Paul MacLean wrote:I recently watched Crime and Misdemeanors, which I think is his best film. It effectively blends two very different stories -- one very grim and the other considerably lighter, but each making some perceptive (and disturbing) observations about human nature (and cleverly intersecting them at the end).

I absolutely agree with you on this. I think he mixed drama and comedy the best in this movie; it was compelling, funny, thought-provoking, and his best made film from start to finish (arguably). It has great depth and I am deeply affected by the movie. Great cast, great acting, great script, and I agree that he cleverly intersects it all together at the end. Personally (though this may not have been his intention), I think this film's ending is extremely positive. I need to watch it again (and I will soon) to present my argument for a positive ending, but of all his films this is that one masterpiece that he has never been able to top for me.

Jedbu wrote:For me, MANHATTAN will always be Allen's masterpiece-one of the best widescreen black-and-white films ever made, and one of the most poignant endings to a film in years.

I am looking forward to watching it again soon. In the past I have slightly preferred MANHATTAN to ANNIE HALL (both being top shelf Woody Allen films in my wacky world); I'm curious to find out if I still feel the same. The b/w widescreen is incredible, and I doubt it would have had the same effect on me if it had been in color. I definitely agree with you there!

Ben-Hur (1925). 7 of 10

Ben-Hur (1959). 10 of 10

That time of the year when both of these movies are appropriate! (I also listened to the Focus On The Family Radio drama). There's not much else I can say about the 59 version except that this time, seeing it on a wider-screen set for the first time in a while I had a chance to really study the nuances more than before. For the first time I could study the unease on Martha Scott as Messala boasts about his campaign in Africa. And more importantly, the genius of the script's structure becomes evident with first an hour of character drama, followed by the action of the galley sequence, that it then makes the placement of Hugh Griffith's comic relief a much needed relief for the audience to keep them in.

The silent version offered me a reminder of why I will never be a big enthusiast over the silent genre in general because it's harder to hold my attention watching the heavy emoting etc. But that said, I was astonished at how there were even some shots in the chariot race that surpassed the 59 version in some areas.

Barabbas (1962). 7.5 of 10. I increasingly find myself including this film in the core group of films I should watch at this time of year. The filming of the Crucifixion during an actual eclipse was an inspired touch, and there is also that air of otherworldliness to the whole atmosphere thanks to the Nascimbene score (Nascimbene's music was also helpful toward creating the aura of fantasy otherworldiness in "One Million Years B.C" too IMO). Arthur Kennedy may be the most underrated Pontius Pilate there's been and he does a lot in his limited screen time.

Eric Paddon wrote:Barabbas (1962). 7.5 of 10. I increasingly find myself including this film in the core group of films I should watch at this time of year. The filming of the Crucifixion during an actual eclipse was an inspired touch, and there is also that air of otherworldliness to the whole atmosphere thanks to the Nascimbene score (Nascimbene's music was also helpful toward creating the aura of fantasy otherworldiness in "One Million Years B.C" too IMO). Arthur Kennedy may be the most underrated Pontius Pilate there's been and he does a lot in his limited screen time.

I wasn't too keen on this film when I saw it. I didn't find Barabbas very interesting; I thought the character lacked depth and complexity. The movie also dragged a bit for me, though I thought visually they did a great job with the sulfur mine sequence in conveying the claustrophobia and wretchedness of that existence.

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS (1956) - 10/10. This movie is stunning in Blu-Ray. There are a lot of biblical inaccuracies in the film, but that doesn't prevent me from enjoying this movie thoroughly. The acting in it is outstanding...it's hard to pick someone I liked best. Anne Baxter is so seductively evil; Edward G. Robinson and Vincent Price are both cruel and revel in it, Yvonne De Carlo and Deborah Padget are hot....but Heston and Brynner cannot be topped. Great score by Elmer Bernstein, great scope and visual effects. This film never gets old for me.

Passion Of The Christ-10 of 10. This is now a permanent tradition for me every Good Friday evening. It's the one time I can watch the film and appreciate its extraordinary power to the fullest. I could never watch it on Easter Sunday when the theme of the day is different.

I'd hoped to spend part of the holidays revisiting some of these biblical classics, but haven't had much free time (and they require considerably more viewing time than the average flick).

I wanted to give Jesus of Nazareth another look, but unfortunately I loaned it to a friend whose mother wanted to watch it -- that was two years ago and I still haven't gotten it back!

My new rule of thumb is to only loan out DVD-Rs of my movies!

THE KING OF KINGS (1927) 9/10

I rank this one up there with THE TEN COMMANDMENTS (1956) as one of DeMille's greatest, and having just watched Criterion's DVD of the original roadshow version, this is miles ahead of the general release version with synchronized sound from a few years later. For me, H. B. Warner's portrayal of Christ is haunting, powerful and one of the most subtle of the silent era. Only Joseph Schildkraut as Judas has a tendency to overdo it a bit, but his performance after the betrayal brings the character back down into realism that can be downright terrifying. The longer version also restores the opening with Mary of Magdeline to its original 2-strip Technicolor, and the Resurrection (also in color but showing definite signs of nitrate decomposition) is still lovely.

I also recently watched the silent BEN-HUR and I would give it 8/10 for the chariot race alone and the sheer epic feel from the biggest film of the silent era. I'm sorry that you have trouble getting "into" silent films, Eric-I have never had a problem with that aspect, mostly because I feel that film is 90% a visual medium to begin with, and Lillian Gish once said that actors at that time had to remember that silent film only captured 25% of an actor's performance, so they had to make adjustments to accomodate not being able to be heard. Some actors compensated by "acting to the rear stalls" (Francis X. Bushman in BEN-HUR is an excellent example of this) and some went the other way and brought it down to such an intimacy that you had to concentrate on watching them to catch the subtleties of movement and emotion that they used to bring their characters to life (see the above mentioned H. B Warner for this, along with Miss Gish in THE WIND and John Gilbert in THE BIG PARADE for more). My feelings about this version compared to the '59 remake have been mentioned before-I prefer the silent version if only for the chariot race being a bit wilder and for the film as a whole being considerably shorter-but I hope to watch the Wyler film this weekend if not early next week for the first time since getting our HDTV and really being able to appreciate it.

Also just purchased the '61 KING OF KINGS on Blu-Ray and hope to watch that soon. I remember being more impressed with this film than I expected to be, although Jeffrey Hunter just does not have the gravitas to pull off the title role, and I am going to give Stevens' GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD another try, if only to hear Alfred Newman's wonderful score. I will stick to my DVD after some of the negative comments about the Blu-Ray.

I'm watching the silent King Of Kings as well right now, though in my case the shorter general release with the new 2004 score because I have always liked the sound of the church pipe organ for accompaniment as well as the interpolation of some great hymns into the score as well. I'll be following later wih Greatest Story Ever Told which IMO continues to improve with age. By contrast, the 61 KOK I find more flawed now.

Jeers to the author of the Criterion liner notes for the silent KOK with his cheap-shot crack about POTC. I have zero patience with critics who want to shove their own agendas in my face with remarks about "Passion of the Marquis De Sade" but who won't editorialize in the same breath about Scorsese (which gets a bland pass in the same sentence when DeMille's work is being compared in the same breath).

Eric, glad to see you are giving the silent version another chance-I hope you will be pleased. The organ score is extremely good, but if you have the chance, switch over to the original older score for the last scene-very nice choral version of "Rock of Ages."

I find the longer version preferable for a number of reasons-I think it actually moves better, the image is much sharper, Ernest Torrance's performance as Peter is more substantial than the later version-it actually includes the scene where he denies Christ three times, a powerful scene and performance not in the shorter print, the Resurrection sequence is longer and the color is more vivid, even if there is some deterioration, and the whole trial sequence is longer as well.

Please report back here your opinion-I am truly interested in what you think of it. I am going to give the Stevens film another chance-I just hope I can forget about "spotting the star" as it goes along, my only real complaint about it. Von Sydow and Newman's score make this film worth watching.

I think it's a fine production. If I have time tomorrow I might even give the long cut another look (haven't seen that one in five years or so) since having seen the short one first, I'll have a fresher sense of being able to tell the differences between the two. Warner's performance is fine and summons the right tone. Schildkraut I think is too melodramatically drawn as Judas, which I see more as a reflection of the age this film was made in. I also think the moment of devastation at the time of Christ's death is too overblown with people falling to their death through the cracks opened up (way too reminiscent of what I think DeMille did with the silent Ten Commandments, though I'm not too sure there since it's been a few years since I saw that. I do know he did it that way for the Golden Calf sequence in the 56 version). That was probably more a case of DeMille wanting to work in a big FX sequence for the heck of it.

Glad to see you enjoyed it. As for the devastation, this was the state of the art for special effects at the time, and I think it far surpasses the '23 10C version, and I think DeMille actually reused some of the set-ups for the '56 10C (It worked once before...). I am really curious to know what you think of one version vs. the other.

My friend who recently did a bio of DeMille talks about the controversy when the film came out re: the "blood libel" and the Jews part in the Crucifixion. While the remarks about the '27 film were nowhere near as virulent as what happened with Gibson's film, I find it fascinating that not much has really changed in 80 years-sad, but fascinating.

I think as far as Jewish responsibility for the Crucifixion goes, the most objectionable scene from my standpoint in KOK was Caiaphas taking on the whole blame and responsibility and then that scene of him being penitent after the Crucifixion. I have been critical of other films that make the Crucifixion a too pure Roman affair like "The Robe" and to be consistent I think when there's an underlying absolving of Roman responsibility, that can't be ignored either. Gibson at least, was sticking to the text of Scriptures and IMO can't be subject to the same potential criticism that one scene might engender.

LOVE AND DEATH (1975) - 9.5/10 (guilty favorite grade 10/10). Of all the pre-ANNIE HALL films, this would be my favorite. This and SLEEPER are kind of related/similar to me...they're like volume one and two of a set. LAD is just funnier to me and is a bit more absurd; I like the one-liners better and the delivery and timing in the acting. The film slows down a bit after Boris and Sonja get married, but that's a minor complaint. I never get tired of watching this one.
"Violence is justified in the service of mankind."
"Who said that?"
"Attila the Hun."
"You're quoting a Hun to me??"

ANNIE HALL (1977) - 10/10. I was surprised watching this film again; after doing so many absurd comedies this film (which was straight foward) seemed fresh. From start to finish I continue to enjoy this film. Keaton's performance was top notch and I don't know what else I can say about it really since nearly everyone is familiar with it. It's a solid film with good dialogue and I'd go so far as to say that there's a poignancy to it I still enjoy. Allen definitely deserves to have this one in the top tier of his works. "As Balzac said, there goes another novel."

INTERIORS (1978) - 6/10. I remember watching this the first time and thinking that it was really self-absorbed and pretentious...heavy in a Bergman-esque way. And watching it again recently didn't make me disagree with my initial thoughts: the characters are selfish and self-absorbed, no one really cares for anyone else...how can one sympathize with any of them? Yet I think it's an interesting film in its construction, its colors, and its story of everyone's "interior" feelings and problems which make them unable to connect with each other. From a filmic point of view, there is a lot to reflect on. I liked how Allen built tension between Joey and Pearl, especially when Pearl started dancing and knocked the vase down. Not bad for a first try at drama.

ALIENS (1986). Still incredibly entertaining and fun. I prefer the Special Edition version even though some of the scenes do slow down the movie a bit. However, I don't think it takes away from its entertainment value. I love the character of Ripley; I thought it was really smart to allow her to be a mother figure to Newt...I was more touched by those moments she shares with Newt in the film this time around. The scene towards the end when Ripley and Newt end up discovering the nest is still chilling and well done; Sigourney Weaver was a solid facial actress in these films...loved when she cocked her head at the Queen when the egg opened up. Also loved the non-verbal understanding between the Queen and Ripley. This film was energetic and suspenseful, and I even liked James Horner's score (though it sounds like ST II). Paxton was awesome. Definitely a good follow-up to ALIEN...so much to like about these films for me.