Movies We Love (Despite Their Flaws)

This is a bit of a companion piece to another article I wrote about movies I don’t love, despite containing some great scenes. In this case, I have movies that I do love, despite the fact that I can acknowledge them to have flaws. These are not necessarily the “Guilty Pleasures” – movies that you know are bad, but love anyway. These are films that are generally considered to be at least pretty good; they all rank in the global Top 2000 on Flickchart, and three rank in the global Top 200. They all rank in my personal Top 200, and two of them are in my Top 20. One is a Best Picture Oscar winner. Three of the other four were nominated for at least one Oscar, and the fifth made many critics’ Top 10 lists the year it came out. I love them all, but I can admit each of them has certain “issues”. Here they are, in ascending order on my Flickchart:

King Kong (2005): “‘Twas Beasts That Killed the Beauty”

• Director: Peter Jackson

• Current Rank on My Flickchart: #162

• Global Rank: #1484

Having immediately completed the nearly decade-long marathon that was The Lord of the Rings trilogy, Peter Jackson stepped right into his dream job: remaking the iconic King Kong (1933). He’s to be commended for attempting another such ambitious project right away, but while I do love everything in Jackson’s Kong, it’s the one movie on this list that ranks as low as it does on my personal Flickchart because of its flaws. What’s wrong with it? Nothing much except the fact that it is too long, and it feels like it. There’s nothing wrong with a long movie, per se, but when a film overstays its welcome, you can feel it.

What do I love about it? I enjoy all the monster mayhem, but what really sticks out for me is the relationship between Kong and Anne Darrow. Naomi Watts acts alongside a CGI gorilla with complete believability. I thought her heartbreaking performance should have garnered Oscar attention.

I couldn’t find a good clip on YouTube, so here’s the film’s pretty great trailer:

King Kong vs. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

These movies feature the same approximate running time, but whereas with Fellowship I was chomping at the bit in the theater, unable to believe that the film was already over, with Kong (which I didn’t watch until it was on DVD; does that make a difference?), it felt too long. It feels like one of the extended DVD versions of Jackson’s LOTR films; it’s all good stuff, but some scenes really should have been left on the cutting room floor to tighten up the pacing for the theatrical release. It takes a little too long for the main characters to reach Skull Island (though this is nice for character development), and entirely too many adventures happen on the island before they take Kong back to New York. (By contrast, the third act – with Kong back in the city – is just about right, but by then, the damage is done.) Where would I recommend taking the axe? Start with the dinosaur stampede; too Jurassic Park. And the bug pit scene could have been shorter.

Incidentally, if you’re someone who also thinks Kong is too long, don’t bother with the extended DVD version; all it adds is more monster mayhem. Cool stuff, but beyond unnecessary.

*   *   *

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991): “Unlike Some, I Can Do a British Accent!”

• Director: Kevin Reynolds

• Current Rank on My Flickchart: #37

• Global Rank: #1564

Authenticity? Who needs it? I don’t care that Kevin Costner doesn’t sound anything like British (as was so famously spoofed by Cary Elwes in Mel Brooks‘ Robin Hood: Men in Tights); Prince of Thieves is a darned good time. And it’s got Alan Rickman chewing up scenery like nobody’s business. And Morgan Freeman whupping some serious butt. I love this movie. In fact, I want to go watch it right now.

What do I love about it? Rickman, as the villainous Sheriff of Nottingham, has the most fun, and gets all the best lines:

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves vs. Robin Hood

Both of these movies offered a more “serious” spin on the Robin Hood legend. But Ridley Scott‘s Robin Hood takes itself far more seriously than it has any right to. Kevin Reynolds remembered to keep it fun. There’s still plenty of darkness and PG-13 violence, but there’s nothing wrong with a good wisecrack every now and then. These are Robin Hood and his Merry Men, after all.

*   *   *

The Bourne Supremacy (2004): “Shake, Rattle and Roll”

• Director: Paul Greengrass

• Current Rank on My Flickchart: #44

• Global Rank: #158

I love the Jason Bourne trilogy, and Supremacy is my favorite chapter in the trilogy…which is a bit surprising, considering the fact that, the first time I saw it, it actually succeeded in making me somewhat physically ill. I’d never experienced a movie where the shaking of the camera was so excessive that it literally turned my stomach a bit. (Guess I’m glad I never saw it in a theater.) Fortunately, it’s an otherwise great film; after seeing it again – and by the time I saw the third film, The Bourne Ultimatum – I’d gotten used to it, and the “shaky-cam” didn’t bother me anymore. Still, Mr. Greengrass, it wouldn’t kill you to use a steady-cam every once in a while…

What do I love about it? Matt Damon‘s Jason Bourne is a spy hero so cool, even James Bond felt the need to start ripping him off. Supremacy just edges out Ultimatum as my favorite Bourne film, thanks to a fantastic car chase and a really cool villain in Karl Urban.

Check out that car chase:

The Bourne Supremacy vs. Cloverfield

The shaky-cam is pervasive in both of these films. In both cases, I suppose, it succeeds in putting you “inside” the action, but in Cloverfield, it feels a bit more “necessary”, as dictated by the plot. After all, you are watching a monster attack through the lens of a witness’s hand-held camcorder. Cloverfield is a fun little monster movie, but Bourne is definitely better; it just seems to me that there’s no reason Paul Greengrass couldn’t have toned down the shaking a bit. (Ultimatum is almost as bad, but at least things seemed to improve a bit by the time he got to his third collaboration with Matt Damon, Green Zone. Or am I just getting more used to it…?)

*   *   *

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003): “The Road Goes Ever On and On…”

• Director: Peter Jackson

• Current Rank on My Flickchart: #10

• Global Rank: #22

I don’t mean to pick on ol’ P.J. His Lord of the Rings trilogy is my all-time favorite movie (represented at my #1 spot by the first chapter). But the main reason The Return of the King does not represent at the top of my chart is the ending. Or endings. Theatrically, The Return of the King ran half an hour longer than the already three-hour Fellowship of the Ring and Two Towers. At least 20 minutes of that is spent on an ending that drags itself out a little too long after the climax of the film. As much as I loved these movies, even I was surprised in the theater when the third one just…wouldn’t…end. There are places where the fat could have been trimmed a bit: The scene where the Fellowship reunites is shot in really slow motion, and drags on a few seconds too long. And surely the Gray Havens scene could have been trimmed a bit… It’s not too much when viewed in the context of the 12-hour saga that is the extended Lord of the Rings on DVD, but in the theater, The Return of the King just dragged it out a bit too much.

What do I love about it? Are you kidding? This movie’s a helluva lot of fun. The action really mounts up, with battle scenes upping the ante on those seen in the previous chapters, and King hits an emotional chord, particularly in the scenes between Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin) just before those endings.

What’s cooler than all the epic battle scenes in The Lord of the Rings? How about a spider the size of an SUV? YouTube won’t let me embed, so check out Shelob here.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King vs. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

The three films in this trilogy were all shot together, and they’re all meant to be seen together. It’s one movie, really. I like Return of the King a bit more, but I might consider Two Towers a little “less flawed”, because it doesn’t drag itself out at the end. (There are moments, particularly with the Ents, where it flounders a little bit.) The Battle of Minas Tirith certainly rivals the Helm’s Deep siege, but King also has a couple moments of deus ex machina – with the Army of the Dead, and the eagles rescuing Frodo and Sam from Mount Doom – that keep it from feeling “perfect”. (I still say, if The Lord of the Rings was only destined to win one Best Picture Oscar, it should have gone to Fellowship.)

*   *   *

Heat (1995): “Love Hurts”

• Director: Michael Mann

• Current Rank on My Flickchart: #4

• Global Rank: #114

With a little editing, Heat would be a perfect crime thriller clocking in at about an hour and 45 minutes. As it is, it’s a perfect crime thriller, and a so-so love story. To be clear: I love this movie. I love everything about it. But the scenes between Al Pacino and Diane Venora, and Robert De Niro and Amy Brenneman, tend to slow things down a little. Here you have two of the greatest actors of all time (in their first time sharing the screen, and, arguably, their last truly great performances) dogging each other in a brilliant game of cat-and-mouse…and it’s intercut with these sub-stories of the master thief and the dedicated cop relating to the women in their lives. It’s a horrible thing to say, but cut out the women, and Heat would be a killer film that goes straight for the jugular. (But then, of course, you would lose some pretty nice scenes…)

What do I love about it? Pacino and De Niro are absolutely at the top of their A-game in this movie. In fact, it may have been one of the last times either of them was. But never mind that; Heat contains a shoot-out in downtown L.A. that is the greatest single action scene I have ever seen on film.

Besides that shoot-out, here’s Heat‘s other most famous scene:

Heat vs. The Town

The Town gave me a very similar vibe to Heat. I mean that as a very sincere compliment to Ben Affleck. In fact, I actually think that The Town is a somewhat “less flawed” film than Heat, in that the love story is central to the plot, instead of feeling tacked-on. (The love stories are not “irrelevant” to the plot in Heat; they just could have been removed and had the movie make just as much of an impact in a shorter running time.) It doesn’t matter; I still love Heat more. But then, I didn’t “love” Heat after the first time I watched it, so maybe another viewing of The Town a couple of years down the road will change things…

*   *   *

Ultimately, none of these little “quirks” are deal-breakers for me when it comes to loving these movies. Our favorite films don’t have to be “perfect” in order for us to love them. In fact…that might be a little boring. So, what films rank highly on your Flickchart, despite the little flaws that give them character?

This post is part of our User Showcase series. You can find Nigel as johnmason on Flickchart. If you’re interested to submit your own story or article describing your thoughts about movies and Flickchart, read our original post for how to become a guest writer here on the Flickchart Blog.