Reviewing the Best Movies Ever Made: In the Mood for Love, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Lawrence of Arabia
A romance, a Western, and an adventure film are featured in this eighth edition of Reviewing the Best Movies Ever Made. In the Mood for Love is one of only five films in this series to come out after the year 2000 (which is somehow nearly a quarter century ago at this point), while the other two movies we’ll review here were released in the 1960s. Are any of these films worthy of being considered the best ever in 2024?
In the Mood for Love (2000)
Sight & Sound No. 5
Jet Tone Production, Paradis Film, 98 minutes
In the Mood for Love is a beautiful exploration of a relationship between two people, as well as being one of the most aesthetically pleasing films ever created. While it certainly falls into the genre of romantic drama, it is completely unlike any movie that would have been produced in Hollywood.
If you go into In the Mood for Love expecting a more traditional sort of romance film, you will be disappointed. It’s best to sit down to view In the Mood for Love with the mindset that you’re going to be watching a performance of a beautiful work of art, or almost a poem, as opposed to simply a motion picture.
In the Mood for Love was written, directed, and produced by Hong Kong filmmaker Wong Kar-wai. Wong has crafted a mesmerizing film – a work of art that definitely feels timeless. While the movie was released in 2000, it could just as easily have come out last year and that would be believable. As such, it’s watchability in 2024 hasn’t diminished at all.
The story is set in 1962 Hong Kong, and focuses on two individuals, Mr. Chow and Mrs. Chan, each a half of married couple who move in next-door to one another. With each of their partners being constantly out of town, they soon realize that their spouses are having an affair. Mr. Chow and Mrs. Chan then begin to spend time together, at first simply to imagine how such an affair between their partners began, but soon they begin to develop strong feelings for one another.
The movie chooses to never even really introduce us to Mr. Chow’s wife or Mrs. Chan’s husband in the way that a more typical romance would. Instead, In the Mood for Love wisely has us concentrate solely on our two main characters.
Visually, the film is gorgeous. Each shot is masterfully set up. If you’re interested at all in cinematography, this is a movie you’ll definitely appreciate. The costumes are equally impressive and stunning, most specifically the outfits worn by Mrs. Chan. Fantastic music further contributes to our story.
While the movie is slowly paced, and I think it’s good to accept you’re going to be watching a more methodically paced film going in, it’s never boring. In the Mood for Love is a beautiful film, and, of all the films I’ve watched so far in this Reviewing the Best Movies Ever Made series, it is definitely one of the most pleasantly surprising entries to date.
Grade: 9.5/10
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966)
IMDb No. 10
Produzioni Europee Associati, 178 minutes
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is an epic spaghetti Western directed by Sergio Leone. Spaghetti Westerns, a genre in which Leone was a pioneer, were so named since they were directed and produced by Italians and shot in Europe. As far as spaghetti Westerns go, they don’t get more well regarded than The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, starring Clint Eastwood.
These sorts of Westerns differed greatly from the more traditional Westerns audiences were accustomed to upon their initial release. They featured antiheroes, more brutal violence, and, in a lot of ways, broke down what was conventional in older Westerns (like the heroic sheriff vs. evil outlaw trope). I think modern audiences will have a more enjoyable time with a spaghetti Western like this than they would with an older, traditional Western.
There’s a lot that The Good, the Bad and the Ugly does really well. The main actors, with Eastwood as “the good,” Lee Van Cleef as “the bad,” and Eli Wallach as “the ugly,” are all great. Eastwood has a quiet cool about him that his name has basically become synonymous with. Van Cleef’s character, as the villain, is as sinister as they come. Finally, Wallach as Tuco (“the ugly”), is the most entertaining and fun of the trio.
The story, at its core, is a simple one. Three men are on the hunt for buried gold. The movie then focuses in on different situations the men get into on their quest for the treasure.
I was surprised by just how much The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is, in a lot of ways, a buddy comedy nearly as much as it is a Western. We’ve got Eastwood’s cool, nameless character as the straight man and Tuco as the oafish comic. The two go back and forth between being allies and enemies over the course of the film and they have great chemistry together.
A lot of the action in the film might not hold up by 2024 standards, but it’s easy to appreciate what the filmmakers accomplished compared to what was being done by others in the 1960s. The scope of the battles is impressive for the sheer number of extras playing soldiers fighting one another. It does take you out of the film a little though when said extras need to deliver lines of dialogue and they are dubbed in English since all the extras only spoke Italian.
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is justifiably most famous for its score, notably its main theme. You’d definitely recognize it if you heard it, and it is pretty great. The film is also fantastic at creating suspense in scenes, with Leone building up moments with a mix of wide shots and closeups on actor’s faces. These moments are still excellent by today’s standards.
The main issue with the film is that it’s just too long. A two-hour version of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly with some action taken out, and the first hour of the film tightened up, would be near perfect for audience’s today.
Still the characters, music, and cinematography make The Good, the Bad and the Ugly a worthwhile viewing. If you’re curious what a spaghetti Western is like, this is the perfect example of one.
Grade: 7/10
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
AFI No. 7
Columbia Pictures, 227 minutes
Lawrence of Arabia has been described as an epic historical adventure. After sitting through this nearly four-hour film, I would say that I would only recommend it to someone looking to take an epic nap. To describe Lawrence of Arabia as simply boring is as obvious as saying water is wet, and I sincerely doubt anyone giving this movie a positive review has sat through it within the past thirty years.
Lawrence of Arabia is an example of how a movie can be critically acclaimed upon its initial release, but not hold up at all when viewed by a modern audience. A 1960s audience might have been impressed simply by the scope of this film – there are a lot of extras (both human extras and horse and camel extras, too), and there are plenty of shots of the desert to go along with a dramatic score.
Today, the shots of the desert are simply fine and not exciting enough to carry a movie. You can flip over to the National Geographic channel (if you actually still get cable) and get an even more impressive look at what the desert looks like, if that sounds appealing to you.
The story is based on the life of T.E. Lawrence, a British soldier who helped unite the Arab tribes against Turkish forces in World War I. There’s some politics and bland battle scenes, but mostly the movie is watching our characters travel through the desert on camels. If you love camels, you may actually appreciate Lawrence of Arabia due to how many scenes there are of them just walking. Personally, I think if the movie had concentrated even more specifically on these camels it could have been potentially more exciting than the film we’re presented with.
The characters, particularly Lawrence, played by Peter O’Toole, are paper-thin by today’s standards. Lawrence comes off as more obnoxious and annoying than heroic, and his motivations and decisions at important points seem more random than well thought-out.
There are other aspects of the movie that also haven’t aged well, like Alec Guinness (AKA Obi-Wan Kenobi) in brownface playing an Arabic prince. I’ll let people more scholarly than me debate just how accurate the film is, but one thing that’s certain is that Lawrence, the white British man, is clearly portrayed as the one hero who can save the Arabs.
Lawrence of Arabia hasn’t aged as poorly as a film like Gone with the Wind in certain areas. However, at least that movie moved along at a quicker pace and had more things actually happen in it. The main issue here is just that the boringness level is turned all the way up to 100 in a 227-minute film where you will feel each and every one of those 227 minutes slowly tick by.
Grade: 2.5/10
Rankings: The 25 “Best” Movies Rated So Far
Schindler's List (1993): 10/10 (AFI No. 8, IMDb No. 6)
The Shawshank Redemption (1994): 10/10 (IMDb No. 1)
In the Mood for Love (2000): 9.5/10 (S&S No. 5)
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001): 9.5/10 (IMDb No. 9)
The Wizard of Oz (1939): 9.5/10 (AFI No. 10)
Casablanca (1942): 9/10 (AFI No. 3)
The Godfather (1972): 9/10 (AFI No. 2, IMDb No. 2)
Man with a Movie Camera (1929): 9/10 (S&S No. 9)
Singin’ in the Rain (1952): 8.5/10 (AFI No. 5, S&S No. 10)
The Godfather Part II (1974): 8/10 (IMDb No. 4)
The Dark Knight (2009): 7/10 (IMDb No. 3)
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966): 7/10 (IMDb No. 10)
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003): 7/10 (IMDb No. 7)
Pulp Fiction (1994): 7/10 (IMDb No. 8)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968): 4.5/10 (S&S No. 6)
Citizen Kane (1941): 4/10 (AFI No. 1, S&S No. 3)
Raging Bull (1980): 4/10 (AFI No. 4)
Gone with the Wind (1939): 2.5/10 (AFI No. 6)
Lawrence of Arabia (1962): 2.5/10 (AFI No. 7)
Mulholland Drive (2001): 2.5/10 (S&S No. 8)
Beau Travail (1999): 1.5/10 (S&S No. 7)