I nominate “To Kill a Mockingbird” as one of the very few truly flawless films. Every single thing about it is perfection: the writing, performances, cinematography, direction, casting, pacing, music, even the titles are exquisite. There isn’t one frame out of place, one wrong note. Just wall to wall perfection.
Offhand, I can’t think of any others. I can think of lots of great films that have many outstanding qualities but none others that are truly free of flaws. (Sophie’s Choice? The Godfather?)
I’ll say “Holes.” While I can’t say it’s my absolute favorite movie, it was very well acted, an engaging, complex story, and nothing that I can point to that feels “wrong” about it.
Bearing in mind that “flawless” is not the same as “great.” For example: I cannot think of a single thing wrong with Devil in a Blue Dress. But it’s not on my lifetime top ten list. On the other hand, some of the greatest films ever made have flaws.
Scorcese’s Goodfellas. Great performances, masterful editing, not a wasted shot or false note in the film. So many memorable sequences that I can’t choose a favorite.
Great story, great characters, great scenes, great lines, a genuine sense of danger felt for these animated characters and a great escape.
Structurally speaking, the movie’s as close to perfect as I’ve seen in regards to classic storytelling. But it avoids the flaw of appearing formulaic, because the story flows so organically (i.e., the characters’ circumstances are the direct result of their choices, which are totally consistent with their psychological makeup).
The three reasons for any scene (we’re taught) is to:
advance story;
develop the character, or;
reinforce theme.
A well crafted movie like Toy Story often does two or all three in each scene.
I disagree with “Kill a Mockingbird” though. When the “victim” is on the witness stand, her lies are so transparent, so overacted, and yet everybody in the court, sans Atticus, oohs and ahs. It’s really bad acting/directing if you ask me.
That said, I love the movie. When Scout says, “Hey Boo Radley,” I lose it.
Like bookbuster, I’ll go with one of Stanley Kubrick’s efforts, but my choice has to be Paths of Glory, the inspiration for my screen name.
– Excellent cast, including Kirk Douglas, George Macready, Adolphe Menjou and Ralph Meeker, and strong performances.
– As far as production and effects, the *tour de force * recreation of a World War I attack on a fortified position seems to me to be about as good as anything a director could hope to achieve, particularly considering that the movie was made close to 50 years ago.
– Fabulous writing and direction. (The screenplay is credited to Kubrick, Calder Willingham and Jim Thompson.) The separation of and contrast between the men in the trenches and the senior officers, the low-ranking soldiers singled out unjustly for the inevitable failure of a hopeless attack, the tension of the “trial” sequences and then the execution scene - stunning stuff, and brilliantly handled. Too many great scenes to choose from for examples, just see it. And it’s beautifully crafted, a lot of storytelling in just 86 minutes.
Really? I’ve always felt the transparancy was intentional. In the book it’s pretty clear that people know the girl is lying but choose to convict anyway in order to put Tom “in his place”. The courthouse and the trial were the town’s entertainment for the summer. I thought that scene did a pretty good job of conveying that.
