2018 Cinema Shame List

For the past week I’ve been thinking about what to include in my Cinema Shame list for 2018. With the change in prompt, I’ve decided to limit the overall picks for the year to provide some wiggle room for additional films throughout the year. I used several resources to compile this list including the following: previous shame lists, contributors lists of shame, conversations on twitter, Danny Peary’s film books, various film books by critics and of course the intimidating “to watch pile” (stop judging me unopened Phenomena blu-ray).

2018 Cinema Shame List

Touch of Evil – Orson Welles is a true blind spot in my cinematic viewing.

Malcolm X – Denzel Washington and Spike Lee.

Zardoz – I would say Connery is an icon however I’ve only seen his Bond films and his work from the mid 90s to his retirement.

Two Lane Blacktop – Everybody needs more Warren Oates in their cinematic diet.

The Thing – This will be watched, no matter this will be watched for 2018. It’s been on my list since 2015, I’ve owned the DVD for years and I’ve had the Shout Factory blu-ray for months. This will come off the list.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly – Deaconsden discussion of the western genre in his 2018 Cinema Shame list has pushed this title onto my list. A genre that is sorely lacking in my catalog of watches. Also, this was a previous entry on past Cinema Shame statements.

Pale Rider – A discussion on twitter about Eastwood’s directing made me realize excluding stuff from the past 15 years and Unforgiven, I’ve watched very little of his directed films. Probably the least exciting entry of the group especially after watching Heartbreak Ridge and the first hour of Firefox.

Alien 3 – I like David Fincher and the first two Alien films.

Short Cuts – From the to watch pile and I’ve watched so little Altman.

Hell in the Pacific – Lee Marvin.

Pretty Poison – Recommendation from Danny Peary’s Guide for the Film Fanatic and a co-worker recommended this film within the past month.


August: Unseen Films of X Director

For the month of August, Cinema Shame will be highlighting the unwatched films of our favorite directors. You know the ones I’m talking about, you love Spielberg but haven’t found time to watch “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, you adore Scorsese but you still haven’t sat down and entertained yourself with “The King of Comedy”, you’ve seen the name George P. Cosmatos show up on cable but have no clue about “Of Unknown Origin”. Well, Cosmatos may be an outlier (even though his small filmography is strong), but you get the idea. We are focusing on films we have missed in a director’s filmography.

At first, I stumbled through IMDB searching for various directors scrolling through their filmography. It was too random. I was aiming for prestige directors such as Frank Capra, John Ford, Alfred Hitchcock, Lewis Gilbert, etc. These auteurs had directed films that have been on my Cinema Shame list for years. I wanted to stretch my boundaries, as with most of my film viewing habits, I consider it to be a random journey. The directions for these journeys come from various sources, such as film twitter, a book, most recent boutique label blu-ray release. I like to believe most of the films I pick for viewing are based on my personal mood and current interest. Depending on my mood can be iffy. Thankfully letterboxd helps me map out my film adventure. I dived into some data analysis (what I call opening the app) and reviewed the directors I’ve been watching throughout 2017.

I picked three titans of cinema: Walter Hill, Tony Scott and Spike Lee. Are these my all-time favorite directors? I’m not sure yet, but each one has directed a film that would easily fall into my top 20. Throughout the month of August, I am going to tackle one film from each director. I hope you can join the Cinema Shame website on this little voyage. I will announce the films later this week. Feel free to discuss your Director Cinema Shame with your own blog post, twitter or your own blog throughout the month of August.

@campbelldropout Cinema Shame List for 2015

There is no specific time for these films, well except for “The Thing” will be watched in October for Halloween. There is a huge focus on Westerns with five from the genre, which is due to “The Wild Bunch” and “The Great Silence”. A few of the films are what others have watched and the luck of me watching some of the director’s other films, talking to you “Cabaret”, got some big shoes to fill after “All That Jazz”.  Another goal of mine was to try and pair these films up with others in which I can be able to critically view the films by looking at the director’s other work, for example with the Tati boxset I hope to watch some of the other films around the time I view “Playtime”.

  1. North By Northwest (1959)
  2. Vertigo (1958)
  3. The Thing (1982) – October 2015
  4. It Happened One Night (1934)
  5. Playtime (1967)
  6. Night of the Hunter (1955)
  7. The Searchers (1956)
  8. Rififi (1955)
  9. The Maltese Falcon (1941)
  10. A Fistful of Dollars (1964)
  11. For A Few Dollars More (1965)
  12. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966)
  13. Stagecoach (1939)
  14. King Kong (1933)
  15. Chinatown (1974)
  16. Casablanca (1942)
  17. The Conversation (1974)
  18. Nashville (1975)
  19. Rashomon (1950)
  20. Cabaret (1972)

2014 Cinema Shame Review

2014 was a good year for me and I hope it was for everyone else. The wife and I moved back to the Raleigh-Durham area, which cut my commute from 1 hour down to about 15 minutes, she started her second year residency, and I finally became a permanent employee at my job (basically a larger salary and benefits, glorious benefits). I got a new computer about two weeks ago, finally putting the ole Lenovo to rest. I must say it was an extremely good year with one main disappointment being the failure to post updates regarding my cinema shame. There were a few tweets here and there but no posts and I feel bad for not posting it when others provided their updates. I hope to change that this year and what better way to accomplish a new goal than by stretching to an even higher number. That’s right folks, instead of decreasing the list I will be increasing it, if I fail, I should feel 67% more like a failure than in 2014.

Is there a better way to signify the end of something than by putting it in the form of list showing an order?

  1. Seven Samurai
  2. Halloween
  3. Taxi Driver
  4. The Godfather
  5. On The Waterfront
  6. The Wild Bunch
  7. The Godfather Part II
  8. Seventh Seal
  9. Blade Runner
  10. It’s A Wonderful Life
  11. Infernal Affairs
  12. Citizen Kane

The first four in the list are can rightfully be called great films. I will put some blame on “Taxi Driver” for derailing my posts because I struggled writing about the film. I don’t know how many times I started the post and failed to get further than a few paragraphs, I had no idea where to start. I was shocked by the film, I just felt sympathy for Travis as a character which is what made it so hard to write about the film.

“The Godfather” was a joy but my main hang up was Pacino, compared to Brando and Caan he is not on their level, I never felt he really held his own until Part II when he argues with Keaton about the abortion.

October was “Halloween”, I knew it was a classic for the Horror genre but I was shocked by how great it is as just a piece of cinema. It can stand up on its own as one of the greatest films ever made. Also, it may be the best Blu-Ray transfer out of this group of films.

Then on December 31st at 6:00 p.m. I finished “Seven Samurai”, out of all the films, I really knew nothing about this movie went in completely blind, I take that back I knew the run time was 3 hours and 27 minutes. The lack of knowledge gave me no expectations about the film. I don’t know how to put its greatness into words. It’s just a masterpiece of cinema.

If there was one disappointment it had to be “Citizen Kane”. I had high hopes for this film, how could I not have high hopes, it is considered one of the greatest films of all time if not the greatest. The film is well crafted and I am amazed by the effects Welles was able to pull off. My issue with the film was related to the story I just didn’t find it interesting and I’m going to say I was bored with it. Saying I was bored isn’t good criticism so I plan to elaborate more in the future.

Well I’m kind of running against the clock for a 12:00 pm showing of Foxcatcher. I will post my 2015 Cinema Shame list tonight.

April – Infernal Affairs

An extremely late post, for a film that I viewed in April, now I’m only two months behind in my cinema shame.

The story for “Infernal Affairs” was highly original (unless this has been done in prior films let me know), instead of a getting one side of the story in which a mole is in an organization and we just see his side of the story, we actually have two moles in dueling organizations. Instead of watching one rat go through the maze, we get to see two rats go through the maze and meet in the middle. The film is extremely fast paced, probably the fastest, I’ve seen with such a complex plot, especially within a 100 minute time period. If there is any fat on this film, it involves the romantic aspects which are high on the melodrama, which doesn’t mix well with the high intensity of the film. I don’t mind melodrama, but it just feels out of place to the rest of the film even if it does help build up Chan as a character. Hong Kong’s skyline is beautifully shot, creating a sense of false safety, high above all the daily ins and outs of cops and drug dealers. While I give high praise to this story for being inventive original, it does have some issues. The characters were uneven, from the beginning Chan was never on equal ground, he never had a chance of getting out. Chan’s risk was so high compared to what Lau could have potentially faced. This could have been the writer’s intent or an overall aspect of the story, but it removed some tension from the film. Maybe as a viewer we were supposed to see Lau was on higher ground but he couldn’t reach Chan’s moral level. I wanted more of the psychological impact of Chan being under cover, the scenes with the psychologist didn’t even touch on the potential impact. A quality film, that I recommend, but I believe “The Departed” is a superior version, in certain aspects. An issue with “The Departed” (going from memory of seeing this film 5 years ago) is the focus on Nicholson’s character, which takes away from the story between the two main characters. The run time difference is amazing in which “The Departed” has nearly 51 minutes more than “Infernal Affairs” (so probably an extra 45 minutes excluding credits), but tells the same story.


6.5 out of 10

March Selection – The Wild Bunch

Apologies for an extremely late entry.



“The Wild Bunch is my March selection and this marks the first and only entry from the western genre, a group I have little experience with watching. I can only think of four westerns I have seen which include: “High Noon”, “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance”, “Unforgiven” and “True Grit” (2010). Any comparisons I make will be to a very limited set of reference points. I’m going to exclude  “Unforgiven” and “True Grit” from the group due to their production after The Wild Bunch. Compared to “High Noon” and “Liberty Valance”, “The Wild Bunch” is a completely different animal. I would argue it does not even seem like a western, when compared to the standards of previous westerns. The biggest surprise was the 20th century setting, in a world quickly approaching World War I, not the usual time period of the mid 19th century. Maybe, “The Wild Bunch” broke the barrier of setting westerns in the 19th century. It is not only the time period that has changed, in fact the story-line is darker and more complex. There is no simple plot involving good guys fighting the bad guys. It’s a story only involving the bad guys.  The men portrayed in this film are greedy, reckless, violent and have no regard for human life, these men are only out for themselves. Throughout the film death lingers, it weighs heavily from the opening title card to the start of the end credits. However, the fear of death is not from a gun, instead its extinction. Specifically the wild bunch are coming to terms about their way of living, it’s coming to an end and not on their own accords. These men have survived for years on their set of skills, but they are becoming ineffective, as the world is changing, they are at a standstill.

Simply put The Wild Bunch is a heist film. It begins with a bank robbery, the last big heist, the retirement plan, which turns into a complete failure. Starting from scratch the group needs to come up with a plan, along the way an opportunity arises but requires working with some unsavory partners. The last heist requires stealing weapons from the U.S. Army and is pulled off successfully but with ramifications. A decision has to be made by the group on whether or not to go back and get one of their partners.

This film is almost perfect, so many aspects of it work so well, from the acting, to a spectacular script and great direction by Sam Peckinpah. The entire cast is terrific but there are three standouts: William Holden as Pike Bishop, Ernest Borgnine as Dutch Engstrom and Robert Ryan as Deke Thornton.  Deke has the least screen time of the three but is a good counter weight for the wild bunch and really fills out Pike’s back story even though they barely share any screen time together. Deke is Pike’s former partner, who struggles with his current situation trying to stay out of prison by hunting down Pike and his gang. Even though he is trying to bring these men down, he wishes he was riding with Pike. The script creates an interesting conflict for Deke and Pike, two former partners working against one another. Dutch is the moral compass of the film, he is Pike’s right hand and has a great amount of respect for him. Borgnine creates a memorable character, a tough but likable guy, something he pulls off successfully in his other films such as Marty and The Poseidon Adventure.  Holden as Pike, is spectacular, at first he comes off as a miscast, he didn’t look like a good fit for the role, but as the film progressed I couldn’t imagine anyone else doing this performance. Pike is a man who has seen and experienced a lot of suffering. It’s hard to tell if he is a man who has lost his way or a man who never had much of a moral concise. Maybe that’s the reason he surrounds himself with men like Dutch and Deke, men who will be his moral guide.  Pike is troubled by his past and his future. He is haunted by his mistakes in the past and the future isn’t bright. His ideas and plans are not cutting it anymore and the ability to work for himself is no longer an option, instead he is working for a military general of Mexico. Deke is suffering from the same issue, instead of working for himself, he is working for the railroad. The west is coming to an end, the days of being an outlaw are disappearing, working for yourself isn’t an option, you have a side to choose.

The story of the Wild Bunch really shows how much depth western films carry. On the surface they seem simple but they really carry some heavy thematic elements. The Wild Bunch shows a darker side of the West, in which there are no good guys. It also breaks down some of those legends, myths or truths people hold about the West such as men living by this unwavering code of honor. It’s a story about men fighting to survive the only way they know how and seeing that their way of living is coming to an end. The editing is really a game changer for a film from this era, maybe the biggest change in editing style since Peter Hunt’s work on the Bond films. The action scenes are intense with various cuts and slow motion scenes spliced together. It’s a quick pace but one you can actually see the action unfold unlike today’s editing in action sequences. I’ve gone back and forth on what the most valuable aspect of the film was going to be, it was between the script, the cast and the director. The more I thought about it, the clearer the choice was, it had to go Sam Peckinpah. His direction and style changed westerns. Providing a more realistic and gritty western but also improving the visual aspects of westerns, specifically with location shooting and set design. My biggest issues with “High Noon” and “Liberty Valance” was the set design. They had the look of a studio backlot. While I’m sure “The Wild Bunch” had some shots on sets, they have a more realistic and natural look. While the action scenes are a huge standout, the arguments between the men are quite memorable creating a high amount of tension without the use of guns. Peckinpah’s ability to create such tension within the camera is remarkable when the film opens and ends with such intense action scenes. While the direction is superb there are two issues with the film, and they are really nit-picky items. The first issue is a flashback scene with Pike remembering how Deke got busted. It uses a visual effect to represent a flashback. The entire set and costume design of the flashback it so out of place with the film. The next item is the after the successful heist, the men share a drink and just have a big laugh. These scenes took me out of the film’s heavier tone, because they didn’t match the look and feel of the overall movie. Maybe Peckinpah was trying to show us a glimpse of the good old days for the men of the wild bunch. I  highly recommend The Wild Bunch, my rating is a 9 out of 10. It truly is a classic, changing the way Westerns are made.

Rating: 9 out of 10



February – Blade Runner by @campbelldropout

I can’t remember the last time I’ve given so much thought to one film. This is the fourth time I’ve tried starting this entry for CinemaShame. I’ve really struggled getting my views and feelings into a coherent essay. Blade Runner has been teetering on the edge of being despised or loved. After two viewings, reading various opinions and viewpoints and limited discussion with others, I’m still somewhat unsure how I feel about the film.  I’ve known about Blade Runner for years, seen the DVD on shelves, glanced over write ups in books, but never delved into the film. The main reasons include a lack of interest in science fiction films and a general lack of knowledge when it comes to noir. Also, the film has a huge history with its troubled production, original reception and the numerous versions, the Blu-Ray I purchased came with four different versions.

From the start, I knew I was going to view the original cut of Blade Runner, which may have been the wrong route.  Visually the film is remarkable, it creates a tone and atmosphere that really pulls the viewer into the film. The standouts in the film are Rutger Hauer and Sean Young. Hauer had the best scenes in the film. His ability to show such unstable emotion was really impressive. There are numerous enjoyable scenes with Hauer including his meeting with Tyrell, telling Daryl Hannah’s character about the status of the other replicants, and the showdown/monologue with Ford. Then there is Sean Young, well, she is just beautiful, it’s hard to take your eyes away from the film when she appears on the screen.  The scene in which Ford questions Young sums the entire tone of the movie, which comes completely from Young’s performance. The film has a compelling storyline that includes some deep themes, terrific performances and a great moody atmosphere. While it has strong, positive attributions, there are two aspects that hurt Blade Runner. The narration is awful. It felt like the story was being explained to a child, or the producers thought the viewer wasn’t capable of following the film’s plot. Every time the narration came on, I was pulled right out of the film. The tone or impact of a previous scene would be ruined by the narration. There was no thinking to be done by the viewer, it was being spoon fed to the audience.  The narration belonged in a parody or the opening credits of a Remington Steele episode.  The second aspect that hurts the film is the ending. The entire build up of the mood and atmosphere are completely thrown out. I was completely surprised by the ending, I anticipated the elevator closing shut and credits rolling, instead we leave this grimy world to a world of pristine national geographic footage. I was puzzled and annoyed with the original cut, but I will give it credit for being an intelligent film despite some huge setbacks which were clearly imposed by the studio.   I intentionally planned to wait a week before viewing the final cut. During the break, I did the worst thing imaginable. I jumped on the internet and went down a rabbit hole of Blade Runner information. A terrible, horrible mistake the more I read, the more irritated I got. The whole debate of Decker being replicant caught me off guard and reading various interviews in which Scott gives his opinions, was a shock. The film offered hints at the possibility with Young questioning Ford, the reflection in Ford’s eyes and the photographs but nothing that really stood out and said yes, Ford is a replicant..  When it came to time to watch the final cut, I was already disappointed, the online information impacted my viewing of the final cut.  The overall changes to the final cut were small, in fact the running time for both versions was the same, but each one is an entirely different film.  The biggest changes were the removal of the narration and the original ending. Even with the biggest issues of the original cut resolved, I had already soured on Blade Runner. The idea of Decker being a replicant was solidified with the introduction of the unicorn dream sequence and Scott’s statements.  There are two potential reasons I dislike the film: 1) I’m too dumb to notice the clues and unwilling to accept the storyline; or 2) the film tries to be deeper than it really is. It does have deep themes and meaning pulling from various concentrations such as human interaction with technology, philosophy, Greek mythology and religion. The idea of Decker being a replicant is too 50/50 for my taste, maybe I’m a viewer that needs it to be 51/49 so it’s not so ambiguous. Maybe I’m a viewer that the studio thought needed to be spoon fed. Or maybe it was just a tough film to make and put on screen. There were so many problems with the production of the film with Scott and Ford disagreeing over the interpretations, the interference of the studio and the overall reception during its original release. This film has to be a labor of love for Scott, to spend so much time working on this film 30 years after it initial release.  I want to believe Scott had more clues with Decker being a replicant but these scenes never show up in the original or final cut. The version Scott showed to the studio/producers was nearly four hours long. I’d like to think that version had more insights to the replicant theory.

I’ve been back and forth with my rating on this film. It originally started out with an 8 out of 10 but it has fell to a 6.5 out of 10. It’s an interesting film but I got frustrated with the story when I let outside information create interference. I will come back to Blade Runner before the year is over, mostly through commentaries and documentaries in the set. In fact I even order a book about its production, Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner. I’ve grown as a film lover watching Blade Runner, it has been the first film in a long time I’ve had to sit down and really put time and effort into thinking critically about a film. While it has been nice, I do hope all my films won’t be this challenging.

Rating 6.5 out of 10

Well here is to March, The Wild Bunch.