Top 10 Films of 2023 (that aren't from 2023)

We are officially unveiling today all of our Top 10's for 2023, and while later today we will share out the Top 10 films that were actually released in 2023, this is a blog that centers on classic cinema, and it's never "just" the year at-hand-we're always plumbing over a century of movies.  So we're going to start first with the Top 10 films I saw for the first time in 2023 before we get into my actual Top 10 of 2023.  Please enjoy, and share your favorite first-time experiences in the comments (all titles listed alphabetically)!

Diary of a Country Priest (1951)

dir. Robert Bresson

A fascinating look at the way faith can consume us if we let it, to the point where we stop living our own lives and can't find order without making it align to our worldview.  Claude Laydu gives an astonishing performance as the anguished priest, one that has to be seen to be believed.

Elevator to the Gallows (1958)

dir. Louis Malle

Perfectly-constructed film noir, aided in large part by Jeanne Moreau giving a world-class performance that would make her an international icon.  The way that Malle lenses her is ingenious, always using onscreen light sources to highlight that beautiful, melancholy face.

A Fistful of Dollars (1964)

dir. Sergio Leone

In the year of the western on the blog, while I saw a lot of terrific movies, it feels a bit cheater-y to give the next three slots highlighting the only westerns on this list, all from the same trilogy.  But it cannot be denied that this lives up to the hype, starting out with a wonderful spin on what would be the classic "Man with No Name" trope from Clint Eastwood.

For a Few Dollars More (1965)

dir. Sergio Leone

Armed with a stronger budget, Leone makes sure his follow-up uses every dollar on the accounting sheet, giving us a growing set design, and more intentional cinematography (which was already pretty darn great).  Lee van Cleef getting added alongside Eastwood is a strong twist on the original's formula.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (1966)

dir. Sergio Leone

The third film wraps it all up with a true sense of the word "epic."  Eastwood, van Cleef, and now Eli Wallach create a glorious trio, and Ennio Morricone, already batting a thousand with this series, brings one of the best scores he ever wrote (and that's saying something).  The final hour is about as good as a movie can get.

In the Mood for Love (2000)

dir. Wong Kar-Wai

One of the sexiest films I've ever seen, In the Mood for Love looks wonderful in every frame.  The way that the art direction, costuming, and the glowing candlelit cinematography add to the forbidden nature of the two title lovers is grand, but Cheung and especially Leung sell it throughout, an absolute electric sexual tension that recalls something like Lauren Bacall walking onto the screen in To Have and Have Not.

Paranormal Activity (2009)

dir. Oren Peli

An impossible level of tension emerges from this film, one that would launch a ton of pretenders, but that doesn't deter how truly scary the first film is.  I loved the way that, for a film criticized for too many jump scares, that's not really the case-much of it just comes from finding the changes, searching in the silence...until we realize there's a reason to be scared of the dark.

Summertime (1955)

dir. David Lean

Maybe the most narcissistic choice on this list (I, too, am a bit of a spinster who loves to travel & maybe in 2023 gave up a little bit on love being the end of my story), but that doesn't deter that Summertime is a grand, marvelous spiritual sequel to Brief Encounter.  I don't know that I've ever seen Hepburn so raw, using her persona against a gorgeous 1950's Venice to craft her best dramatic performance...ever?

The Virgin Suicides (2000)

dir. Sofia Coppola

I love the way that Coppola's debut plays with form & expectations.  We're meant to assume that this is a coming-of-age story, one where the boys will find their own journey through the introspective girls they see across the street.  What it becomes is a mystery, and how our own lore becomes an enigma as we grow up, realizing how much of life, even our own, we can't understand.

Witness for the Prosecution (1957)

dir. Billy Wilder

Absolutely sensational treatment, a riveting courtroom drama brimming with all of the delicious intrigue that you'd expect from Agatha Christie.  Charles Laughton, Elsa Lancaster, Una O'Connor, they're all grand in this, but it's Marlene Dietrich (robbed of an Oscar) who makes it truly unforgettable.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (1966)

Film: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (1966)

Stars: Clint Eastwood, Eli Wallach, Lee van Cleef

Director: Sergio Leone

Oscar History: No nominations

Snap Judgment Ranking: 5/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2023 Saturdays with the Stars series, we are looking at the Golden Age western, and the stars who made it one of the most enduring legacies of Classical Hollywood.  This month, our focus is on Clint Eastwood: click here to learn more about Mr. Eastwood (and why I picked him), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

While the "Dollars Trilogy" had done extremely well in Europe, it wasn't released in the United States until 1967, and it was then released in rapid succession (all three in one year).  Keep in mind, despite his time on Rawhide, at this point Eastwood was still an unknown to large swaths of the American audience, certainly when it came to the movies.  That changed with the release of these films.  Though they were greeted poorly by critics, audiences ate them up, and Eastwood was marked as one of the top box office draws of 1967.  The films' success (particularly our picture today) led Eastwood to try to push his stardom, and he was able to with a series of box office successes including Hang Em High, Coogan's Bluff, and Where Eagles Dare.  He also had the noted box office bomb (and to date, his only musical) Paint Your Wagon, which we're sadly not going to have time to watch but I'm desperate to see eventually as we've got a lot of ground to cover with Eastwood in the next two weeks.  But first, let's finish out the "Dollars Trilogy" with the celebrated western The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

(Spoilers Ahead) At nearly three hours, the movie stretches a lot of time, but it's honestly a series of short stories about three men: Blondie (aka the Good, aka Eastwood), Tuco (aka the Ugly, aka Wallach), and Angel Eyes (aka The Bad, aka van Cleef).  The three of them represent honor in the form of Blondie, treachery in the form of Tuco, and evil in the form of Angel Eyes.  All three men cross paths on their way to the same treasure-there is $200,000 in gold buried in a Civil War graveyard.  The only problem is-Tuco is the only person who knows what the name of the cemetery is, and Blondie's the only person who knows the name of the gravestone where it's buried.  They therefore form an uneasy alliance, and cross paths with Angel Eyes.  Tuco, under torture, tells Angel Eyes the name of the cemetery and that Blondie knows the name of the gravestone, but they both escape, and in a moment of trust, Tuco & Blondie tell their secrets...after which Tuco quickly betrays Blondie and runs after the gold by himself.  The problem is, Blondie smartly didn't tell him the actual name of the gravestone.  This leads to a standoff between the three men, where Angel Eyes is killed by Blondie, and Tuco stands there with an unloaded weapon (not realizing Blondie had taken out the bullets).  In the end, Tuco & Blondie find the gold, but before they can part, Tuco (in a callback to the beginning of the film), is strung up on a noose, and from a distance, Blondie shoots him down.  The film ends with Blondie riding into the sunset with his pile of gold, while Tuco runs after him, his hands bound, with no horse, and no way of transporting his riches.

The movie is masterfully-handled by Leone.  I was already a fan of his before I started watching the "Dollars" trilogy, as he made what is certainly my favorite western (and on some days, my go to answer for "what is your favorite movie?") Once Upon a Time in the West.  After watching this, I'm convinced he's the best director to never win an Oscar nomination.  The film is technically marvelous, with expansive, gorgeous cinematography, an impressive recurring score from Ennio Morricone, and marvelous editing, sound work, & art direction (this is admittedly more location scouting than production design, but the scene where Eli Wallach runs through the graveyards, joyfully thinking he's won the gold, is a testament to how important it is to use actual sets or locations rather than CGI it's so awe-inspiring from the sheer size).  The final hour of the movie (it's long, but I didn't feel it), is about as good as a movie can get, with the film working toward the inevitable standoff between these three men, with only one able to win.

In many ways, this would mirror the ending of Once Upon a Time in the West, except this one has more room for comedy than that picture (the ending of that one is grander, which if you've only seen The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly you'll look at me with skeptical eyes, as this is a pretty elevated finale).  The three title actors are all splendid.  We talked a lot about Lee van Cleef last week, but I'm so thankful that he was given a chance at stardom in the Italian cinema, because he's now had two classic turns, here as a villainous baddie who in his opening scenes kills a family out of some sort of warped sense of duty (it's hard not to think that the Coen Brothers had him in mind with Anton Chigurh).  Eastwood continues to impress.  The actor frequently gets criticized for being a relatively limited actor, but, if we're honest-so was Cary Grant, and he still had a laundry list of classic performances.  The main goal of a movie star is to pick roles they'll do well in and sell the movie, and this is splendid, with him playing the man-with-no-name as a snarky, omnipotent being.  But best of the three is Wallach.  His Tuco is funny, scene-stealing, and in some of his best moments (like the running through the graveyard) some of the finest work of Wallach's career.  A triumph, and what a treat to get to watch all three of these movies for the first time.

For a Few Dollars More (1965)

Film: For a Few Dollars More (1965)

Stars: Clint Eastwood, Lee van Cleef, Gian Maria Volonte, Mario Brega, Luigi Pistilli

Director: Sergio Leone

Oscar History: No nominations

Snap Judgment Ranking: 5/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2023 Saturdays with the Stars series, we are looking at the Golden Age western, and the stars who made it one of the most enduring legacies of Classical Hollywood.  This month, our focus is on Clint Eastwood: click here to learn more about Mr. Eastwood (and why I picked him), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

In the early-1960's, Clint Eastwood's career was at a unique stage.  Rawhide had given him a platform & a stardom, but it was still in television, and Eastwood had his sights set on movies.  By the 1960's, though, most of the biggest western stars of the previous era (John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, Gary Cooper) were either dead or on their way out of the genre, and New Hollywood didn't have a lot of interest (yet) in where the western was going.  So Eastwood headed down an unusual path, going to Italy to make a low-budget western that would change his life, Sergio Leone's A Fistful of Dollars.  The film was not just a surprise box office smash, it briefly created a new genre of movies.  The 1960's would be dominated by the somewhat pejoratively named "spaghetti westerns," westerns filmed in Italy, usually dubbed from the original Italian for English release, and featuring a similar plotline of a stranger coming to town and turning out an evil.  The most famous of these movies was the Dollars Trilogy, which we're on the second one of this week.  For a Few Dollars More was an even bigger hit than its predecessor (something that was a lot rarer in the 1960's than it would become in the 1980's and later when VHS and video rental places allowed for a film's audience to grow between filming sequels), and cemented Eastwood as the biggest box office draw in Italy.  Next week, we'll talk a bit more about how Eastwood used his success in these movies to eventually become a name in Hollywood movies, but first, let's discuss the movie that is oftentimes forgotten in discussions of the trilogy, though after watching...I have no idea why.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie is considered part of a trilogy, but it's not really a sequel in the traditional sense as while many of the actors from A Fistful of Dollars are in this movie, they are playing different parts.  Eastwood inhabits the "man with no name" persona again, here nicknamed Manco, and initiallly he is in something of a turf war with Colonel Mortimer (van Cleef), as both are noted bounty hunters who come to realize they're after the same man, El Indio (Volonte), a ruthless bandit, thief, & murderer, who carries around the musical pocket watch of a woman he raped who killed herself during the act we later discover.  After a fantastic showdown (which involves both men shooting each other's hats in a metaphorical dick-measuring contest), the two join sides, content to get the nearly $40,000 that would come with taking down El Indio's gang.  Initially they infiltrate him by having Manco join the gang, but once he's found out, this sets up a showdown between the three men, and us understanding that the woman whom El Indio raped was Mortimer's sister, and he had done this not for money, but for vengeance.

The movie doesn't have the scrappiness of A Fistful of Dollars.  Shot for a considerably larger budget (purportedly double the original's), it shows.  The cinematography, which in the original is excellent but scrappy, expands into gorgeous vistas, and the set design is magnificent, us getting to see these recreations in the real world rather than just on a studio lot.  The music from Ennio Morricone is marvelous, another absolute gem of a score, here a bit more melodic & less recurring than A Fistful of Dollars.  Even the acting is better here than the original.  Eastwood feels more at-home in this character, deprived of some of the stress of carrying the picture (and the main character's enigma) by himself with van Cleef very strong as his right-hand man.  Like Eastwood, van Cleef had spent much of the 1960's working in different bit parts in Hollywood (he had a non-speaking part in High Noon) before doing a number of guest spots on western shows of the era like The Rifleman, Have Gun-Will Travel, & Maverick.  This film revitalized his career, making him a huge name in Italy, and he spent much of the remainder of the 1960's & 1970's doing westerns, most of them in Europe.

The only thing that I think maybe it feels inferior to the original on is the story structure.  The movie has a lot of side plots, and is less focused than A Fistful of Dollars.  In some ways this is okay (Leone's magnum opus, Once Upon a Time in the West, is also a movie that as four separate plot lines converging into one gigantic showdown).  But this one doesn't do a good enough job of differentiating them.  It feels, quite frankly, like it functions better if you think of it as a series of western motifs rather than something that should be considered brilliantly plotted.  It still has great dialogue, and I like it a lot if you think of it as an homage to the western rather than one that should be taken literally, but if we're going to split hairs between two masterworks of the genre...that's where I'd land.

Once Upon a Time in the West (1968)

Film: Once Upon a Time in the West (1968)
Stars: Claudia Cardinale, Henry Fonda, Jason Robards, Charles Bronson, Gabriele Ferzetti
Director: Sergio Leone
Oscar History: In one of the worst decisions in the history of the Academy, the film received no Oscar nominations, making it arguably the best film ever made to never receive an Oscar nomination.
(Not So) Snap Judgment Ranking: 5/5 stars

I recently bought a house, and as a project for that house I'm working on the creation of my own little movie room in the basement.  While it's not quite finished yet (I feel like I shall have a similar attitude toward my blog & novels about my house in that I'll never be entirely satisfied with it, always tinkering), it's the closest any room in the house is to being exactly what I was dreaming of it being, and as a result I've been inaugurating a number of my favorite films in the room.  This weekend, I gave the room arguably its biggest classic title yet with Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time in the West, my favorite western of all-time and a film that, quite frankly, I can't recall the last time I'd seen it and was a little worried that it had become too storied in my memory to actually live up to the hype.  A nearly three-hour epic western that regularly ranks in my favorite films list as one of the greatest of all-time (it's currently positioned at #11, and is well-poised to crack the Top 10 the next I update the list), I don't think I'd even seen my Blu-Ray copy of the film yet, and may not have seen it for at least four years.  Thankfully, my memory didn't evade me-Once Upon a Time in the West was better than I remembered and even more glorious on the bigger screen (that is featured in my movie room), particularly with the Blu-Ray.  A true epic in every sense of the word, and a landmark picture that, despite its growing fame, doesn't feel as essential to any movie-lover's "must see" list as it should.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film is hard to summarize into one simple paragraph as we so often do in my reviews, but here goes.  The movie takes place in a land where modernity and the wild west meet-a train magnate named Morton (Ferzetti) is making his way to the Pacific Ocean before he dies of a debilitating illness (it feels like muscular dystrophy, but the illness is never identified in the picture).  In order to get there in time, he hires a ruthless band of thugs, led by one of the nastiest villains in film history, Frank (Henry Fonda, of all people, playing a truly cruel baddie that totally upends his longtime nice guy persona), to kill an Irishman and his family on the eve of his wedding to a New Orleans prostitute named Jill (Cardinale).  Unknown to Frank, Jill is not in fact his fiancé but his wife, having gotten married in New Orleans and is therefore the legal owner of his desert ranch, which it's later revealed is a shrewd investment since the railroad must run through it to get there, and her husband McBain (Frank Wolff) planned on building a train station and making a fortune.  While trying to figure out what to do with Jill & the ticking clock of the railroad, we are dealing with two mysterious men in the story.  One is Cheyenne (Robards), a bandit whom Frank impersonates while killing McBain in order to frame him for the murders, and Cheyenne is none-too-happy about this, vowing revenge on Frank and his men.  The second is a man that only goes by Harmonica (Bronson), his real name never being revealed, who is known for playing his eponymous instrument and always keeping a cool head and his strategy to himself.  The movie ends with a showdown between Frank and Harmonica where it's revealed (wasn't kidding about that spoiler alert) that Frank killed Harmonica's brother many years earlier, not by shooting him but by hanging his brother from a noose and then having Harmonica serve as a living gallows, knowing that he can't stand forever but having him fight to keep his brother alive.  It's a nasty reveal in the showdown, when you finally realize why Harmonica has to win, and why he's hated Frank with such a blaze.

The film, as I mentioned above, is the greatest western of all time, a much-maligned genre for those who simply think of Peter Griffin saying "pilgrim" when they think of the classics of this era, rather than realizing the rich history of the many westerns that challenged the John Wayne tropes (even Wayne's own The Searchers would do just that).  The movie's genius lies in the way that it starts a ticking bomb in its first, meandering opening scenes, where Harmonica kills three nameless robbers (played by veteran character actors Woody Strode, Jack Elam and Al Mulock).  From then on, both Harmonica and Frank are marching to their inevitable end, and the film in some respects feels like one long ending.  This wouldn't work in virtually any other film, but it's the ending of a story that began long ago, of the men who created the west, but were too rough and too violent to make a proper civilization in this short-lived period of American history.  Frank, Harmonica, and Cheyenne are relics, and they know it as the film progresses, each realizing their way-of-life is not just threatened, but gasping for air, and it will be Jill, thoughtful, planful, and modern, who will bring the new world to the West.  This is a tall order for a film to carry, and almost any other director would have fallen under the weight of such a task as creating a gargantuan epic about the decline of the American West, but Leone was clearly the kind of director who took such tasks to heart.  The last thirty minutes makes for one of the best endings to any movie, period.  Think of the risk of having Harmonica's true reason for killing Frank come just seconds before Frank's death, an ending where we don't entirely know if Frank understands why he's being punished by this mysterious man.  Or the gravitas that Bronson brings to his still-faced goodbye to Jill, his "someday" not being literal but in fact that men of his nature will eventually come to save the world from evil if they are ever needed...that should read as so hokey, but it really never does.  It's hard to grasp how many jumps the film makes with its viewer that could fall flat, but Leone's confidence that he's making just a near-perfect film won't be deterred, and it pays off.

The film received no Oscar nominations, which is an unforgivable sin.  I'd argue it's not just the best movie of the year, but arguably of the decade, and it was probably ignored because Leone's film performed poorly at the box office (the western being on its last legs of Hollywood glory at the time as well), but has been rescued in decades since by filmmakers like Martin Scorsese and Quentin Tarantino, who both consider it a landmark.  The film surely deserved nominations for Cinematography, Art Direction, Film Editing, and the top prizes, but perhaps most egregious would be Supporting Actor and Score.  The performances are uniformly good, with Claudia Cardinale tasked with a tough part, playing the introverted hooker-with-a-heart-of-steel, and Jason Robards a brute who is also kind underneath.  But it's Bronson and Fonda who deserved the most credit.  Bronson's lone wolf is mesmerizing, the sort of performance you don't know an actor has in him until you give him the script.  Known for his tough guys and the Death Wish pictures, Bronson gives a soulful, deeply-felt performance as Harmonica, and it's hard to look at this and still see the caricature he's known as in popular culture.  Fonda is his equal as nasty, vicious Frank.  Villains are Oscar's raison d'être for Supporting Actor, so I don't know why the Academy ignored Fonda here since he was woefully without an Oscar (he'd win one 13 years later for the fine but not remotely as good On Golden Pond). Both men deserved nominations more than any performance I've seen from that category in 1968, and the same surely goes for Ennio Morricone with the most luscious score in film history.  Seriously-this is the best work from one of cinema's finest composers, lilting and iconic, frequently associating specific music with each of the four leads and it's instantly recognizable.  Morricone's work, not to get too hyperbolic, is my favorite cinematic score of all-time, and as a result it's a crime that it wasn't victorious, much less nominated.  Still, though, Oscars are one thing, but a critical reputation that grows almost every year since it's release is another.  Once Upon a Time in the West may not have gotten the attention it deserved when it came out, but a movie this good will always be found, and thankfully critics and film-lovers have done just that.