We’ve all seen the film reels, the photographs, and the evidence of Nazi atrocities. Through the great work of documentarians, we’ve seen and heard the testimony of survivors. With all this knowledge, it can be difficult for present day generations to remember a time when the world appeased Nazi Germany, when the powerful nations that would later become the Allies gave Hitler the benefit of the doubt, and tried to establish friendly relations with his government. It was a time when friendship with Germany was so important that the world decided to turn a blind eye to the reports of increasing violence against Jews and political minorities there.

Erik Larson, author of the amazing Devil in the White City, turns his attention to the first year after Hitler was declared Chancellor in his new book In the Garden of Beasts. Around that same time, the US Embassy in Berlin found itself in need of a new ambassador. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt appointed an acquaintance of his, the unassuming chair of the history department at the University of Chicago, William E. Dodd. Dodd accepted the post, and took his family (his wife and his adult son and daughter) to Berlin with him. Dodd sought serenity in Berlin so he could finish his book on the history of the American South. Martha, his daughter and the other main historical figure in Larsen’s narrative, sought to escape a disappointing series of romantic entanglements in America, which culminated in a deteriorated marriage. Martha was also an aspiring writer, one who surrounded herself with talents such as Carl Sandburg and Thorton Wilder.

The Dodds did not share the extreme anti-Semitism that was so prevalent in Germany and in America itself before the second World War, yet they also lacked sympathy for Jews or their plight in Germany. Dodd felt that “the Jewish problem” (ie, Germany’s treatment of its Jewish population) took a low priority in his list of duties as ambassador. His primary purpose was to maintain friendship with Germany and to secure Germany’s repayment of its debt to the United States. He went further and tried to minimize press coverage of Nazi assaults on Jewish Americans in Germany, justifying his efforts with his sincere belief that Hitler would change or be brought down by his political opponents. Furthermore, Dodd was certain that he could influence and befriend the more moderate factions within the Nazi Party. For their part, the Nazis were putting forth their best attitude, and assured Dodd (and the rest of the world) that their only intention was peace. Hitler himself put forth his greatest assurances of goodwill.

Martha was awed by the splendor of the New Germany, a revitalized, energized nation that was renewing itself after its recent economic downfall. To Martha, the Third Reich was an example of a nation building government, and nothing her new friends could say would dissuade her from that idea. And she made lots of friends. From the local literati, to journalists and prominent members of the Nazi Party, Martha was a popular girl and the social whirlwind in Berlin enchanted her. The Dodds had finally arrived.

Larson’s greatest strength is the sense of mounting fear and horror that slowly erodes the Dodds’ romanticized view of Berlin. The title In the Garden of Beasts refers to the street on which the Dodds lived (Tiergartenstrasse), but also to the fact that they were surrounded by “beasts” like Ernst Röhm, the SA Chief of Staff, who lived a stone’s throw away. They met Adolf Hitler himself, as well as numerous luminaries of the Nazi government. The men who dined in Dodds’ home were also directly responsible for the deaths of millions. The Dodds believed the best of Germany and ignored all the early warning signs of the regime’s atrocities. Slowly, they find themselves trapped in international conflicts within Europe as well as conflicts within the German government itself, as one government official turns on another, with deadly results. In the Garden of Beasts is a portrait of a family and a portrait of the world between the two World Wars. It revisits a time when the appeasement of Germany allowed Hitler the time he needed to solidify his regime and build up his power. It’s also a parable teaching us that turning a blind eye to a problem won’t make it go away, that some people will not negotiate, preferring to destroy the world than to lose their power over it. The Dodds learned what the world learned soon thereafter: that inaction can be the most dangerous path to take.

I’ve been a long time fan of the Harry Potter books, and though I’ve enjoyed the movies to varying degrees, my overarching complaint about them has been their focus on children. The Harry Potter books are almost singular in children’s literature in that they contain fascinating adult characters in addition to the plucky child leads. When those adult characters were brought to life by the creme de la creme of UK talent, I was really looking forward to seeing their stories played out onscreen. You can imagine my disappointment when the Shrieking Shack scene in Azkaban, crucial to four adult characters, went by in a whirl of confusion. Or when a key character’s death in Phoenix was brushed aside to let the children have a moment together. Or when The Half-Blood Prince, which should have been the story of Tom Riddle’s rise, became a tale of teenage hormones run amock. These are just a few examples, there are tons of character moments that didn’t make it from the book to the screen. It’s not that I dislike the children (I think they’re great); it’s just that the adult characters played an important role in shaping Harry’s life, that they mattered, and that they deserved their due.

This brings us to film 8. Despite my complaints, I enjoyed the previous films quite a lot, and I found film 7 to be the most serious, the most ambitious and the most satisfying of the bunch. The kids were growing up, they were fighting, and they were on their own in an impossible quest to destroy an indestructible enemy. Going into film 8, I had high hopes, despite my previous reservations that splitting The Deathly Hallows into two films would result in a final movie that was all action, and little substance. It turns out that I was both right and wrong to have such reservations.

My main complaint about film 8 is the same complaint I had about film 6. The books on which they are based are supposed to be companion pieces, one a portrait of a young Tom Riddle and the other a portrait of a young Albus Dumbledore. The whole point of Deathly Hallows should be Harry’s realization that Dumbledore was not the man Harry thought he was. Throughout the book, Harry receives different recollections of Dumbledore from the people who knew him, just as he once had pieced together Riddle’s life by acquiring memories of him. This didn’t translate into either film, as memories of Riddle were scant in film 6, and memories of Dumbledore were almost nonexistent in film 8. There is one notable exception (Snape’s memory of Dumbledore), but the power of this moment is undercut by Harry’s later conversation with Dumbledore at King’s Cross, in which his discovery regarding Dumbledore’s motivations and his death are ignored in favor of lazy platitudes meant to convey wisdom. Harry’s insight into Dumbledore is also gutted on film due to the fact that Aberforth does not ever explain why he hated his brother, or their sister Arianna’s significance. Aberforth sees his brother’s shortcomings more clearly than anyone, and suggests to Harry that he should distance himself from the rose colored view of the headmaster that is being pitched by everyone else. This advice, and Aberforth’s reasons for giving it, didn’t make it to film 8. Why should any of this matter? Because while Harry learned long ago that he was a better man than his enemy Voldemort, the last leg of his journey was meant to teach him to be a better man than his hero Dumbledore. I’m not sure film Harry learned this lesson.

Two adult characters in Deathly Hallows did get their due, and these were Minerva McGonagall and Severus Snape. In the books, McGonagall is one of the most powerful characters in the wizarding world, perhaps third next to Dumbledore and Voldemort. Much like Hermione, she is a magical genius who would have been sorted into the smarty pants Ravenclaw House, except like Hermione, the only thing greater than her intelligence is her bravery, so she is head of Gryffindor. In the films, the fabulous Maggie Smith wasn’t given much to do, until now. In Deathly Hallows Pt. 2, McGonagall is finally allowed to unleash her considerable power, and with a mixture of humor, warmth and badassery, she leads the defense of the castle against Voldemort’s troops.

For his part, Alan Rickman was finally allowed to do more than be snide (although, to be fair, no one does snide better than Alan Rickman). In “The Prince’s Tale”, we finally see the emotional core that drives all of Snape’s actions, that has driven him throughout the entire series. To me, the chapter is revelatory not only because of what it reveals about Severus, but what it says to Harry about Dumbledore. Ultimately, it was Snape-not Dumbledore- who had the boy’s best interests at heart. Rickman, of course, delivers in that sequence all the emotions that the character was bottling in during all the previous years, and the sequence is the most moving in the entire film series.

Other observations:

*Helena Bonham Carter delivers the best performance outside of Rickman himself. She gets to play Hermione, and her whole body’s posture changes when she’s playing her. Her facial expressions are priceless, and she is really one of the best things about film 8, although she’s not in it a lot.

*Like the other adults, poor Warwick Davis has had to stand around in the background during the previous films. In Deathly Hallows, he plays both the goblin Griphook and Professor Flitwick. As the latter, he has some moments defending Hogwarts, but it is in his opening scenes as Griphook that he gets to shine. During an intense conversation with Harry in the beginning of the film, we get to see Davis, finally, sink his teeth into a great scene. Look for him as the star of the new Ricky Gervais/Stephen Merchant show, Life’s Too Short.

*Just as the aforementioned actors got their chance to show us what they could do, there were many more who didn’t. As a Lupin/Thewlis fan, I have to say I’ve been disappointed with Yates’ handling of the character. He hasn’t done almost anything since Alfonso Cuaron’s Azkaban. So when Harry goes into the forest, and confronts those he has lost, the scene’s resonance (and it DOES resonate) exists because of the work of previous directors, in particular Chris Columbus and Cuaron, who focused on the Potters and Marauders, respectively. I like Yates a lot, but his films focused very little on Harry’s (lack of) familial ties. The scene with the Resurrection Stone works because of the work of the actors and the early films in the series.

*Speaking of the earlier films, the greatest accomplishment of the series has been to maintain a continuity of actors and architecture. We’ve seen the kids grow up onscreen, so we care about them. We’ve seen Hogwart’s landscape through all the films (its outside architecture was established by Cuaron more than Columbus), and we’re familiar with it, so its destruction carries emotional baggage that wouldn’t exist if the castle hadn’t been so extensively explored in the earlier films.

*There were several moments in the film, including the bit where the students clapped when Harry walked back into Hogwarts, which struck me as very Chris Columbus. This was also true in the musical cues, which reverted to John Williams’ original orchestrations for Sorcerer’s Stone, which I found strange and inappropriate when juxtaposed with Yates’ film. Film 8 seemed like a mash-up of films 1 and 7.

In the criminal justice system, sexually-based offenses are considered especially heinous. In New York City, the dedicated detectives who investigate these vicious felonies are members of an elite squad known as the Special Victims Unit. These are their stories.”

I was familiar with Lisa F. Jackson through her revelatory 2007 documentary The Greatest Silence: Rape in the Congo. Jackson, herself a victim of an unsolved gang rape, traveled to the Congo to interview victims of sexual assault there. For me, personally, it was an eye opening documentary. The statistics regarding how widespread rape is in the Congo are staggering and overwhelming, but Jackson went one step further and interviewed the rapists, as well. These perpetrators did not even attempt to deny or excuse their behavior, for they knew they would not serve a day in jail for raping the women. The documentary served as chilling testament to how these men viewed rape as something that should be expected in their society. At the same time, the film was also a testament to the courage of these women and their continued determination to live their lives, every day, in the midst of such violence.

This year, Lisa F. Jackson explores the subject of rape from a different angle, that of the Manhattan Sex Crimes Unit. Recently, the Sex Crimes Unit made headlines when it indicted of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, on attempted rape charges. In the documentary, Jackson follows several members of the Unit through various cases. She also interviews Robert Morgenthau, the Manhattan District Attorney who expanded the Sex Crimes Unit from a one person operation to its current staff of 53 people. Former Unit Chief Linda Fairstein also weighs in on the difficulties of prosecuting sex crimes in during her term (1976-2002), when the unit had to overcome antiquated legal obstacles like the requirement of corroboration, as well as the allowed exposition of the victim’s sexual history. The repeal of the corroboration requirement in the 70s led to a condemnation from the New York Times alleging that no man should go to jail on the testimony of a woman.

In the present, Unit Chief Lisa Friel leads a team of investigators and prosecutors working on a case load of 300 cases at any given time. Prosecutors Jennifer Soulc and Coleen Balbert work on the case of a prostitute who came forward to press charges against two men who violently raped her. As the documentary shows, jury selection is a huge issue in a society that still engages in victim blaming. In fact, studies show that the public, particularly the male public, expect a great deal of injuries when a victim presents her rape, an expectation based on their false assumptions that a) the victims will always be in a position to fight back against an armed opponent, or b) that the female body cannot/will not accommodate a male intruder in order to reduce injury to itself. As one doctor memorably explained, a woman is designed for the capability of delivering a baby vaginally, and a baby is significantly bigger than the male penis.

Another subject in the film is Natasha Alexenko, a young woman who was raped in 1993. Natasha’s case was unsolved for years, and it was subject to the then extant statute of limitations which would make her case be closed (Lisa Jackson’s own rape kit was destroyed when its statute of limitations ran out). The cold case section of the Sex Crimes Unit, which was racing against the clock in various cases where the statute of limitations was running out, got around the problem by initiating John Doe Indictments. In these cases the DNA was charged with the crime, keeping the case open until such a time when a suspect could be matched to his genetic profile. Sure enough, several years later, a man was arrested for another offense in another state, and he matched the DNA profile for Natasha’s attacker. When Natasha’s case finally came to court in 2008, one of the first questions she was asked was whether she had been a virgin at the time of the attack. That’s right, in 2008, in one of the most progressive cities in the world, a rape victim was asked whether she had been a virgin, presumably because sexually active women have it coming.

The prejudices against sexually active women, the legal barriers and technicalities, the reluctance of the victims and witnesses, these are the challenges that the Sex Crimes Unit encounters every day. Though justice is not always swift, though it sometimes skips town altogether, it is very touching to see how dedicated these prosecutors are. They have to be sensitive enough to walk victims through the system and tough enough to investigate the most heinous aspects of rape victimization. One of the first things that struck me about the film was the fact that most of the prosecutors were women (28 out of 40). I am so used to crime shows (CSI, Law and Order, etc) in which the majority of characters are male that the real Sex Crimes Unit immediately stood out due to its number of women. They meet and discuss strategy, as well as investigative avenues that include DNA and surveillance footage. In one striking sequence, surveillance cameras captured the kidnapping of an inebriated girl…amidst a crowd of indifferent bystanders.

Sex Crimes Unit adds another dimension to Jackson’s previous work. Where she had interviewed victims and offenders, this time she presents how society, through its judicial system, deals with the issue of rape. It’s an understated film, filled with regular people talking about baseball and reality television while trying to push back against millennia of violence against women. It’s extraordinary because of their ordinariness.

Writer/Director Paco Cabezas follows in the tradition of great Spanish horror (The Orphanage, The Devil’s Backbone) with his engrossing ghost story, Aparecidos (The Appeared). Ruth Díaz and Javier Pereira star as Malena and Pablo, siblings who return to their native Argentina in order to sort their dying father’s affairs. The pair had been taken from Argentina by their mother when Pablo was a baby, and they had not been back since. The curious Pablo persuades Malena to take a road trip to their childhood home so that he may learn something about the family’s past. Malena is reluctant, for she figures that her mother did not relocate her entire family to another country without good reason, and she theorizes that her father must have done something vile in order to drive her away. Despite her reservations, she agrees to accompany Pablo, and the two set out on their trip. They soon discover a old journal full of Polaroids and text documenting the murder of a family that took place in 1980. When the siblings realize that the events of that long ago day are replaying themselves in real time, they try to save the doomed family in the hope that their efforts in the present can change the past.

The title of the film is a play on the word “disappeared”, which the people of Argentina use to refer to those who went missing during The Dirty War, victims of torture and murder by the Argentine Anticommunist Alliance (known as the Triple A). In their investigation into the 1980 murders, Malena and Pablo uncover the political climate that led to the disappearance of thousands upon thousands of people. Though the film doesn’t mention any political figure by name, though it doesn’t descend into lecture mode, it does comment on torture and the effects that it has on victims, torturers, and their families. I do not know whether Cabezas purposely set the film in August/September 2001 in order to comment on a post 9/11 world in which torture and extraordinary rendition have become commonplace. Perhaps that is USA-centric view of the text, since 9/11 is not mentioned in it at all, but whether Cabezas intended it or not, such a reading makes the film even more evocative.

The Appeared reminded me of the 2006 British/Spanish film The Abandoned (directed by Nacho Cerdà). The latter film also featured a pair of siblings who return to their country of birth (in this case, Russia) to settle an inheritance and uncover the mysteries of their family. Both films play with time, as the events of the past replay themselves to the horrified protagonists. The main theme at play is that the sins of a people will reach through time to ensnare their children. The Abandoned is the more pessimistic of the two, which makes it more appealing to my cold, cynical shell of a heart, but The Appeared scores higher on the sympathetic personalities of its leads. The writing and the acting behind the Malena and Pablo characters make them worth rooting for.

My one complaint about The Appeared is the brief appearance of a character used to explain the plot. Played by Graciela Tenenbaum, this character has a long monologue that simultaneously explains the nature of the murders as well as the chaos and fear that ran rampant during The Dirty War. Tenenbaum is an amazing actress and delivers her character’s testimony perfectly, but her appearance is so brief and her willingness to share it so out of the blue that one wonders if Malena and Pablo could have come by this information in a less contrived manner. Nevertheless, this is only one complaint in an otherwise tense, well orchestrated thriller.

Ultimately, with any horror film, the question boils down to: does it scare/disturb? One of my problems with recent American horror efforts is that inadequate pacing ruins otherwise decent scares. The pacing in The Appeared is exquisite. One scene in particular stands out, in which a character is chased by a car on a dark road. The scene is not played as a surprise, but rather as a mounting tension as the car slowly advances on the fleeing victim. The movie itself plays that way, as well. I highly recommend this little treasure, available on Region 1 DVD. While you’re at it, pick up The Abandoned as well.

This was an incredibly hard category to choose from. I’m quite fond of dramas and, let’s face it, some of the most celebrated films ever made are dramas. I could have went for a great classic like The Godfather or something more recent like The King’s Speech. A category like this is precisely what makes this challenge so hard. In the end I had to go for a film that struck me long before I could fully understand the complexities of a classic  and one that has been long a part of my DVD collection. I chose Peter Schaffers’ adaptation of his own play, Amadeus, directed by Milos Forman.

I am a huge history buff so any type of costume drama I can find, I’ll watch. I discovered this film on a whim back in my early preteens on an old VHS taped by my stepdad from HBO, Cinemax or some other type of subscription cable channel. I knew a bit about Mozart but not much and upon further research afterwards I found that the majority of this film is fiction. I was a bit disappointed by this fact. However, what stirred me most wasn’t the drama of jealousy but the obsession both characters had with music. Forman  made the focus be about the music and how it engulfed each character in different ways. The lushness of the selected opera recordings played throughout the film were chosen for a reason and they don’t go unnoticed. Some of the most dramatic scenes are the act of writing music, the best and most famous I included at the end of this post.

Another high point of this film was the wonderful casting and performances. F. Murray Abraham and Tom Hulce as rivals Salieri and Mozart make up much of the heart of the film. In my opinion Hulce was robbed of an Oscar for this role. As the young prodigy, he is able to fully capture both the childish immaturity and crippled genius of a man who was too much for his time. Abraham as the jealous Salieri does so much with just a look. The majority of his lines are voice over narratives of the events, so his Salieri is more of an observer throughout the film. The entire supporting cast is all top notch including a great cameo but an extremely young Cynthia Nixon.

Another reason I chose this film to showcase on this challenge is because I don’t think enough young people have seen it. While it is an extremely popular and well regarded film, it has still not achieved “classic film” status, yet it is not new enough for people to have really heard enough about it to see it. So here is my advice, if you have not seen this film, I highly recommend watching it. If anything maybe the clip I have provided will be enough to persuade you.

Day 1: Favorite film

Day 2: Least favorite film

Day 3: Favorite comedy

Day 4: Favorite drama

Day 5: Favorite action

Day 6: Favorite horror

Day 7: Favorite animated feature

Day 8: Favorite thriller

Day 9: Favorite musical

Day 10: Favorite foreign film

Day 11: Favorite kid’s movie

Day 12: Favorite love story

Day 13: Favorite chick flick

Day 14: Favorite documentary

Day 15: Favorite play adaptation

Day 16: Favorite book adaptation

Day 17: Least favorite book adaptation

Day 18: Film that is your guilty pleasure

Day 19: Film that made you cry the hardest

Day 20: Movie with your favorite actress

Day 21: Movie with your favorite actor

Day 22: Movie you wish you could live in

Day 23: Movie that inspires you

Day 24: Movie with your favorite soundtrack

Day 25: Movie with the most beautiful scenery

Day 26: Movie you’re most embarrassed to say you like

Day 27: Movie with your favorite villain

Day 28: Movie with your favorite hero

Day 29: First movie you ever remember watching

Day 30: Last movie you watched

I can remember it clearly. It was my first year in college, I was in the school theater involved in some type of rehearsal and people were discussing the virtues of Napoleon Dynamite and Shaun of the Dead. I had not seen either film, though I had heard of Napoleon Dynamite because of the many, many TV commercials that aired for it. Little did I know that the better comedy was left out of the spotlight that year.

It would be a few months later until I finally saw it, at a house party where a friend brought the DVD. It was literally one of the most laugh out loud, funniest movies I had ever seen. Growing up on Mel Brooks and Monty Python films, I’ve seen my share of funny but this was “fanboy” comedy; which took it to a whole new level.

This was not the first outing for the Edgar Wright/Simon Pegg/Nick Frost team. They had worked together on a wonderfully funny show called Spaced that had been off the air years before Shaun saw the light of day. As self professed, and clearly evident, film fans, they took to making a truly funny zombie film. Their product is a homage to a genre with their own unique stamp. The film follows your typical zombie plot. Unknown virus slowly affects people until most of the population is infected. Man realizes the danger and tries to lead others to safety as the world is slowly falling around them. People die and only a few make it out alive. What makes it funny is the fact that their encounters are a mixed bag of “what if” situations based on what we the audience have probably shouted to the screen for decades. In one scene, the group attempts to get to their safety zone, a pub called The Winchester, but must figure out a way to get around the hundreds of zombies present in the square. Their solution? Pretend to be zombies and slyly pass right by them. This ends in the predicted disaster but the fact that you the viewer are on the edge of your seat waiting to see what will be their fate while at the same time laughing at how ridiculous it all is; well that is what makes the film so damn special.

It’s this blend of humor and horror that I think really makes this film stand out from others in the genre. Evil Dead was comedic but in such a campy way that it can’t be taken seriously. Even if it can make your jump. The closest to the Shaun model I’ve seen has been a little film from Norway called Dead Snow. The thrills and laughs seemingly flow, but the characters are so ridiculous that you really don’t care about their fate, even if it is a fun ride. The writing in Shaun of the Dead is quick, witty and very British. You care about the characters. So when one by one they are picked off by the zombie herd, you’re affected.

It’s a shame that such a great film got shafted by, in my personal opinion, a mediocre one. However Shaun of the Dead has become a cult classic, particularly with the 18-30 crowd, and it was able to introduce Americans to Wright/Pegg/Frost’s brand of British humor. Which is much different from the outlandishness of Python as well as the  dark undertones of Ricky Gervais. While their second theatrical outing, Hot Fuzz, I found to not be up to the same standards. Shaun of the Dead continues to remain in my top list of funniest movies of all time.

Day 1: Favorite film

Day 2: Least favorite film

Day 3: Favorite comedy

Day 4: Favorite drama

Day 5: Favorite action

Day 6: Favorite horror

Day 7: Favorite animated feature

Day 8: Favorite thriller

Day 9: Favorite musical

Day 10: Favorite foreign film

Day 11: Favorite kid’s movie

Day 12: Favorite love story

Day 13: Favorite chick flick

Day 14: Favorite documentary

Day 15: Favorite play adaptation

Day 16: Favorite book adaptation

Day 17: Least favorite book adaptation

Day 18: Film that is your guilty pleasure

Day 19: Film that made you cry the hardest

Day 20: Movie with your favorite actress

Day 21: Movie with your favorite actor

Day 22: Movie you wish you could live in

Day 23: Movie that inspires you

Day 24: Movie with your favorite soundtrack

Day 25: Movie with the most beautiful scenery

Day 26: Movie you’re most embarrassed to say you like

Day 27: Movie with your favorite villain

Day 28: Movie with your favorite hero

Day 29: First movie you ever remember watching

Day 30: Last movie you watched

This was a tough category to fill because even though when I buy DVDs I haven’t seen, they more often than not turn out to be good. If they’re not, I will still usually just suck it up and keep them or eventually give them away. So when looking through my list I had two glaring options, the remake of The Stepford Wives and the film version of the musical The Producers, my gut went for the latter.

Unlike  many people who have seen the film, I actually saw (many times) and was a fan of the Broadway production. I never saw the Lane/Broderick version but I have seen many different combination of actors and they were all quite strong and good because the show itself is written so well. So where did this go so wrong?

My first gripe is with Matthew Broderick who’s talents as an actor have diminished over the last decade. It seems ever since he was on Broadway in The Producers, he’s forgotten how to act. Just watch him in any recent film and then compare it to his performance in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. Honestly it’s quite sad how bad he’s gotten. Nathan Lane is once again essentially playing his own public image; he does that in everything he’s in and for some reason it actually works. But you need someone to balance Lane out! Since Lane and Broderick are in almost every scene of the movie, with Broderick’s bad acting, the camp is just way too much! I’ve seen bootleg copies of the original stage musical with more subtle acting. Surprisingly the only person I felt who worked well in the film adaptation was Will Ferrell, something I never thought I’d say.

My other issue I had with this adaptation was the fact that it didn’t know what it wanted to be. The stage version makes comments on itself because it is a big flashy Broadway musical making fun of Broadway musicals. The film attempts to use those same conventions, pandering to an audience that does not exist and will not respond unlike in a theater. The whole thing then comes across as very flat and cold, almost like it’s been filmed in a void. It’s actually the reverse issue I had with Brooks’ musicalized adaptation of Young Frankenstein. The original Young Frankenstein film made fun of old horror films and successfully commented on that throughout, while the musical tried to do the same onstage without the aid of the cinema techniques. It just flat out didn’t work.

Some cinephiles will argue that it’s impossible to transfer a musical to the screen successfully without it being camp. But it can work and has many times in the past, the most successful version in my opinion I will post about soon. Having been a fan of Mel Brooks films growing up it’s a shame that I wasn’t a fan of this because if done right it could have been as good as the stage musical it was based on. Unfortunately it wasn’t and now it continues to gather dust on my DVD shelf. Oh well.

Day 1: Favorite film

Day 2: Least favorite film

Day 3: Favorite comedy

Day 4: Favorite drama

Day 5: Favorite action

Day 6: Favorite horror

Day 7: Favorite animated feature

Day 8: Favorite thriller

Day 9: Favorite musical

Day 10: Favorite foreign film

Day 11: Favorite kid’s movie

Day 12: Favorite love story

Day 13: Favorite chick flick

Day 14: Favorite documentary

Day 15: Favorite play adaptation

Day 16: Favorite book adaptation

Day 17: Least favorite book adaptation

Day 18: Film that is your guilty pleasure

Day 19: Film that made you cry the hardest

Day 20: Movie with your favorite actress

Day 21: Movie with your favorite actor

Day 22: Movie you wish you could live in

Day 23: Movie that inspires you

Day 24: Movie with your favorite soundtrack

Day 25: Movie with the most beautiful scenery

Day 26: Movie you’re most embarrassed to say you like

Day 27: Movie with your favorite villain

Day 28: Movie with your favorite hero

Day 29: First movie you ever remember watching

Day 30: Last movie you watched

Fight Club (1999)

I know to some cinephiles this choice is blasphemous. I should be picking a universal classic like Gone With The Wind, the first two Godfather films or something else of that magnitude. Yes, I do love those films and have them in my library but at this point in my life I would not consider them all time favorites. Epics like Gone With The Wind are not something I can just pop into the player on a whim after a long day at work, I will want to watch the whole thing in its entirety because it was meant to be watched that way. Something like the Godfather series I have to be in the mood for, it’s not exactly an uplifting piece of cinema no matter how brilliant it is.

Fight Club on the other hand, I have a long history with. I never saw it in the movie theater and knew nothing about it until I watched it. I only had initial interest in seeing it because I was on a Brad Pitt film kick. Instantly, I loved the intelligence and wit of the writing, the brilliant acting performances by the three leads and the incomparable bleakness of filming by David Fincher. It was like all my criteria for the perfect film were being checked off as each scene went on. It would become my first ever DVD I bought for myself and even today whenever it is on TV I will watch it no matter at what point I tune in. It’s one of the few films that I personally feel is as much for men as it is for women. Yes, I get to see Brad Pitt with his shirt off for extended sequences but there is more to it than that for me.

The film was released right when the Y2K scare was at an all time high. Our stronghold on our material possessions, our society’s constant obsession with success in regards to what we own and our paycheck had never been higher. Then here comes a film that comments on our collective obsession of nothingness.  An anti-Capitalism, dare I say Communist friendly film if there ever was one, rooted in teachings and practices of eastern philosophy. It’s no wonder it wasn’t the hit most people expected it to be.

Since its release twelve years ago it has become an enormously popular cult classic that somehow still works on repeated viewings despite the plot twist, which I won’t give away here. The film’s relevance is just as strong today, if not more so than it was at the turn of the millennium. The nameless, office “everyman” of Edward Norton is still alive and well. While you have men beating each other to a bloody pulp it is balanced out by extended sequences where the characters wax philosophical about the place of man in today’s world and what is so wrong about the way we currently live our lives. It is thought provoking, not what I can say about many films even today.

I credit Chuck Palahniuk and David Fincher for creating a world where these characters stew in the never ending bleakness that society has created around them and in which they contently live. Where bigger is not always better and where the solution is not always an upgrade; my favorite film – Fight Club.

Day 1: Favorite film

Day 2: Least favorite film

Day 3: Favorite comedy

Day 4: Favorite drama

Day 5: Favorite action

Day 6: Favorite horror

Day 7: Favorite animated feature

Day 8: Favorite thriller

Day 9: Favorite musical

Day 10: Favorite foreign film

Day 11: Favorite kid’s movie

Day 12: Favorite love story

Day 13: Favorite chick flick

Day 14: Favorite documentary

Day 15: Favorite play adaptation

Day 16: Favorite book adaptation

Day 17: Least favorite book adaptation

Day 18: Film that is your guilty pleasure

Day 19: Film that made you cry the hardest

Day 20: Movie with your favorite actress

Day 21: Movie with your favorite actor

Day 22: Movie you wish you could live in

Day 23: Movie that inspires you

Day 24: Movie with your favorite soundtrack

Day 25: Movie with the most beautiful scenery

Day 26: Movie you’re most embarrassed to say you like

Day 27: Movie with your favorite villain

Day 28: Movie with your favorite hero

Day 29: First movie you ever remember watching

Day 30: Last movie you watched

Hello faithful readers! Lotte here (I wrote the Spring Awakening review eons ago that you may or may not have read) making a long overdue return to the blog.

I have mild case of OCD; I like lists, chronology and alphabetical organization. So why I have never participated in a 30 day challenge meme is beyond me. I put the blame to lack of time but, who am I kidding, sometimes I’m just lazy. To overcome this laziness and actually contribute to this wonderful blog, I have decided to take up a 30 Day Movie Challenge.

My inspiration was from the 30 Day Movie Challenge community on Facebook. What can I say? The cool DeNiro Taxi Driver poster drew me in.

The Rules

The only rule was to “post either a scene from the movie, the trailer of the movie or a picture that resembles each day of the following themes on your wall.” Because I love the challenge of finding a scene or series of scenes that best represents a film, I shall be posting video to accompany each one of my posts.

I have also made a rule of my own that each film must come from my own personal DVD/VHS library. I do this because it makes it not only easier to review a film but also it means that I have seen a particular film more than once and was not swayed by a spur of the moment viewing in a movie theater 6 months ago. This also makes the Least Favorite Film day that much harder because I have to pick from films that I own but it only adds to the fun of the challenge. The only day exempt from this will be Day 30, which I will use either for a film I see in a theater or on Netflix.

Those are the only rules I shall be imposing on myself. There shall be laughs, tears, quizzical expressions and I’m sure a lot of “WTF was she thinking?!” but that’s what makes it fun! I hope you enjoy the journey and feel free to have your own challenge as well!

Day 1: Favorite film

Day 2: Least favorite film

Day 3: Favorite comedy

Day 4: Favorite drama

Day 5: Favorite action

Day 6: Favorite horror

Day 7: Favorite animated feature

Day 8: Favorite thriller

Day 9: Favorite musical

Day 10: Favorite foreign film

Day 11: Favorite kid’s movie

Day 12: Favorite love story

Day 13: Favorite chick flick

Day 14: Favorite documentary

Day 15: Favorite play adaptation

Day 16: Favorite book adaptation

Day 17: Least favorite book adaptation

Day 18: Film that is your guilty pleasure

Day 19: Film that made you cry the hardest

Day 20: Movie with your favorite actress

Day 21: Movie with your favorite actor

Day 22: Movie you wish you could live in

Day 23: Movie that inspires you

Day 24: Movie with your favorite soundtrack

Day 25: Movie with the most beautiful scenery

Day 26: Movie you’re most embarrassed to say you like

Day 27: Movie with your favorite villain

Day 28: Movie with your favorite hero

Day 29: First movie you ever remember watching

Day 30: Last movie you watched