"The African Queen" (1951) - RE-WATCH

Rank on the AFI List: #65

Synopsis (according to imdb.com)
In Africa during WW1, a gin-swilling riverboat owner/captain is persuaded by a strait-laced missionary to use his boat to attack an enemy warship.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
This was actually the last movie on the AFI List that I watched before I decided to start this blog.  I remember thinking it was a pretty good adventure movie the first time I saw it, so I wondered what - if anything - might change in my opinion after a second viewing.

Unfortunately, I ended up not really liking it as much the second time.  For being a movie featuring two Hollywood legends - albeit aging ones - the acting wasn't all that memorable.  Plus, their whole relationship is a bit cooky: Bogart's flirting with the hippos, and his use of "old girl" as some sort of endearing nickname for his brand new beau, are two examples.  There's also a real lack of backstory for any of the characters.  Giving them more depth would have helped me care more, and I like to care.  Awwww.

On the positive side, there were some exciting scenes of the boat going through river rapids.  Additionally, the plot is intriguing.  Whenever I started to lose interest in the movie (due to the issues mentioned above), remembering the plot helped bring me back each time...even if the ending isn't really THAT exciting.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
Thanks to the Special Features on the DVD, I can pretty much confirm the reason this is on the AFI List: it was one of the first-ever Hollywood movies filmed "on location" (virtually all movies up to that point were shot in film studios).  On top of that, they didn't just go to some nearby city or lake to shoot; they traveled to Africa and shot in the middle of the wild.  All that to say, "The African Queen" was groundbreaking for filming on location in the jungle.  It was also nominated for 4 Academy Awards, with Humphrey Bogart winning the lone statue for this film, for Best Actor.

Complaints:
I already mentioned them, but the lack of backstory for the main characters made this film a bit shallow.  The cooky-ness of the relationship between Bogart and Hepburn was also strange, and a bit embarrassing to watch at times.  And come on, you two just became a couple, so quit pretending like it's a rock-solid, years-old relationship you're both in that's sustaining you through the tough trip down river.  You're barely into the honeymoon phase...

LET ME SUM UP...
For being a combination of an action adventure/romantic comedy/war movie, this is a bit shallow for me to fully appreciate.  Bogart's character in particular was a little embarrassing to watch, though apparently it was good enough to win the Oscar for Best Actor.  The simple plot of a dangerous trek into hostile territory, however, kept me interested enough to not completely dislike "The African Queen".

MY RATING: 5.5/10 (1.5 lower from my previous rating)

"Raiders of the Lost Ark" (1981) - RE-WATCH

Rank on the AFI List: #66

Synopsis (according to imdb.com)
Archeologist and adventurer Indiana Jones is hired by the US government to find the Ark of the Covenant before the Nazis.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
At the risk of being lambasted for this, I don't get the love affair everyone seems to have with this movie.  I watched it a number of times growing up, and it's enjoyable enough, but it's never been anywhere near the top of my favorites list.  I was further mystified when a fellow AFI blogger watched this movie for the very first time just recently (you can read her post here).  That right there goes against my thought that people love this because it's one of those classics they grew up with.  Apparently not!

Having said all that, I feel the need to state again that I don't dislike this movie.  I like it.  It's a fun adventure, and Indiana Jones is arguably the most iconic character in movie history (he was also perfectly cast by Harrison Ford...makes me wonder how successful this franchise would have been if George Lucas's first choice - Tom Selleck - had accepted the part instead).

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
Not really sure.  I'm probably not the best person to answer this question, but here are some of my guesses:
     - The pure adventure of the story is possibly unlike any other.
     - It was the introduction of one of the most iconic, heroic characters in movie history.
     - Great stunts, faraway locations, and classic action sequences.
Those all seem like fairly weak arguments to me.  Oh well.  "Raiders of the Lost Ark" was nominated for 9 Academy Awards, winning 5 of them (Visual Effects, Film Editing, Sound, and Art Direction, as well as a Special Achievement Award for Sound Effects Editing).

Complaints:
Well, the incredibly erroneous assumptions this film took regarding the nature of the Ark of the Covenant is something I, being a Christian, had trouble accepting, even just for the sake of enjoying the story.  This issue also made the ending really lame and ridiculous for me.  Additionally, I felt the movie did a poor job explaining things sometimes (who exactly was that creepy German guy with the glasses?  Why/how the heck did the natives know to perfectly coordinate hiding the truck from the ensuing Nazis?  Etc.).  Also, Marion was a pretty annoying character.

LET ME SUM UP...
Fun adventure with a classic movie icon.  However, the poetic license the film takes, in both storytelling and the Ark itself, leaves me a bit underwhelmed compared to the seemingly vast majority of people who absolutely love this movie.

MY RATING: 7.5/10 (0.5 lower from my previous rating)

"JAWS" (1975) - RE-WATCH

Rank on the AFI List: #56

Synopsis (according to imdb.com)
When a gigantic great white shark begins to menace the small island community of Amity, a police chief, a marine scientist and grizzled fisherman set out to stop it.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
While not considered a typical horror film, some movie lists rank this as the #1 scariest movie of all time.  Why?  Well, for one thing, sharks are real, and people have been attacked by sharks in real life (I don't recall hearing about too many dead guys coming back to become a serial killer while wearing a hockey mask, or a burn victim being able to murder people via their dreams).  In other words, it's the fear that something like this could actually happen.

For another thing, I heard this movie had a devastating effect on beach attendance the year it came out.  I can't think of another movie that has done something like that in society (Psycho didn't stop people from staying in hotels or taking showers; "Alien" hasn't stopped mankind's desire to explore outerspace, etc.).  One could argue that "JAWS" is the most influential movie ever.

All that being said, this isn't a straight-up horror flick.  It's also an adventure movie and - unlike virtually all horror movies - has some absolutely terrific acting.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
Aside from its incredible influence on popular culture, this is also a flat out well-made film.  Its direction, story, cinematography, and score are all terrific.  But it's the acting that stands out to me more than anything.  The entire film is well acted, especially by Shaw, Scheider, and Dreyfus.  In fact, one of my favorite scenes of all time is when those three guys are in the cabin of the boat at night talking.  The conversation goes from silly to eery through nothing more than top-notch acting and great writing (Robert Shaw's description of being on the USS Indianapolis - a true event in history - is extremely chilling - see the video clip below).  "JAWS" was nominated for 4 Academy Awards, winning three of them (Film Editing, Score, and Sound).

Complaints:
The scene when Dreyfus is in the cage underwater, getting attacked by the shark.  For some reason, it really bothers me that the shots underwater don't match up with the above-water shots from the boat.  What do I mean...?
Underwater Shot: Shark is tearing the cage apart, with parts of its body thrashing in and out of the water...
Above-water Shots: No sign of a shark - or fin, or anything - breaching the water during the attack.
It's really a pretty minor continuity issue, but it just bugs me every time I watch it.

LET ME SUM UP...
Very well-made horror/adventure film that has arguably influenced society more than any other.  Very good acting and film-making all around.

MY RATING: 9/10 (No change from my previous rating)

"Star Wars" (1977) - RE-WATCH

Rank on the AFI List: #13

Synopsis (according to imdb.com)
Luke Skywalker leaves his home planet, teams up with other rebels, and tries to save Princess Leia from the evil clutches of Darth Vader.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
And so I come to the movie on this list I've watched more than any other.  Yes, I loved Star Wars growing up.  I've watched it countless times, including on Opening Night when they re-released the Special Editions of the originals in the latter half of the 90s.  Surprisingly enough to me, it's been a number of years since I've watched any of the original trilogy, so I was curious to see what I thought of "A New Hope" now.

Well, it's still a great movie.  It's a fun adventure in space, with great effects (for its time), a classic Good vs Evil story, a few quirks I've always loved (my favorite can be seen in the video clip below), and renowned characters.  It's one of the most fun "classics" there is.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
Its special effects were considered groundbreaking when it came out in 1977 (I say "considered" because I thought the effects in 2001: A Space Odyssey were just as good and came out 9 years earlier).  It's also a Good vs Evil tale, it has permeated popular culture for as long as it's been around, and it has one the greatest villains in movie history.  It was nominated for 11 Academy Awards, winning 7 of them (Art/Set Direction, Costume Design, Visual Effects, Film Editing, Musical Score, Sound, and a Special Achievement Award for the creation of all the different alien/creature/robot voices).

Complaints:
Well, considering it's meant to be a fun adventure movie, I can't be too disappointed that the acting isn't all that great (particularly Mark Hamill as Luke Skywalker), and the script is certainly nowhere near as good as Chinatown.  But alas, I still have to bring these issues up.

LET ME SUM UP...
The classic epic fairy tale set in space.  A fun time created in one of the most imaginative galaxies ever, and a movie so firmly implanted in society that everyone should see this at least once in their lifetime - just not for its acting or screenwriting.

MY RATING: 9/10 (1 lower from my previous rating)

"Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring" (2001) - RE-WATCH

Rank on the AFI List: #50

Synopsis (according to IMDB.com)

In a small village in the Shire a young Hobbit named Frodo has been entrusted with an ancient Ring. Now he must embark on an Epic quest to the Cracks of Doom in order to destroy it.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
The newest film to be on the AFI List, I'm convinced this placement is for the entire trilogy and not just "The Fellowship of the Ring".  There is nothing universally different about any of them that would make "Fellowship" better than the other two, so this one makes the list simply because it was the first in the trilogy.  Nevertheless, I will (attempt to) base this review on the first film alone after re-watching it this past weekend.

First of all, I've never read the books.  I get too bored reading fiction and would much rather just watch the movie (thank you, Peter Jackson).  Second, I love these movies.  As a 3-film, 12-hour epic, this trilogy is quite an adventure to experience (unless you ask my wife, who's not a fan).  And this first one opened my eyes in several ways when I first watched it back in 2001.

For one thing, I didn't realize how epic this story really is.  It's one of the best good vs evil tales I've ever experienced, and all the characters, battles, and various regions of Middle Earth - combined with a deep and interesting backstory - make this an adventure that's easy and exciting to get lost in.

Another thing I really like about this movie in particular is all the Christian symbolism.  I don't know whether Tolkien was trying to express his faith through the story, and I don't really care.  That's not my point.  My point is this story has tons of Christian symbolism regardless of the author's intent, from the One Ring being sin (it's a terrible thing that everyone wishes never existed, but once you have it - or it has you, rather - you want to keep it, and you foster more and more selfishness and greed the longer you have it), to various Christ characters (Gandalf and Frodo, at least in this first movie).  Sure, Christ characters are often easy to find in stories and tend to be overblown in movies, but "Fellowship of the Ring" is an exception to this, if you ask me.

The third "eye-opener" for me is best explained in the next section...

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
How this movie was made was groundbreaking.  To film an epic trilogy all at the same time and produce each film one year apart had never been done before (at least, not to this level of quality and publicity).  That truly made these 3 parts fit together as one story.  The traditional approach to trilogies (film and produce one movie, then film and produce the next one, etc.) never flow as smooth, and with inevitable changes in staff between productions - not to mention the aging of the actors - styles and continuity between films tend to be issues.  Not so with "Lord of the Rings".  Furthermore, the special effects are amazing, right down to how Elijah Wood and Sean Astin really do look miniature next to Ian McKellen and Orlando Bloom.  And again, with this being one of the best "good vs evil" stories in film, it makes it a rather easy choice to have on the AFI List.  It was nominated for 13 Academy Awards, winning 4 of them (including Visual Effects).  The deserved "Best Picture" award was finally won two years later for the final film in the trilogy, "The Return of the King".

Complaints:
The Shire at the beginning is a little cheesy, and I tend to get bored with the film during the Lothlorien scenes.  There's also a few continuity issues during some action scenes (i.e. "The wraiths are right beside Frodo on the horses - wait, now they're about 10 yards behind....what's going on??").  All fairly minor issues, and the rest of the film certainly makes up for them.

LET ME SUM UP...
Epic story.  Deep, interesting characters.  A classic "good vs evil" fantasy adventure that is full of Christian symbolism.  There are a few scenes I'm not a huge fan of, but other than that, this is an incredible movie-watching experience.

MY RATING: 9/10 (No change from my previous rating)

"Casablanca" (1942) - RE-WATCH

Rank on the AFI List: #3

Synopsis (according to imdb.com)
Set in unoccupied Africa during the early days of World War II: An American expatriate meets a former lover, with unforeseen complications.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
The first time I watched this was shortly before I officially began My Quest.  I thought it was a decent movie at the time, but I didn't really get why it's considered the 3rd best movie of all time.  On top of that, my wife just didn't like it at all.  I was actually surprised that she was up for watching this one again with me.

Fortunately for both of us, we ended up "getting" this movie a lot more the second time around.  It's a good story that ties in World War II, a complicated romance, great acting, and a wonderful atmosphere and script (this film has more quotes on the AFI's Top 100 List than any other film in history, with six.  The next closest is Gone with the Wind and "The Wizard of Oz" with half that).  This is a great movie.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
1) An engaging plot with a script full of legendary movie quotes.
2) Terrific acting.
3) Characters that are "real" and developed well throughout.
4) Great cinematography.
5) It's set during a major war (and was even released in the middle of the war) and didn't shy away from letting the Nazis know what we thought of them.

"Casablanca" was nominated for 8 Academy Awards, winning Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Screenplay.

Complaints:
You really need to pay attention to even minor characters' names and practically every line (which was oftentimes difficult to hear or understand).  Sometimes the plot would seem to progress simply by a quick dialogue here or there.  This got me a little lost a couple times.

LET ME SUM UP...
Classic cinema with an interesting story and characters you really care about.  It's well acted, has several legendary movie quotes, and is set during World War II.  It took my wife and I a second viewing before we really began appreciating how good this film really is.

MY RATING: 8/10 (1 higher from my previous rating)

"Apocalypse Now" (1979) - RE-WATCH

Rank on the AFI List: #30

Synopsis (according to imdb.com):
During the on-going Vietnam War, Captain Willard is sent on a dangerous mission into Cambodia to assassinate a renegade Green Beret who has set himself up as a God among a local tribe.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
As I mentioned in my very first post on this blog, this movie freaked me out.  I literally couldn't stop trembling the rest of the night after I watched this in my American Film class.  And that's really all I remembered about it, so I was curious to see how I'd like watching it again, 10 years later.

Fortunately, I managed to not only keep from trembling, but I ended up realizing just how good this movie really is.  More than anything, it's very good storytelling.  My wife and I were engaged in the plot the entire time, and I kept wanting to know what was going to happen next.

Of course, I was also NOT wanting to know what happens next because the main characters kept moving deeper and deeper into a hellish environment (I still hold fast to my opinion in my Platoon post that "Apocalypse Now" isn't so much a movie about the Vietnam War, but a horror story set during the Vietnam War).  Seriously, when I hear the term "hell on earth", I picture scenes from this movie.

On that happy note, one thing my wife and I both realized after this movie ended: Francis Ford Coppola is one of the best story-telling directors ever.  You just can't get much better than this movie and "The Godfather" when it comes to how to tell a story on film.  Also, major props to being able to develop a character throughout the movie who doesn't even appear on screen until the end.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
This film has several things going for it:
1) Brilliant storytelling, as mentioned above.
2) It's set during a major war in America's history.
3) It's star-studded: Martin Sheen, Marlon Brando, Robert Duvall, Dennis Hopper, Harrison Ford (granted, it was a minor role), and Francis Ford Coppola as director.
4) Terrific cinematography, particularly with Marlon Brando's character.  There's some awesome use of lighting with him.

"Apocalypse Now" was nominated for 8 Academy Awards, winning 2 (Best Cinematography, Best Sound).  I've never seen it, but I find it hard to believe that Kramer vs Kramer deserved Best Picture, Director, and Adapted Screenplay more than this film.  Oh well.

Complaints:
Well, aside from not being the type of story I'd particularly enjoy sitting through on a whim, it actually felt a bit slow at times in the final 45 minutes.  Still good, but it didn't seem paced as well as the rest of the movie.

LET ME SUM UP...
An extremely well-told story of Vietnam soldiers venturing deeper and deeper into "Hell".  Felt a tad slow at times toward the end, but all in all a very, very well-made film.

MY RATING: 8/10 (2 higher from my previous rating)