"Unforgiven" (1992)

Rank on the AFI List: #68

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
It's a Western, starring Clint Eastwood, Morgan Freeman, and Gene Hackman, and directed by Clint Eastwood.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
I have to admit, there was a fair amount of anticipation for me to see this movie. This was the first Clint Eastwood Western I had ever seen, and everyone I know who had already seen it always say things like "SUCH a great movie" at just the mention of its name.

However, when my wife and I saw another Western, "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" (rated #73 on AFI's list), we didn't like it. Or more appropriately, we didn't get it. We'd heard from so many people how great that film was, but we thought it was slow and we never really got into the plot. (If anybody can explain to me why that movie is so good, please leave a comment on here and tell me.) So with this being really only the 2nd Western I had ever seen after "Butch Cassidy", I was nervous I wouldn't like this one, either.

Fortunately, I did like this movie. Actually, I liked the movie right up until the ending. Then I loved it.

I really don't know how to discuss what I thought about "Unforgiven" without giving away anything to those who haven't already watched it. My wife and I spent a good half hour after it ended talking about what we both thought, and the crux for every topic - all the character development, every crucial scene or piece of dialogue, etc. - is dependent on seeing this movie in its entirety. It's like watching a mystery whodunnit: most of it might not make much sense or seem that great until you find out who the murderer is. Then, after the big revelation, you end up thinking the whole movie is great (at least, I do). "Unforgiven" isn't a mystery whodunnit, but it has that same dependency on the ending to make every other scene better. And it delivered. Trust me on that!

Why is this a "Top 100" Movie?
While being an admitted "Western novice", I felt watching "Unforgiven" educated me on what a good Western should be. Of course, not having a lot of viewing experience to compare it to in that genre, I can only say that I at least know that this particular Western is awesome. This movie also speaks volumes into the complexities of life and morals in the Old West, particularly regarding the act of killing a person (which most Old West examples I've seen portray killing as practically just another job, but this film rightly conveys it as a difficult and horrible act to commit). So I'm inclined to say it's a Top 100 movie because it's an epic Western, but in my opinion, it's just an awesome movie. It also won multiple awards for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Supporting Actor (Gene Hackman) in 1992.

Not really a complaint, but...
Through most of "Unforgiven", Clint Eastwood's acting seemed to be wooden and emotionless. But - once again - the ending changed all that for me. I ended up seeing his character as someone fighting emotion and his natural tendencies which - to me - explained his "wooden" demeanor. Plus, Clint Eastwood at the end was entirely believable, so this is just another example of how the ending made the entire movie - including Eastwood's acting - better.

LET ME SUM UP...
I would not call myself a fan of Western films by any means, but this movie was awesome. It's a fantastic example of how an ending can kick the rest of a movie up a notch just by being so good (Vertigo is another classic example of this). When the movie ended, I almost wanted to start watching it all over again to see just how much better I'd like the rest of it after knowing how it ends.

MY RATING: 9/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 56

"Platoon" (1986)

Rank on the AFI List: #86

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
Only 2 things:
1) It starred Charlie Sheen
2) It's about the Vietnam War

LET ME EXPLAIN...
This is the third "Vietnam" movie I have seen. The first one being "We Were Soldiers" (decent, but it felt more like a Mel Gibson movie than a Vietnam War movie), and "Apocalypse Now", which I would categorize not so much as a Vietnam movie (though it does convey the horrors of it very well), but more of a horror story set in the Vietnam War (if that makes sense). "Platoon", in my opinion, has been the best example of showing what fighting in the Vietnam War was like.

Being too young to have lived through Vietnam, I've always been a little confused about why we were there, though I keep getting the feeling most people were confused why we were there while we were there. This film did nothing to make me think otherwise. In fact, if I had to describe "Platoon" in two words, it would be TOTAL AMBIGUITY... What are we doing here? Who's really in charge here? Who are the real bad guys? At a confusing time in American history, this movie does an excellent job of illustrating how confusing being in the war must have been.

Another quick note on the overall story: the tagline for the film is "The first casualty of war is innocence." This is spot on in "Platoon", and Charlie Sheen's character is the perfect illustration of that.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
When I think of what movie probably conveys World War 2 the best, "Saving Private Ryan" immediately comes to mind.  And now when I think of what movie probably conveys the Vietnam War the best, I'll think of "Platoon".  It's a very well done film about a significant war in American history.  It was also nominated for 8 Academy Awards, winning 4 of them, including Best Picture and Best Director.

Not really a complaint, but...
At first I was disappointed at the lack of back-story for practically every character in the movie. You only get tiny hints of where guys came from and what they did back home, but then I realized that that's something that made the movie better. Why? Well, this movie was very realistic, and it puts the audience in the situation of being a brand new soldier who's thrown into the hell of Vietnam. Just like a new soldier, you don't know the other guys, and you don't know their back-stories. That's more realistic than getting told through flashbacks or heavy monologues why some guys are the way they are. It also added to the ambiguity of the movie because you couldn't truly know what some guys were capable of.

LET ME SUM UP...
"Platoon" was captivating (the 2 hours went by really fast), it was hard to watch, it was sickening, and it was realistic. I was really glad I finally saw it, but I didn't feel like I wanted to ever watch it again. However, it seems like the best illustration on what the Vietnam War was probably like; it was well acted (Tom Berenger and Willem Dafoe were both nominated for Best Supporting Actor, and Charlie Sheen did an excellent job in his transformation from "innocent" to "corrupted by war"); and all that together makes me say this is definitely a film to watch at least once in your life.

MY RATING: 8.5/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 55

"Double Indemnity" (1944)

Rank on the AFI List: #29

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
Only one thing: it's of the film noir genre.

Film Noir, according to the ever-so dependable Wikipedia, is defined as: "a cinematic term used primarily to describe stylish Hollywood crime dramas, particularly those that emphasize moral ambiguity and sexual motivation."

LET ME EXPLAIN...
Seeing as how "Double Indemnity" is a film noir, I was apprehensive about watching it, especially since I didn't like The Maltese Falcon. However, after watching this film, I've come to the conclusion that it's not film noir I dislike.  I'm just not a big fan of "The Maltese Falcon".  In other words, I really liked "Double Indemnity".

What did I like about this movie? Well, the use of lighting and shadows was very cool. I thought Barbara Stanwyck's performance was excellent. Edward G. Robinson was also outstanding, and his character - "Keyes" - was my favorite. But the story itself was easily the best thing about this movie.

It had some outstanding suspense (two scenes in particular I remember feeling REALLY nervous that they were going to get caught), and it was very Hitchcock-esque. And to spend the whole movie hoping the characters get away with murder while their plan continues to unravel (not really spoilers, since you know from the very first scene they don't get away with it) made this movie fly by quickly.  I was surprised when I looked down at the clock and realized there were only about 5 minutes left.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
After watching a special on the DVD's "Bonus Features", I got a pretty good idea why this movie is considered one of the greatest ever. First of all, "Double Indemnity" is considered by many to be the first real American "film noir" movie, and seeing how that genre holds a significant niche in film history, it makes sense that the first great example of it is considered one of the best. The story itself was also quite controversial, as it took 8 years before the Hollywood Production Code allowed it to be filmed because it centered around such an immoral plot (and I'm learning that controversy in a well-made film usually helps boost its significance in film history). It also received seven Oscar nominations in 1944. And from my perspective, the story had great suspense and the basic idea has been re-done so many times since that it seems to be quite the groundbreaking plot.

My complaint (or, in honor of Keyes, "What the little man inside me says")...
The ending. Maybe I missed the subtleties of it, or I just couldn't appreciate it enough. Up until the last 5 to 10 minutes, I was ready to give this a solid 8/10, but the ending seemed really flat and anti-climactic, and it made my opinion of the whole movie drop a bit.

LET ME SUM UP...
This is a great story of suspense and could almost be mistaken for a Hitchcock film. Even though elements in this movie have been re-used in many suspense-thrillers since 1944, I found it to have some original excitement. Up until the ending, I was extremely entertained and found the first hour and 40 minutes to fly by.

MY RATING: 7.5/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 54