testimony).

The case itself is also strength of the game. Fortunately, it is not an easy case to solve. It challenges the players with a wealth of information, subtle hints and a conclusion that surprised me, yet still made sense (much to my chagrin, but to the game’s credit, I guessed wrong the first time).

If there is a weakness, it’s that there is only one case (I would have loved trying my hand at another one). However, the game can be played among various groups of people, even perhaps pre-teens (though the game is about solving a murder, there is minimal blood and no onscreen violence, as well as no language or nudity; nothing in this game is as violent or grim as what players are likely see any day on prime time TV).

In short, “Stab in the Dark” is a lot of fun for fans of whodunits and would work as an entertaining, unique activity at a party or family gathering. See if you can pay attention and get it right the first time.

Ask a good question and you get a good answer. The day after my previous post wondering how people are watching films these days, Video Business published this article about a study that explored this very question.

It seems that more people are getting their entertainment at home than ever before. The fastest growing delivery method for these folks is clearly Video On Demand, either free, subscription or pay per view. Experts believe that the growing percentage of people with HDTV's and home theatre systems is driving this number.

Most of the growth in this area has come from people who used to go the movie theatres more often. DVD consumer numbers have remained somewhat steady. While the bad economy is part of this trend, it seems that people were migrating to this viewing method in pretty close parallel to the percentage of HDTV's being purchased. Now people who've made these big investments in their televisions and theatre systems want to enjoy them.

All in all this is an excellent article. It clearly suggests that the cable and satelite companies are winning the war against the internet for electronic media delivery. No surprise there since the cable and satelite companies already control the television. Since it is very difficult for independent films to be seen or even presented by Video On Demand services, I think it also suggests that indie film consumption in the home will remain dvd centered for the foreseeable future.

I stumbled on it from our own news feed over on the right margin of the site. Funny what you can learn when you poke around this place.

Jacinta's excellent post below on the new Mac Book's problems with film transfers, etc.  got me to thinking about how most of us watch films these days.  I may be in the minority but I still see the majority of new releases in theatres.  This is a function of my job (screening films for acquisition) and my family life (kids tend to control the tv until 9:30 pm or so) and it is too late for me to start a film for pleasure most of the time.  I think I've used Video On Demand once.  I've never downloaded a movie.   I use my portable dvd player to watch films for work because I spend enough time in front of my computer as it is.  I've recently had great theatrical experiences with Frozen River (my best film of the year) and Rachel Getting Married (also excellent).  I can't remember the last time I felt the same way after watching a dvd.  Motivated by inconsistent quality and cost, I definitely see less big studio releases than I used to, so in that sense I am probably seeing fewer new films overall.  If I travel I use my portable dvd player to watch films, although I am thinking about acquiring a nice light lap top which would take over that role.  I use my cable moviepackage to access older titles and occassional recent releases that I've missed. I saw Gone Baby Gone this way.  It is a search, but in spite of relatively limited choice for forty movie channels, I can usually find at least one film that is worth my time to watch.

How do most of you watch new films?  Do you still go to theatres? Is watching on a computer one of your choices?  Do you use Video On Demand?  Do you wait for films to hit your cable movie packages?  With so much happening so fast in a very tough economy, I am curious to find out.