what are the top 10 most underrated films of all time?

Frequency was a cool movie.

I'll tell two guys, and they'll tell two guys. That's like...that's like ten people right there.

Hey, I love Tom Hanks also.. well, I don't *love* him, since I don't actually know the gentleman, but he's a enjoyable actor to watch, and has excellent skills. The transformation he made in CAST AWAY was astounding. I know that the weight loss was grueling, and that he did it for his "craft" -- but it also probably added a few years to his life if he can keep it off. He certainly looks more his age now; he was getting a bit portly. Not that that is a bad thing, per se; I'm not a member of imbecilic "weight police; everyone (especially women) shall weigh as little as possible and if they don't they will be considered to have ZERO value in this society" -- you know, those morons? ;) But Tom Hanks is a decent looking person and he's only in his late 40's (born 1956) -- he is or will be 48 this year, unless my math is (and often is ;) off.

So, he looks much better. Anyway.. I'm afraid I just don't get the wonder of "Joy vs. The Volcano" -- Sometimes I think I AM getting it, but then it slips away. It's a case of "I'm not sure if this is inspired lunacy or just dumb" and I fall on either and both sides of that line routinely, whenever I happen to see the movie or part of it.

I haven't seen The Terminal, but I'm looking forward to it.

As for the movies with Tom Hanks that impressed me? Big was.. well, huge. He did an incredible job as a kid in an adult's body, and that's NOT easy to do because it's been so bloody well overdone.. and overdone again. Not an easy one to pull off and he did it, and he did it brilliantly. He was so.. sweet... in his innocence (the whole "sleepover") and getting Elizabeth Perkins' character to strip off the veneer that was making her so unhappy and COME ALIVE again..

Wow, that was impressive. And SHE was, at the very least, as good as he was in that movie, if not (don't throw things ;) better. She had to convey so many contrasting emotions and be a sympathetic character while starting out as someone you wouldn't want to know.. and turning into a real person you WOULD want to know.

???? Whatever happened to Elizabeth Perkins? WHY, oh why, is it that Tom Hanks can continue to have a HUGE career.. in his late 40's and then in his 50's and then even into his sixties (Sean Connery anyone? Paired with Catherine Zeta Jones in that movie where they got together.. god, what was it?

Ah, YES.. Entrapment. Well, let's see: Sir Sean Connery born on 25th August 1930 in Edinburgh, Midlothian, Scotland, UK. He has therefore celebrated his 74 birthday and good for him. The movie ENTRAPMENT (which no one will claim was brilliant, but still.. it was entertainment, with a 6.1/10 voting.. so it wasn't garbage, but it wasn't one of his better movies either) Okay. ENTRAPMENT was in 1999 -- five years ago, when Sir Connery was a mere 69. Connery's co-star, and the person with whom it is made clear he will have a romance with.. as the go off together into the moonlight (well, onto the train, anyway, hand in hand.. very clear that lovers they shall be, or are already) is none other than CATHERINE ZETA JONES (who is married to Michael Douglas.. I believe there is a 25-30 year difference in ages there?) but with Sean Connery, the age difference, at the time of Entrapment, was very interesting indeed.

Catherine Zeta Jones.. she of the breathy, bosomy, "oh my god, I'm so incredibly beautiful and life owes me everything because I'm stunning..." (yes, she annoys me, I don't know why, but she does. Maybe her sense of entitlement?)

Anyway, here are HER stats: Catherine Zeta Jones: Born 25 September 1969 (JUST shy of being born in the 70's.. in other words, she's a kid) in Swansea, West Glamorgan, Wales, UK. So, let's do the math. She just celebrated (literally, just, 3 days ago) her 35th birthday. Just THREE days ago. And so, depending upon when in 1999 Entrapment came out, she was 29 or 30.. and of course, the movie was made months or more earlier, so she could have been making it when she was 28.. but certainly no older than 29.

29 to her ROMANTIC LEAD CO-STAR'S 69. Um. Why am I the only one with a problem here? I mean, two consenting adults and all that, sure, cool. But why does it only work ONE WAY and not the other? Sean is 40 years, almost to the day, older than Cathy. FORTY. As in, not only could he be her daddy, but he could, just about have been her granddaddy. (well, yes, that IS pushing it a bit, conceded, but in some cultures and even in our own, it does happen.)

And it's considered just fine. There are ohhhhhh so many men who are 15, 20, years older than their trophies, err, I mean "wives" (sorry, I get confused, lol ;) 15, 20 years isn't even remarkable it happens so often. But 25, 30, 35, 40 years older is also okay. How WEIRD is that.. On your 40th birthday, your new wife is BORN.. you hang out until she hit her late 20's, and hey, a man can still have children (well, many can, depends on how, err, viable, they are.. the wee swimmers, you understand) and DO. With their second.. or third.. or however many they can afford, wives/families. "Here, Sweetness, " he says, talking to his daughter who is from his.. oh, second? wife.. and is quite normally the age you'd expect a daughter of a 74 or 69 year old man to be.. 35.. 40.. 45.. or older ;) "Here, I want you to meet your new STEPMOTHER.." Daughter looks up, and into the room comes a woman YOUNG ENOUGH TO BE HER OWN DAUGHTER.

Um, Dad? Are you marrying her or ADOPTING her? "Dad, you and Mom had me when you were in your late 20's. I'm old enough to be HER mother. It's not even that she's my age, she's the age of my oldest daughter."

Since we see things like this, we don't bat an eye when Catherine gets together with Michael Douglas. Do we REALLY thing she'd be with him if he was a shoe salesman? "Nooooo, it's his personality, he's so brilliant and erudite (her new word of the day) and I can't make mega millions selling bad cell phones.. " <YIKES..Ooops, did I say that part OUTLOUD?> Sorry, What I meant was, as she smiles warmly (insincerely) "he's such a wonderful man, of COURSE I'd be attracted to him no matter what he did or how rich he was or wasn't."

Of COURSE you would. How silly of me. You, a very attractive YOUNG woman who met this older man, with his wrinkly butt and flaccid muscles.. you find his SUCH a turn on (and she does, because for women like her, power is the ultimate aphrodisiac and hey, turn the lights off and you can't see much but an outline).. lol, remind me of a "Sex and the City" episode.. those of you who watched that series know exactly which episode I'm talking with, and of course, which of the women was involved (duh).

I've gone on. I tend to do that. Someone has told me that I should "fight the battles I can win" <peers over at the person in question who knows who he is> But if we do that, then the battles that NEED fighting will never be won. And that would suit certain kinds of people right down to the ground, now wouldn't it? I mean, if people had said "don't fight slavery, it's a fight you can't win" -- what would be the outcome? Or the vote for women, who were considered "not bright enough" or "Lacking in the constitution necessary to deal with matters of politics... their delicate bodies and minds simply cannot take such weighty (rofl) matters" -- or later, RIDICULE (since that always works) "Why would a woman need to worry her pretty little head about it? She should concentrate on the important things, like making sure my dinner is on the table when I get home, and having a son or two for me, gotta carry on that family name and all that money made in tobacco through the sweat of OTHER people.

Why is this an issue, and why right here? If indeed anyone is still reading? Well, first of all, I type VERY fast.. so this doesn't take the amount of time that one might think it does.

Second, it BOTHERS me that LEADING MEN can be in their 40's (they're young at that age while a woman is just about over the hill at 40.. and ten years ago, at 30) How much longer do you think even the supremely talented Julianne Moore will be able to hang on? She was born in DECEMBER, 1960.. which mean, that in three months, she'll be 44.

44. That's so very young for a male lead. For a ROMANTIC male lead. (Sean Connery in his 70's? Never mind him, Julianne's co-lead, Hugh Grant, was BORN IN THE SAME YEAR, three months earlier... Does ANYONE suggest that Hugh Grant is "over the hill" because he's celebrated his 44th birthday? Of course not. He'll be doing Romantic Male Leads for at least another 15 years. He's still the male version of the ingenue, for heaven's sakes.

But Julianne? No.. she won't be able to pull off the Romantic Female Lead anymore. I remember how Ralph Fiennes made that comment that "she was the oldest of the actresses considered for the part" in regard to "The End Of The Affair" in 1999 when she was 39 <gasp> (seriously, women don't get romantic leads at that age.. only recently have the "aging" romantic leads, the women who have been doing it for some years, been given the opportunity to continue into their early 40's -- but that's it. And ten years ago? Forget it. It was all over at 40. It was all over before then, at which time a woman would either stop taking roles, OR if she wanted to work, she'd take the MOTHER or supporting or "NURTURING" roles.. but not the sexy babe roles. Oh no. Can't have a 44 year old, a "middle aged woman" being sexy or desirable.. and so, in 1999, it was so rare, that Ralph Fiennes discussed how a decision had been made to have Julianne take the role, EVEN THOUGH she was the OLDEST of the actresses up for the role. Oh and did I mention how old Ralph is? Oh, well.. he's a YOUNG 'UN.. as he was born in December 1962, making him a mere 42 in three months. So, of course, Julianne, two years older.. well, at the time, Ralph was only 37 to her 39.. and 37 year old men date 25 year old women as a matter of course (no, I didn't say every single one, but look at the number). No wonder he felt compelled to say something about it.

Anyway, Meg Ryan.. who goes so well with Tom Hanks in a romantic comedy? Well, Meg will be 43 in November.. so you see, she'll be edged out soon too. Look at their up-coming projects, then go and watch the movies that have the "leading men" her age in it.. they're still a'leading.. but she's tapering out.. five years from now? You won't see her in a ROMANTIC LEAD role.

So... what ARE my favorite movies?

I dunno.. it's hard to say. I know I have lots of movies I love. But I can't help thinking when I watch them how much longer the shelf life of the male lead is going to be, and having that take away from the joy of it.. so much so, that it ruins the question of a top ten.

Yup, it's a long answer.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Just a note on women's acting careers...I do admit that women over 40 aren't likely to be in a romantic leading role, certainly less likely than a male over 40. However, there is a whole lot more to be addressed in movies than just love and romance. And there are still good roles for older women. Lauren Bacall is, I believe, in at least two movies this year. Jessica Tandy certainly stayed up there with winning an Oscar several years ago. So the most talented who remain active do pretty well for themselves. Some don't, and I do miss not seeing Elizabeth Taylor on the screen anymore.


Joe 'Sky Captain' Sullivan : Just once can we die without all this bickering?

Orson Welles' film F FOR FAKE is seriously underrated.

(rumor has it - the frenetic cutting of Welles' later films inspired Oliver Stone's hectic style --- however, Welles is FAR more articulate)

The original LADYKILLERS with Peter Sellers and Alec Guiness,
should be more appreciated. One of thee great comedies.