My Quest to Watch AFI's Top 100 Movies of All Time

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

2012-02-07T21:19:00.000-08:00

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

2012-02-02T21:01:00.000-08:00

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

2012-01-24T12:12:00.000-08:00

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

2012-01-19T13:45:00.000-08:00

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

2011-11-23T08:30:00.000-08:00

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

2011-04-12T12:20:00.000-07:00

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

2011-04-08T12:19:00.000-07:00

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)

"Annie Hall" (1977) - RE-WATCH

2011-03-30T12:44:00.000-07:00

Rank on the AFI List: #35

Synopsis (according to imdb.com)
Neurotic New York comedian Alvy Singer falls in love with the ditsy Annie Hall.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
This has been my only Woody Allen film ever, though I first watched it in my American Film class. It certainly has good parts and some fun comedy, but Woody Allen's character is so neurotic that he's frustrating, but has such an underdog-esque aura about him that you still kind of root for him.

Annie Hall (the character, not the film itself) also has her faults and likable qualities, and the two of them together make this movie feel very real, which I like. As a bit of a contradiction to that, however, this is loaded with very clever, avant-garde scenes (for a description of avant-garde in film, please check out this previous post). So the relationship felt real, but the film itself did not. This is not a knock to the film, just an observation about its unique blend of realism and creativity.

(The attached video clip is one of the more subtle avant-garde scenes.)

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
"Annie Hall" is filled with unique scenes and ideas that had never been done before in a movie. This gives it the "groundbreaking" label in my book. It was also nominated for 5 Academy Awards, winning 4 of them (beating out "Star Wars" for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Screenplay, and Diane Keaton won for Best Actress).

Complaints:
This film was clever without being all that funny a bit too much. I would have enjoyed laughing more than I did.

LET ME SUM UP...
Unique romantic comedy filled with clever scenes and ideas. Not the most entertaining film, but its cleverness gives it an extra point in my rating.

MY RATING: 6/10 (No change from my previous rating)

"Spartacus" (1960) - RE-WATCH

2011-03-23T12:48:00.000-07:00

Rank on the AFI List: #81

Synopsis (according to imdb.com)
The slave Spartacus leads a violent revolt against the decadent Roman empire.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
Spartacus is a combination of Ben-Hur, Gladiator, and Braveheart, only not as good as any of them. I didn't mind this film, but I just wasn't overly impressed with it. For instance, I was surprised as to the lack of character development. On that same note, a lot of the relationships were never explained or developed enough. You'd think this stuff would happen during a 3+ hour movie. Oh well.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
While this is certainly an epic movie, I don't really think it belongs in the Top 100. It's big and historic, but "Ben-Hur" was done better and includes the incredible chariot race scene. "Spartacus" didn't really have any scene that stood out as phenomenal like that. However, it was nominated for 6 Academy Awards, winning 4 of them (Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Art Direction, and Best Supporting Actor).

Complaints:
Kirk Douglas. I was not impressed with his acting at all. For the most part, he just held a straight face without conveying much (or any) emotion. Better lead acting could have dramatically improved my opinion of this film.

LET ME SUM UP...
Epic film with underwhelming development and lead acting.

MY RATING: 4/10

"Dr. Strangelove" (1964) - RE-WATCH

2011-03-16T12:17:00.000-07:00

Rank on the AFI List: #39

Synopsis (according to imdb.com)
An insane general starts a process to nuclear holocaust that a war room of politicians and generals frantically try to stop.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
I'm really not a big fan of this film. I remember it being just "alright" when I saw it in my American Film class, and after watching it again I think I like it even less. Aside from one pretty good laugh, the rest of the comedy just wasn't that amusing. And while I appreciate the poignancy of the story and satirizing nuclear holocaust during the Cold War, I think that not really living through that time in history makes it hard for me to fully appreciate "Dr. Strangelove." The fact that it was written and directed by Stanley Kubrick (A Clockwork Orange, 2001: A Space Odyssey) didn't help, either.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
I give major props to the fact that this movie satirized and laughed at the very real possibility of nuclear war at the time it came out. Taking what people were fearing (the end of the world, basically) and making a comedy out of it is the major reason I think this is on the AFI List. I don't know of another movie that has done something like that. It was also nominated for 4 Academy Awards including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay, and Best Actor (Peter Sellers, who played three roles).

Complaints:
Aside from just not really liking the movie overall, I didn't really think the character of Dr. Strangelove was played that well. Peter Sellers was great as the President and Captain Mandrake, but Dr. Strangelove seemed a little over-acted. My best way to explain it is with a Batman reference: Heath Ledger's Joker was a crazy character portrayed eerily realistic. On the other end, take ANY of the villains from Batman Forever or Batman and Robin, and you've got over-the-top, distracting acting. That was Dr. Strangelove, to me.

LET ME SUM UP...
A movie that does a good job of satirizing what people were undoubtedly fearing most when it came out, but overall not very entertaining.

MY RATING: 3/10 (3 lower from my previous rating)

"Do the Right Thing" (1989)

2011-03-15T13:06:00.000-07:00

Rank on the AFI List: #96

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
Just that it's by Spike Lee and about racism.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
There are a number of films on the AFI List whose stories seem tedious. Rather than being drawn into a deep, rich storyline, you end up sitting there for a couple hours, watching people fritter away their time (or is that what I'm doing? Oh well...). M*A*S*H and Easy Rider are two that come to mind, and I'd like to add "Do the Right Thing" to that group as well.

"Do the Right Thing", however, twists the seeming pointlessness of its story on its heads in the end with a climactic explosion. While I certainly appreciate the film's statement that racism and hatred so often stems from tedious, pointless differences, I'm really not a fan of these movies with seemingly aimless stories.

("Easy Rider" also has a "statement" ending, as I call it, but it's a much more excruciating film to sit through.)

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
The racism element is certainly the crux for why it's on the list, and its illustration of how so much hate and violence can come from such ridiculous differences is done better than other films I've seen. It was nominated for 2 Academy Awards: Best Screenplay, and Best Supporting Actor (Danny Aiello, the Italian pizzeria owner).

Complaints?
Spike Lee can't act.

LET ME SUM UP...
A tedious story with a "statement" ending. Done well, but the tediousness of the story just isn't that entertaining to me.

MY RATING: 4.5/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 98

(WARNING! Clip contains profanity)

"One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" (1975) - RE-WATCH

2011-03-08T13:14:00.000-08:00

Rank on the AFI List: #33

Synopsis (according to imdb.com)
Upon arrival at a mental institution, a brash rebel rallies the patients together to take on the oppressive Nurse Ratched, a woman more a dictator than a nurse.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
I love The Dark Knight. It's one of my favorite movies, and its theme of Order vs Chaos was a great choice for a Batman vs Joker duel. "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" seems to convey that same theme, but this time you're rooting for chaos to defeat order. That made this film interesting to me.

Both Jack Nicholson and Louise Fletcher as Nurse Ratched are by far what make this movie. Their subtleties during the "battle scenes" - as I like to call them - were wonderful (particularly Nurse Ratched's icy glares).

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
While I don't think this is the most entertaining or groundbreaking film, it's a uniquely-told story of good vs evil, life vs death (or rather, "living vs dying"). It was like I was watching a war movie set inside a mental institution, with mentally-disabled people being the weapons, the victims, the prize, and the heroes. "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" was nominated for 9 Academy Awards, winning 5 of them: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Acting for Nicholson and Fletcher.

Complaints:
Nothing that I can pinpoint in a pithy comment. Just overall, a lot of the scenes seemed like they were missing something, but I can't say what that is.

LET ME SUM UP...
Unique film about the battle between controlling mentally-disabled people in an institution vs bringing them back to life with spontaneity and chaos. Overall, not the greatest movie, but not bad, either.

MY RATING: 4/10 (2 lower from my previous rating)

"Nashville" (1975) - RE-WATCH

2011-03-01T13:01:00.000-08:00

Rank on the AFI List: #59

Synopsis (according to imdb.com)

Over the course of a few hectic days, numerous interrelated individuals prepare for a political convention as secrets and lies are surfaced and revealed.

LET ME EXPLAIN...

I had to watch this in my American Film class in college, and I hated it. With 20+ "main" characters and a ton of country music, I hated my life for 2 hours and 40 minutes. So why did I decide to put myself through this again? Well, I wanted to give it a second chance, particularly since I was impacted by the ending of it when I first saw it. Perhaps I'd appreciate the rest of it knowing how it ends?

Nope. Well, that's not entirely true. I actually found myself not completely hating my life through the bulk of the movie, all because I thought about how it might relate to the ending. My wife, on the other hand, was hating her life.

Then the ending came, and I was underwhelmed. I remembered it to be a total shock the first time. Maybe that was because I was so bored and depressed that I simply wasn't paying much attention, so I WAS shocked because I didn't see it coming. But this time, I noticed way too many tells regarding what was about to happen. My wife even made a comment about what was going to happen (with complete disinterest in her voice, I might add). And that ruined the whole thing for me, though it wasn't exactly up on a pedestal at that point, anyway.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?

This is a very unique movie, considering all the plotlines and main characters being interwoven together. That's all I can think of, but if you ask me, it's a horrible, terrible, poor version of Crash in that respect. "Nashville" was nominated for 5 Academy Awards, winning one for Best Song ("I'm Easy", which I've attached below in case you want to hear it).

Complaints:

1) The country music.

2) The wandering of the story (or no story, one could argue).

3) The country music.

4) The lack of depth into any of the characters or their stories. You simply don't have enough time to get to know them well enough since they have to share time with a lot of other characters and their stories.

5) Did I mention the country music?

LET ME SUM UP...

Unique in the sense that it has countless characters and stories, "Nashville" doesn't really hold any sort of value beyond that. If you were into politics in the 1970s, or you like old country music, you might want to give this a try. Anyone else, I'm doing you a favor by imploring you not to waste your time......like I did......twice.

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

"The Searchers" (1956)

2011-02-25T12:50:00.000-08:00

Rank on the AFI List: #12

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
1) It's a Western.
2) It stars John Wayne.
3) It's about a cowboy who goes searching for his kidnapped niece.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
Most Westerns on the AFI List have been terrific. I had never seen a John Wayne movie before but was of course aware of his legend. AND, "The Searchers" is very high up on the list. All these together = I was excited to finally watch this film.

Surprisingly, this ended up being a bit of a letdown. With the exception of the amazing scenery, most of the cinematography, and most of the story being somewhat interesting, "The Searchers" ended up being a shallow movie. There was no character development at all, and it was filled with racial stereotypes. The story also seemed to jump at times without giving any explanation as to what just happened, why something happened, or why a character just did something out of the ordinary. All together, this was mediocre.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
Well, I can understand movie icon John Wayne would need to be represented on the List, so this is probably the best known or most acclaimed film he was in? It's also very beautifully shot with amazing scenic views throughout. I just don't get why this is so high on the AFI List. I thought Unforgiven, Shane, and The Wild Bunch were all much better Westerns. "The Searchers" did not receive any Academy Award nominations when it came out. I'm only surprised that it didn't at least get nominated for Best Cinematography.

Complaints:
1) The film editing. This did not seem to be put together very well.
2) Some strange characters: Mose and Charlie in particular.
3) One of the oddest fight scenes I've ever seen (was it supposed to be funny, or......?).
4) An apparent camera adjustment in the middle of one particular shot (was the camera guy off when he began recording the scene or something?? This was really odd).

LET ME SUM UP...
In one word, this movie is peculiar. Some odd editing, characters, and scenes made this a bit disappointing, although I was engaged in the story (for the most part) and enjoyed finally watching a John Wayne film.

MY RATING: 5/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 97

"Midnight Cowboy" (1969)

2011-02-21T20:12:00.000-08:00

Rank on the AFI List: #43

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
Only 2 things, and they have nothing to do with the story:
1) It stars Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman.
2) It has the famous line, "Hey! I'm walking here! I'm walking here!"

LET ME EXPLAIN...
So I went into this one having not read the synopsis, and I don't know which is better: not knowing what kind of trash you're about to watch, or knowing ahead of time that the story was going to be dirty. I guess I prefer not knowing so I can at least give it a chance.

Why is "Midnight Cowboy" dirty? For starters, it's about a Texan who moves to New York to become a male prostitute. Second, this was originally an X-rated movie when it came out in 1969. And on top of all that, I'm convinced the filmmakers had to be on drugs because a lot of the scenes were bizarre and trippy. I hated this movie.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
It dared to go where no movie had gone before in terms of sex, homosexuality, and male prostitution, and apparently its cinematography and editing were groundbreaking at the time. Whatever. It was nominated for 7 Academy Awards, winning 3 of them (Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Screenplay), so apparently I really missed something.

~~Complaints~~ Compliments:
Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman both did a great job in their roles, at least.

LET ME SUM UP...
The only thing that prevented me from giving this movie a 1/10 rating was the acting of Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman. Everything else made this horrible to sit through.

MY RATING: 2/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 96

"Taxi Driver" (1976)

2011-02-16T12:31:00.000-08:00

Rank on the AFI List: #52

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
1) It stars Robert De Niro
2) It was directed by Martin Scorsese
3) It has the famous line, "Are you talkin' to me?"

LET ME EXPLAIN...
Being as this is a Scorsese film, I pretty much knew two things before it started: 1) it'll be a very well-made movie, and 2) it's not going to be a feel-good type of story. I was correct on both accounts.

Scorsese is a great filmmaker, represented on the AFI List two other times with Raging Bull and Goodfellas. "Taxi Driver" is considered to be his first masterpiece, and while it was certainly well made, it also felt a bit experimental. Sort of like when you have a favorite, established musical group or singer, and you go back and listen to their first album. It's still good, but you can tell they've matured since then and sharpened their skills.

As for the story, it wasn't "feel good", as I stated above (just look at the cover for it), and it didn't really hold any sort of redeeming or entertaining value to me. You're just witnessing a Vietnam vet slowly boil into a violent eruption as he spends hours and hours driving a taxi around wretched neighborhoods.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
It's technically a well-made film, and Scorsese ranks as one of the best filmmakers in history. With this being his first "masterpiece", it stands to reason that he introduced some new elements and brought his unique style to American film in "Taxi Driver". It was nominated for 4 Academy Awards including Best Picture.

Complaints:
Sub-stories seemed to only fit into certain chunks of the film, and there wasn't a whole lot of connection other than the main character just deciding to go here one day, care about that on another day, etc.

LET ME SUM UP...
A pretty good film, technically speaking. But the story didn't seem tied together all that well. Definitely my least favorite of the Scorsese films I've watched.

MY RATING: 3/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 95

(This is the only video clip I could find that didn't have profanity in it.)

"MAS*H" (1970)

2011-02-09T13:11:00.000-08:00

Rank on the AFI List: #54

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
It's about a medical unit during the Korean War. One of the most successful TV programs in history was spun off from this movie.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
I never watched the TV show, but I was still looking forward to this one. I thought it would have some humor in it, but I honestly didn't know if the movie was more of a drama or a comedy. In the end, the film is more like Easy Rider.

How so? Well, it had no real storyline. It was very anti-establishment. And my wife and I just didn't really like it.

While there were some parts I thought were pretty funny, all of the humor and hi-jinks were tasteless, and some scenes just didn't make sense. Overall, this movie was a disappointment.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
According to the "Backstory" special feature on the DVD, "M*A*S*H" wasn't just anti-establishment to war and authority, but to Hollywood itself. It was turned down by many in Hollywood before it finally got green-lighted, and it portrayed war and the US military in a way never done before. Combine this unconventional approach with its setting in a historical war, and I can see why it's on the AFI List. It was nominated for 5 Academy Awards including Best Picture, winning for Best Writing (despite the fact that the cast admits it didn't really stick to the script very much).

~~Complaints~~ Compliments:
Rather than give a complaint about the movie in general, I thought I'd try something different and mention the couple things I liked.
1. Elliott Gould was really good as Trapper.
2. It was pretty cool seeing so many famous actors in one film at a point where they were all really young and relative unknowns. Kudos to the casting director.

LET ME SUM UP...
Aimless "story" of doctors in a mobile medical unit during the Korean War. It reminded me a lot of Easy Rider, though not nearly as painful to sit through. Tasteless humor, though some parts were pretty funny.

MY RATING: 4/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 94

"Bringing Up Baby" (1938)

2011-02-03T13:18:00.000-08:00

Rank on the AFI List: #88

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
Nothing at first, but then I learned it's a comedy involving a leopard and dinosaur bones...or something.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
I have to admit that, despite this movie starring Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn, I was expecting to not really like it. First of all, it's a comedy, and comedies have been very hit-or-miss (mostly "miss") on the AFI List. AND, it's ranked near the bottom of the list.

Fortunately, "Bringing Up Baby" turned out to be one of my favorite comedies in the Top 100.

It's very slapstick and quick-witted, and I particularly liked that Hepburn wasn't the elitist I was used to seeing her play in other films. Instead, she plays a "flutter-brained vixen" without a hint of self-awareness, and I thought she played the role great.

The best part about this movie are all the great one-liners. I'd watch this again with a pen and paper to write down all the great quotes.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
While I like this movie quite a bit, I don't have a real good answer to this question. I just think it's a great film that consistently brings hilarious quotes, scenes, and physical comedy throughout. I'm also inclined to say it is one of those great classic comedies that gets better as it gets older. It was panned when it came out but has eventually become what many consider to be one of the greatest comedies ever made.

Complaints?
No big complaints, really. This is a good all-around movie.

LET ME SUM UP...
Very funny slapstick, quick-wit movie that stars two of film history's greatest actors.

MY RATING: 7.5/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 93

"Sullivan's Travels" (1941)

2011-01-26T13:16:00.000-08:00

Rank on the AFI List: #61

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
Absolutely nothing. In fact, I first thought it was the story about a 50-foot tall man, but that's "Gulliver's Travels".

LET ME EXPLAIN...
Once I learned that this film was about a film director who goes on a journey to learn what it's like to be "down and out", I was excited. I thought that sounded like a good premise. The actual movie, however, wasn't that great. In fact, if I had to describe it in one word, it would be "lame".

The pace of the movie was annoying because it felt like the story would start, then go back to the beginning, start again, and go back again. It wasn't until we were already an hour in that the story actually decided to go somewhere. In essence, I may have been more entertained watching a car engine try to turn over for an hour than "Sullivan's Travels" try to do the same thing.

Then there's the "comedy" of it. Lame! It's described as a screwball comedy, and it was so corny that what I can only assume are considered the "funniest" scenes were simply dumb to me. I mildly laughed only a few times and genuinely thought something was funny twice throughout the whole movie.

And, aside from Veronica Lake, I thought the acting wasn't very good. Particularly, the lead actor didn't seem to want to venture too far outside his normal demeanor. And when he did, he seemed uncomfortable. Like a 1940's version of Kevin Costner.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
Well, it was about Hollywood, which I've noted before is something the AFI really seems to like. "Sullivan's Travels" is also a dedication to laughter in general (even including a shout-out to everyone who makes people laugh), so the universality of that idea probably helped. As a film, however, this was absolutely nothing special. It did not receive any award nominations when it came out.

Complaints:
Lame humor and a story that wouldn't go anywhere until the end.

LET ME SUM UP...
Except for Veronica Lake's performance and the couple times I actually laughed, this film was lame.

MY RATING: 3/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 92

"The General" (1926)

2011-01-23T15:36:00.000-08:00

Rank on the AFI List: #18

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
Absolutely nothing, but I eventually learned it was a silent film, starring Buster Keaton, and another fellow AFI blogger told me it's quite the funny movie.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
This film is described as an Action Comedy, and in my opinion, it's emphasis on the action. Yes, it was still funny, but the action is what really hooked me.

There are some terrific chase scenes with very impressive stunts. And, by stunts, I don't mean a green screen (it was 1926, after all), safety wires, etc. in a film studio. I mean actors running all over actual moving trains out on location. Even when the comedy was infused into the scenes, it was the action that I liked (check out the video clip below to see one of my favorite parts that really infused comedy with the stunt).

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
After doing some research online, "The General" is not only Buster Keaton's favorite of his own work, but is widely considered one of the greatest classic comedies, and arguably the greatest train film ever made. The film had a huge budget for its time ($750,000 in 1926) and it paid off with some of the most impressive (and real) action scenes I've seen in a film. Add to this the fact that the story centers around a major American event (the Civil War), and Buster Keaton is considered one of the greatest film actors in history, and it makes sense why it made the list.

Complaints:
Not a fault of this film, but watching three Charlie Chaplin movies before watching this made it a little difficult to fully appreciate the different style of humor that Buster Keaton brought to film.

LET ME SUM UP...
Good silent-era action-comedy film. The humor is entertaining, but the action sequences were what I really loved about "The General". This is definitely worth checking out at least once in your life.

MY RATING: 7.5/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 91

"Raging Bull" (1980)

2011-01-20T21:11:00.000-08:00

Rank on the AFI List: #4

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
1. It stars Robert De Niro.
2. It was directed by Martin Scorsese.
3. It's based on a true story about a self-destructive boxer.

LET ME SUM UP...
Considered the 4th greatest film in American history, the storyline itself was a bit peculiar. What I mean is, I expected this movie to either be centered around historically significant events or people, or to hold some sort of universal moral about life. Neither the story nor any of the characters really conveyed any of this.

Instead, I watched a movie about a boxer I had never heard of with such self-destructive tendencies that this was by no means a fun experience. It was gritty and real in such a way that I wanted this to be a purely fictional story.

However, from a film-making standpoint, "Raging Bull" is incredible. Which leads right into the next section...

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
This is an incredibly well-made film. In fact, "Raging Bull" kept reminding me of "Citizen Kane" with its technical style. Everything about how it was put together seemed deliberate, stylish, and sharp. My wife also commented afterward that the contrast between the black and the white added a sense of glitziness, which added some appropriate contradiction to the mood of the story itself. It was nominated for 8 Academy Awards, winning two (Best Actor - Robert De Niro, and Best Film Editing).

Complaints
Along with the awkward-and-seemingly-unnecessary sexual scene in the first half, I could not buy the fact that Vickie was supposed to be 15 years old at first. I don't care if the actress was only 20 years old when this was filmed. She looked and talked like she was pushing 30, and I could not get around that in any of the scenes with her as a teenager.

LET ME SUM UP...
Not a wonderful story, but technically speaking, this is an incredibly well-made biopic film. As a movie-watching experience, I'd rate this only 5/10, but I have to give it some major points for how well it was put together.

MY RATING: 8/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 90

"City Lights" (1931)

2011-01-12T13:14:00.000-08:00

Rank on the AFI List: #11

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
1) It stars Charlie Chaplin.
2) According to AFI, it's the #1 greatest romantic comedy ever.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
Once I watched The Gold Rush and learned I was a Charlie Chaplin fan, I've been looking forward to seeing "City Lights". Not only is it the highest rated Chaplin film on the AFI List, but the American Film Institute also says it's the greatest romantic comedy ever. Needless to say, there was quite a bit of hype going into this, and my wife and I were both excited to finally watch it.

Unfortunately, that hype made this film a bit of a disappointment to both of us. Unlike "The Gold Rush" and Modern Times, there was no particular scene or gag that really stood out to me (the shot gun struggle, the dinner rolls, and the cabin in "The Gold Rush", and the feeding machine in "Modern Times" were all terrific). Yes, the suicide attempts and the boxing scenes were funny, but I laughed more during his other movies.

I was also expecting more in the end upon first viewing. It's definitely a romantic story throughout the film, but as a first watch, I felt underwhelmed at how it ended. HOWEVER, during my search for a video clip to add to this post, I found the final scene on YouTube and watched it again. With the hype no longer there, I have to admit that the ending IS extremely good (particularly the subtleties in the acting) and really "makes" the whole story. By simply watching the ending one more time, I've bumped the entire movie up from a Kind of Liked It rating to a Liked It.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
I pretty much just talked about it, but the story is about as sweet and beautiful as it gets.

Complaints
Again, there was no one particular scene or moment that really stood out to me as hilarious, which was a little disappointing.

LET ME SUM UP...
The #1 romantic comedy in American film history, according to AFI. It wasn't the funniest Chaplin film, but it's definitely a very sweet and romantic story.

MY RATING: 6/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 89

"The Wild Bunch" (1969)

2011-01-06T12:39:00.000-08:00

Rank on the AFI List: #79

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
Only that it's a Western and stars William Holden.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
Finally! After a horrendous streak of watching 9 consecutive films on the AFI List for the first time and not liking ANY of them (and in several cases hating them), "The Wild Bunch" ended up actually being good (pardon my excitement, but after such garbage as Duck Soup, A Clockwork Orange, and The Last Picture Show, I was getting very worried that all the remaining films on the list would be disappointments).

"The Wild Bunch" is a great film. It's intense, a bit graphic, and it has an interesting story. Coincidentally, part of the plot reminded me of The Bridge on the River Kwai, which also stars William Holden (an actor whom, had I not bothered with this Quest, I wouldn't even know about but is now one of my favorite actors).

(Side note: I'm quite certain that the makers of Three Amigos were greatly influenced by this movie. There are a LOT of similarities, even though one is a serious, epic drama and the other is a comedic spoof.)

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
For one thing, "The Wild Bunch" really seemed to be more than just a Western. In fact, I'd classify it as an epic Western. It almost felt like I just got done watching Lord of the Rings because the story and adventure seemed so "big". In addition, it had some great action sequences and was very well acted. I also think its storyline about aging at a time the world is transitioning into a new era has a universal element that many can relate to (e.g. getting older, the world passing you by, etc.). It received 2 Academy Award nominations (Best Musical Score and Best Original Screenplay), and I'm surprised it wasn't at least nominated for Best Picture, Best Sound, and Best Director.

Complaints
For being made in 1969, it sure seems like one of the goals of this film was to shock the audience with its graphic nature. And while I feel the violence did add to the overall atmosphere, the nudity was gratuitous and unnecessary (there were quite a few topless women, and I'm not just talking about the shot that opens with a close zoom in of a baby breastfeeding).

LET ME SUM UP...
An intense, graphic, and epic Western, "The Wild Bunch" is an interesting look at America at a time when the Old West started to morph into the Industrial Age. I liked this one quite a bit.

MY RATING: 8/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 88

"Blade Runner" (1982)

2010-12-31T10:12:00.000-08:00

Rank on the AFI List: #97

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
1) It stars Harrison Ford
2) It's a sci-fi thriller from the 80's

LET ME EXPLAIN...
For some reason, I had been looking forward to watching this one ever since I began My Quest. The above info is really all I knew about it, so I guess its similarities to "Star Wars" intrigued me.

Then the movie began, continued, and ended, and I was left utterly disappointed. This is a weird movie. There's not a lot of action in it, and as my wife eloquently described it, it's more like an 80's melodrama in space.

The main storyline had giant holes that left me lost and not really caring about any of the characters, and the sub-story was bizarre and a bit uncomfortable to watch. It seems like this film was trying to say something, but I wasn't doing cocaine in the 80's when I watched it, so its point was lost on me. (Important note: the trailer included in this post makes the film look a LOT more interesting and exciting than it actually is.)

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
Apparently there hadn't been a movie like this before. The atmosphere of this futuristic, dystopian reality was so new and different that "Blade Runner" stands out in film history....that's the only thing I can think of for answering this question, despite the fact that I wasn't really impressed by any of it. It was nominated for two Academy Awards: Best Art Direction and Best Visual Effects.

Complaints
Practically no action (in a sci-fi film!), no real depth to the characters (though it seems like this film was trying to give them depth), and THE MUSIC!! It's like I was watching a soap opera Atari video game.

LET ME SUM UP...
Slow-moving, bizarre sci-fi movie from the 80's that leaves a lot to be desired.

MY RATING: 1/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 87

"It's a Wonderful Life" (1946) - RE-WATCH

2010-12-25T21:00:00.000-08:00

Rank on the AFI List: #20

Synopsis (according to IMDB.com)
An angel helps a compassionate but despairingly frustrated businessman by showing what life would have been like if he never existed.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
I absolutely love this movie. I'm one of those people who gets choked up watching it, and I'm so glad I finally got around to watching it for the first time back in college. It's a story full of compassion, selflessness, sacrifice, and life. Real life. Not some Hollywood version of life's fulfillment being found in your plans coming to fruition, but in realizing the blessings found in life no matter what direction life goes.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
See above. This movie is so great at depicting what real life is like. Plans fall through. Sacrifices have to be made. Life gets tough (I realize I'm a 29-year old with no kids, so I can't really speak on this yet from experience, but I hear things). People pass away. Relationships change. Anyone can see themselves in George Bailey's shoes and relate, so this film does an amazing job at striking a chord that can resonate with anyone. It's also wonderfully acted by everyone, especially Jimmy Stewart (his prayer in the bar always stands out to me as superb acting). This film was nominated for 5 Academy Awards and - were it not for The Best Years of Our Lives coming out that same year - would have been the top film of 1946.

Complaints?
A lot of older films have some awkward acting moments (e.g. North by Northwest), and this film is no exception. Nevertheless, "It's a Wonderful Life" is simply too great of a film to mark it down for something that's simply a sign of the times.

LET ME SUM UP...
One of the greatest films ever. It's a heart-tugging tear-jerker that is the best example of "life" I've seen on film.

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

"King Kong" (1933) - RE-WATCH

2010-12-25T20:13:00.000-08:00

Rank on the AFI List: #41

Synopsis (according to IMDB.com)
A film crew goes to a tropical island for an exotic location shoot and discovers a colossal giant gorilla who takes a shine to their female blonde star.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
The story is well known, and there have been a couple remakes of this, so I won't bother at all with the story. I just want to say that there's something about the visual "effects" that I think is really neat. Perhaps it's the style of effects way back in 1933, I don't know, but the stop-motion animation of Kong and the other creatures is a major reason I really like this movie.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
This film really seems like it could be considered the first "movie blockbuster". To try to explain, think of the big action movies that come out every summer: the action, the adventure, the over-the-top explosions or creatures. Now imagine that type of movie coming out back in 1933. That's "King Kong". It starts off setting the stage and introducing characters quietly, but once the action gets introduced, it's virtually non-stop until the end. And just like a lot of those summer blockbusters nowadays, it's a fun time if you don't take it too seriously.

Complaints?
My wife and I felt one actor in particular wasn't that great in this movie. However, we disagreed on which actor was bad. I thought it was the "hero" actor, and she thought it was the director. Take your pick, but that's really the only thing I can mention here. This is a great movie.

LET ME SUM UP...
Great movie with a "summer blockbuster" (circa 1933) feel. If you like action movies and classic film, I'd be shocked if you haven't already seen this and liked it.

MY RATING: 8/10

"Toy Story" (1995) - RE-WATCH

2010-10-15T13:22:00.000-07:00

Rank on the AFI List: #99

Synopsis (~~according to AFI~~)
Well, AFI decided to reformat its website since my last re-watch, so an AFI synopsis is no longer available. I have to say I'm not a fan since I liked how their synopses often gave some insight into why the film is on their list. Oh well, here's IMDB:

A cowboy toy is profoundly threatened and jealous when a fancy spaceman toy supplants him as top toy in a boy's room.

AFI, bring back your synopses!!

LET ME EXPLAIN...
This is my favorite Pixar movie, so I was excited to watch it again after 10+ years, countless new Pixar films, and two sequels. Conclusion? This movie is still awesome, and one of the funniest Pixars ever (for the record, I didn't think Toy Story 3 was all that funny, though it did offer more dramatic action and high quality animation).

What else is there to say? The premise of our toys coming to life when we're not around is original and takes us back to our childhood, which is a nice escape from the responsibilities of adulthood. I don't think they could have casted the voices any better, either.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
Finally, an easy film to answer this question about! Quite simply, it was the first full-length computer-animated movie ever. The fact that the story and humor is terrific is just the cherry on top.

Complaints?
None. I love this movie.

LET ME SUM UP...
Inventive premise, engaging story, great humor, and the very first computer-animated movie make this an easy pick for the Top 100.

MY RATING: 10/10 (1.0 higher from my previous rating)

"A Clockwork Orange" (1971)

2010-08-30T13:21:00.000-07:00

Rank on the AFI List: #70

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
That it's a futuristic film where a person who loves sex and violence is "reformed" by the government, only it doesn't work.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
This was the movie I was least looking forward to watching on the AFI List. I considered skipping it, but as I've noticed it get referenced in film discussions and moral debates regularly, I wanted to know exactly what it was all about.

Unfortunately, "what it was all about" was extremely difficult to find because this movie is so stupid. By stupid, I mean poorly done with unrelatable characters, strange home architecture, sexual decor, etc. It was so bizarre that there was no way for me to get invested anywhere in the story. Halfway through I started doing the dishes while semi-watching the movie because I was bored and unimpressed with any of it.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
Absolutely no clue. Like I said, this movie is stupid. How it got nominated for 4 Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Director, and Screenplay, is beyond me.

Complaints:
Every second of this movie. However, probably my biggest complaint is that this could have been a very good, thought-provoking movie. I went online after it ended to find out more about what the heck the point of it is, and it's actually very intriguing: the necessity of choice. As a Christian, I really appreciate this idea being illustrated in a movie. The point of this story really delves into the reason there is sin and evil in the world: free will. If our free will is taken away and we are incapable of choosing evil, we are nothing more than machines ("clockwork"). Unfortunately, the stupidity and blatant offensiveness of the actual movie ruins the entire premise.

LET ME SUM UP...
This movie is stupid, offensive, and bizarre, ruining a thought-provoking premise that could have been brought to film in a MUCH better way.

MY RATING: 1/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 86

"The Sound of Music" (1965) - RE-WATCH

2010-07-28T20:58:00.000-07:00

Rank on the AFI List: #40

Synopsis (according to IMDB since AFI's website is not working):
A woman leaves an Austrian convent to become a governess to a Naval officer widower.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
Being a band geek in school, I saw bits and pieces of this film countless times since substitute teachers often used it to fill our class period. And, being a guy (and a teenager at the time), I of course mocked it and never paid it much attention.

However, I remember at some point after high school sitting through the whole movie and being somewhat impressed by it. But hey, now that I'm on My Quest, I needed to give it another full viewing. Thanks to our friends who own it, my wife and I had some great company! (And not surprisingly, they're both music teachers.)

At the risk of completely emasculating myself, I will admit that I think this is a really good movie. The story is engaging (I was surprised how fast a 3-hour musical went by), there is some surprisingly good humor, and the music - perhaps due to its universal recognition - was great (especially when compared to the music in West Side Story, which I found myself constantly comparing this movie to). All this to say, I am a fan.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
From strictly a filmmaking standpoint, this is well done technically with some great writing. From a visual standpoint, they have some amazing scenery shots. From an acting standpoint, Julie Andrews was great, and my wife and I were both extremely impressed with Christopher Plummer as the male lead. Add in the legendary songs and music, and all together this is one of the best musicals I have ever seen. On top of that, this movie has Nazis for bad guys, so it's pretty much a lock to be on the AFI List (since the AFI loves movies about WWII and/or Nazis). It also won 5 Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director, and (of course) Best Music.

Complaints
Well...it IS a musical. Other than that, it seemed like some of the musical numbers with the kids should have had a few more takes because some of the gestures and acting seemed awkward and sloppy.

LET ME SUM UP...
One of the best musicals there is. Surprisingly good humor, great acting, engaging story, and some breathtaking scenery. If I was more a fan of musicals, I'd give this a higher rating.

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

"Cabaret" (1972)

2010-07-06T13:15:00.000-07:00

Rank on the AFI List: #63

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
1) It's a musical having something to do with Nazi Germany
2) It stars Liza Minnelli

LET ME EXPLAIN...
Here's the recipe for "Cabaret":

1 part Sophie's Choice
1 part Sound of Music
1 part Schindler's List

Combine "Sophie's Choice" with "Sound of Music". Whisk together until all good elements of both films are no longer visible. Once together, strain out any semblance of a plot.

Take "Schindler's List" and water it down. Water it down some more. Add just a pinch of what's left to the previous mixture. Discard what remains.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
Just like The Last Picture Show, I have absolutely no idea, and I can't even give a guess about what might make this so critically acclaimed. It's an odd musical with virtually no plot, and I never felt like I got close enough to the characters to care about them. Liza Minnelli's performance was worthy of the Best Actress Oscar that she won, but amazingly enough, "Cabaret" won a total of 8 Academy Awards in 1973. That includes beating out Francis Ford Coppola ("The Godfather") for Best Director. I'm in awe...

Complaints:
I finished watching this four days ago, and I'm still waiting for the plot to unfold.

LET ME SUM UP...
Another musical I just can't appreciate, but unlike West Side Story, "Cabaret" has no plot and no excitement. Liza Minnelli's performance was the ONLY element I thought was good.

MY RATING: 2/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 85

"The Last Picture Show" (1971)

2010-06-30T13:20:00.000-07:00

Rank on the AFI List: #95

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
Nothing, but reading the back cover, it's something to do with high school kids and a small town.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
Mark this as the low point in My Quest. Not only because I hated this film, but because this is the sixth film in a row that I've watched for the first time and didn't really like. This streak needs to end because I'm getting really uninspired to blog about what I've watched.

Nevertheless, I'm dedicated to blogging about every single film on the AFI List, so here's my take on "The Last Picture Show."

I think this film was vaguely about the sad transformation of Small Town America into a deserted ghost town. That premise intrigues me a bit. Unfortunately, what this movie really seems to be about is small town teens having sex with everybody. It tries to convey depth and layers in its story, but it really just comes across as a porn trying to be more than just a porn.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
Sometimes, when I don't have an answer to this question, I check out the Special Features on the DVD. They usually give helpful insight into what made the movie so important and critically acclaimed when it came out. The special features for "That Last Picture Show"? Nothing more than a making-of segment that literally only talked about how the director saw the book in a check-out stand and decided to make it into a movie, and how they casted the different characters. There was nothing mentioned at all about the relevance of the movie itself. But for some reason, it was nominated for 8 Academy Awards (half of them for acting, which is one thing I think was good in the movie), winning 2 of them (both for acting).

Complaints:
How about all the sex scenes and really disturbing sexual pairings they have throughout the movie? This was not fun to watch at all.

LET ME SUM UP...
I think some porn producer came up with the premise of a small town where everybody does everybody, and then some Hollywood director came along and said, "I think I'll turn that into an actual film." Take out all the sex and nudity, and I might kind of like a film that takes a look at Small Town America turning into a ghost town. But this movie focuses on sexual libidos way too much.

MY RATING: 2/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 84

"The Apartment" (1960)

2010-06-24T12:58:00.000-07:00

Rank on the AFI List: #80

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:

Nothing at all, but after checking out the DVD sleeve, I learned that it stars Jack Lemmon and has a pretty raunchy premise of an employee of a big insurance company who lets executives use his apartment for extra-marital affairs.

LET ME EXPLAIN...

Eh. That's pretty much how I felt about this movie. I followed the plot easily and didn't get too bored, but I just wasn't that impressed. The comedy wasn't very good, the story was all about affairs and cheating, and there just wasn't really anything outstanding to me. So I say again..."eh".

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
No idea. Again, I was not really impressed with anything about this film. Maybe the focus on "Corporate America" and the scandals within companies is something? That seems like quite a stretch actually, so nevermind.......hmmm.......well, it did win five Academy Awards including Best Picture. I was shocked when I learned that, but then I saw the other nominees: Elmer Gantry, Sons and Lovers, The Alamo, and The Sundowners. Must have been the lack of competition that helped "The Apartment" do so well that year.

Complaints:

It's not really a complaint, but rather something odd I wanted to bring up: the way Jack Lemmon's character tries to impress Fran. I never realized that telling a girl you know everything about her - including her social security number - was an endearing pickup line.

LET ME SUM UP...

Eh. Nothing special. Nothing too funny. Nothing very memorable.

MY RATING: 4.5/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 83

"Modern Times" (1936)

2010-06-09T13:06:00.000-07:00

Rank on the AFI List: #78

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
Only that it's a Charlie Chaplin film.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
After watching The Gold Rush and deciding that we were Charlie Chaplin fans, my wife and I were looking forward to watching the remaining two Chaplin films on this list (the other one being "City Lights"). "Modern Times", while having its moments, wasn't as funny as "The Gold Rush". On the other hand, I definitely found this film to be an interesting social commentary.

Unlike the Marx Brothers, who I am convinced put no thought into their films or jokes other than what they thought was funny, Charlie Chaplin really seemed like not only a comic genius, but he used his films to make a serious comment in a humorous way. For example, "The Gold Rush" was about the real events of desperate people making the dangerous trek to Alaska in the hope of finding gold. He took a light-hearted yet caring look at a sad reality.

Similarly, "Modern Times" focused on both the cons of the Industrial Revolution as well as the sad reality of the Depression. Making observations on the monotony of working in factories, bosses maximizing work hours to increase production (the automatic feeder was probably the funniest part of the movie), the strikes, and people stealing bread were all thought-provoking. So while I didn't think it was the funniest movie, it was still interesting to me.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
Thank goodness for Special Features, because when this ended, I didn't really understand why it was on the list. Nothing about it seemed particularly amazing or groundbreaking. Fortunately, I learned that this was in fact the final film to feature Chaplin's famous "tramp" character (which, as I also learned, is evidently the most recognizible fictional character EVER). That, and possibly the social commentary mentioned above (especially for being made in 1936), may be the reason it's on the AFI List.

Complaints
Already mentioned it above, but this film just wasn't as funny as "The Gold Rush".

LET ME SUM UP...
An interesting Chaplin film that I think is more a clever commentary on industry and the Depression than it is a funny movie. Some good scenes, but otherwise, this seemed a bit too mediocre for me.

MY RATING: 5/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 82

"All About Eve" (1950)

2010-06-07T13:01:00.000-07:00

Rank on the AFI List: #28

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
Nothing, except that, judging by its cover, it doesn't quite look like a movie geared toward men.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
There are some films I've watched during My Quest that I refused to learn or read anything about before viewing. Sometimes it's fun to learn what a movie is about as you're watching. On the other hand, some films I decided I wanted to know the synopsis beforehand, so I'd read the back of the DVD cover to get a general idea.

"All About Eve" was one that I decided to go in clueless about. And I think that was a mistake.

I feel this way because I was lost on the point of the story. I thought it was going to be an uplifting story on a young actress's climb to fame. This simple idea I had caused me to misjudge nearly every character.

Aside from all that, I just wasn't a big fan of this film. I never really cared about any of the characters, and it's all about the theatre and the desire to be famous. I do not have those same goals, nor do I empathize with those that do.

The end of the movie was good because it brought the story full circle and added a new element to each of the characters. But until then, I had spent almost 2 hours essentially waiting for the movie to end.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
I'm learning that, if you want to increase your chances of getting a film onto the AFI list, focus on either the theatre/acting world or the Holocaust. The AFI seems to LOVE these. Aside from that, I'm really not the best person to answer this question because I didn't really like it, but it amazingly holds the record (along with Titanic) for most Academy Award nominations EVER with 14 (winning 6 including Best Picture, Director, and Screenplay). That fact, along with "All About Eve" being rated so high on the AFI List at #28, is baffling to me. Apparently I missed something.

Complaints:
Nothing specific, but I'm just not a big fan of the movie overall.

LET ME SUM UP...
I wish I had known something about the story before watching this. Nevertheless, I didn't really care much about the characters or the story because I can't relate to "the theatre world". However, it is surprising that this movie is not more well known. I had never even heard of it before seeing it ranked so high on the AFI List, and it's only one of two films in history to receive 14 Academy Award nominations. Either I missed something, or the Academy really loved the focus on theatre and fame.

MY RATING: 3/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 81

"Schindler's List" (1993) - PREVIOUS VIEWING

2010-05-06T12:57:00.000-07:00

Rank on the AFI List: #8

Synopsis (according to AFI):
The film is based on the true, complex, and often puzzling story of Oskar Schindler, the Czech industrialist who saved hundreds of Jews from the gas chambers during the Holocaust. "This list is an absolute good. The list is life."

LET ME EXPLAIN...
This was a good movie. It was horrible to watch, but in a way that I think is necessary for people to understand just how horrible the Holocaust must have been and how evil humanity can truly be. Fortunately, the film also illustrates the power of good and doing what is "right" through Oskar Schindler, who transformed from an exploiter into a savior.

I will say that the shock factor of this film was somewhat lost on me because I watched The Pianist before I watched "Schindler's List", and both contain incredibly horrific acts being done to other human beings.

One somewhat odd (and hopefully not offensive) point I feel compelled to make is that "Schindler's List" is the only film I've ever seen where the nudity seemed necessary and justified. That's because it wasn't sexual at all and added another component to the utter humiliation and horror the Jews must have gone through. (Having said that, there was one sex scene early in the film that I don't think was necessary at all. I'm not talking about that.)

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
By all accounts, this was an extremely well-made film. The fact that it's based on a true story and centers around Jews during the Holocaust makes this an easy choice for being considered one of the Top 10 best films of all time. Not surprisingly, it won seven Academy Awards including Best Picture, and was nominated for another five.

Complaints?
Along with the aforementioned sex scene, another "complaint" would be the length of the film. I'm not sure it really had to be as long as it was, but it's been over a year since I watched it, so I don't really have any specifics on what they could have cut down. I just remember thinking that at times during the movie. Also, I don't know how to explain it, but the general style and flow of the film isn't necessarily my favorite for some reason.

LET ME SUM UP...
A very powerful and horrific film. Probably the best example there is of what went on during the Holocaust. It might not be my favorite movie, but I can clearly understand why it's considered one of the best (and most important) films ever made.

MY RATING: 8/10

"To Kill a Mockingbird" (1962) - RE-WATCH

2010-04-29T11:06:00.000-07:00

Rank on the AFI List: #25

Synopsis (according to AFI):
Foote adapted Harper Lee's award-winning novel into one of Peck's most memorable movies. Seen through the eyes of his young daughter, Atticus Finch defends an innocent black man accused of rape in a racially divided Alabama town during the Depression.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
It's been a long time since I read this book, and almost as long since I first saw the movie. Nevertheless, Atticus Finch was still just as noble and righteous this time around and deserves to be considered the #1 Greatest Hero in film history according to the American Film Institute.

This is a tremendous story about good and innocence trying to survive in an increasingly broken and hateful world. While Atticus fights to keep prejudice and evil from his children, I love how the innocence of Scout ends up saving him as well, in one particular scene. Then there's Boo Radley and the meaning of "to kill a mockingbird," and this is a very thoughtful, poignant, and powerful movie.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
It's a classic good vs evil story, and it's centered around the poisons of racism and prejudice. Gregory Peck is perfect for the role of the greatest hero ever, and the story is so relevent and thoughtful that it's pretty easy to understand why it's on this list. It was also nominated for 8 Academy Awards, winning three of them including Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Actor for Gregory Peck's performance.

Complaints?
Some of the scenes with the kids seemed rushed and not examined enough, making me feel like the smaller elements of the story were somewhat incomplete. I think this film could have taken more time to develop everything. Also, the character of Dill seemed necessary only because he was in the book, but otherwise wasn't very relevent in the movie.

LET ME SUM UP...
Great film that is, for the most part, a good representation of the book. It's a great examination of fighting to keep innocence and righteousness in a world that does its best to destroy it. Some parts of the story were lacking to me, but the overall statement - and illustration of what it means "to kill a mockingbird" - makes this a fantastic movie.

MY RATING: 8/10 (no change from my previous rating)

"Rocky" (1976) - PREVIOUS VIEWING

2010-04-16T10:24:00.000-07:00

Rank on the AFI List: #57

Synopsis (according to AFI):
No one believes a loser like Rocky Balboa can go the distance. When world heavyweight champ Apollo Creed wants to fight an "unknown," Rocky gets his shot in the ring and at love. "Yo, Adrian!"

LET ME EXPLAIN...
I think it's funny that I grew up seeing Rocky II, III, IV, and V, but I never saw the original. And I have to say that this is a major reason I was apprehensive to see this. Sure, the other Rocky movies are fun, especially for a guy, but they are no gems of filmmaking. So when I learned this won the Academy Award for Best Picture in 1977, I was shocked. I also figured that meant this one would be the most boring out of the entire franchise.

While it's certainly the least action-packed of the Rocky movies, it actually turns out to be the best one, too. The sequels, more or less, are all about Rocky overcoming great odds to beat the "unbeatable" opponent in the ring, but this centers more around Rocky overcoming a life of struggle. As the tagline says, "His whole life was a million to one shot."

I give major props to Sylvester Stallone, too. He wrote the screenplay and played the lead role. The fact that most of his career had him type-casted as an action star with pretty shallow roles makes "Rocky" all the more impressive of a film. It's got a ton of heart and gentleness, and is acted very well.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
Sports movies often get shunned of critical acclaim because they're formulaic, predictable, and a bit cookie-cutter. "Rocky" may very well have been the first true underdog sports story that the cookie-cutter is shaped from. It was also a very well done movie in general. Sure, it may be a bit predictable, but this underdog story is one of the best I've ever seen, And along with winning the Academy Award for Best Picture (in which it beat out three other films on the AFI List that year: "Taxi Driver", All the President's Men, and Network), it also won Best Director, Best Film Editing, and was nominated in seven other categories that year.

Complaints?
It sometimes moves a bit slow. Plus, there's one scene with Rocky and Adrian that seems almost like Rocky is about to take advantage of her, even though it's trying to show how Rocky helps her come out of her shell. In any case, it's borderline uncomfortable.

LET ME SUM UP...
Hands down the best Rocky movie, and one of the best underdog films I've ever seen. It moves a little slow sometimes, but the story - not the action - is the focus and takes time to develop. It leads to a great, climactic ending that takes me from liking this movie to loving it.

MY RATING: 8.5/10

"Yankee Doodle Dandy" (1942)

2010-04-12T15:37:00.000-07:00

Rank on the AFI List: #98

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
Only that it was some sort of patriotic musical.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
This movie certainly had patriotism and music, so I was mostly correct in what I knew about it. However, I didn't realize that this was essentially a biography picture of George M. Cohan. I had no idea who George M. Cohan was, but he was evidently a singer, songwriter, dancer, producer, writer, and actor, and he "owned" Broadway in the early 20th century and is considered the father of American musical comedy. I'm a bit embarrassed I didn't know any of this already.

Also, a couple songs George Cohan wrote were inspiration for the US military through World War I and World War II, leading him to receive a special Congressional Medal of Honor. Neat.

I think I've established that George Cohan was quite a guy. As for the film itself, my wife and I weren't that into it because - as I mentioned earlier - we didn't know who George M. Cohan was and didn't really have any interest in knowing more about him. Don't get me wrong, it was a very well-done musical, and James Cagney did an outstanding job playing the lead role, but the content would almost be like if you made a movie about "Aunt Ruth". I don't know your Aunt Ruth, and I don't really have much interest to learn about her life. If I had to watch the movie, I'd think "hey, good for Ruth!" but I wouldn't be super excited with learning more about her.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
Well, it is the AMERICAN Film Institute's Top 100 List, and this is the most patriotic film I've seen yet. It's also a tribute to (apparently) one of the greatest entertainers and creative minds in the history of live theatre, and it's one of the sharpest-made musicals I've seen. It deservedly won three Academy Awards for Best Music, Best Sound, and Best Actor for James Cagney's performance (check out the video below to see the scene where he tap dances down a flight of stairs...crazy!).

Complaints?
For some reason, the first scene with George Cohan and the President didn't really seem to be acted all that well. Fortunately, that was the only time I didn't think Cagney's performance was stellar, as he was excellent in every other scene.

LET ME SUM UP...
Good musical with a very patriotic feel. It's got classic American songs in it which makes it fun, but unless you know who George M. Cohan was and you want to know more about his life, it might not be the most riveting story. But it's a decent film, nonetheless.

MY RATING: 5.5/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 80

"Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid" (1969) - PREVIOUS VIEWING

2010-04-08T16:50:00.000-07:00

Rank on the AFI List: #73

Synopsis (according to AFI):
The chemistry of Newman and Redford redefined the buddy movie. Goldman's script follows Butch and Sundance as they rob banks from the Old West all the way to Bolivia, making heroes out of anti-heroes. The movie's key song Raindrops Keep Fallin' on My Head is a fun counterpart to the actual plight of our friends.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
I really don't get the appeal of this movie. Yes, Newman and Redford had great chemistry, and yes, there are some funny parts, but other than that....?

It was like watching a grown-up version of hide and seek (the "grown-up" part meaning it moves a bit slowly and there's not much sound), and much like other films on this list made in the late 60s (Easy Rider and Bonnie & Clyde in particular), I did not like the overall style of how this flowed.

However, like I said, there were some funny moments. For example, the best part of the film - the dynamite scene - made me laugh out loud. I have included this clip at the bottom of the post if you want to check it out.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
I don't know. My wife and I just don't understand why this is considered a great movie. I'd say it was a generational thing because my mother was the first person to recommend that I see this (that was before I began My Quest), but a friend of mine who is 2 weeks younger than me also thinks this is a great film and tells me that I just don't get it. Furthermore, this was nominated for seven Academy Awards and won four of them, not to mention 11 nominations and 17 wins from other film and art institutions. Again I say, I just don't get it.

Complaints?
Along with what I've already mentioned, the song "Raindrops Keep Fallin' on My Head" is really annoying. How did that win so many awards??

LET ME SUM UP...
There are some funny moments and lines, and great chemistry between the two leads. However, I'm just not a fan of this style of film, and it's a bit too slow and quiet. The reasons why this film is so great are apparently over my head, so I'll give it an extra point in my rating simply due to my ignorance.

MY RATING: 5/10

"Duck Soup" (1933)

2010-04-06T16:33:00.000-07:00

Rank on the AFI List: #60

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
1) It's a Marx Brothers movie.
2) Because it's a Marx Brothers movie, I would probably not like it.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
Well, I was 100% correct about what I already knew about the movie. It was indeed a Marx Brothers film, and I indeed did not like it. Their humor is so horribly lame, corny, and ridiculous that it's not funny but stupid. And this is coming from a guy who loves the "Ace Ventura" movies...

However, there was something about it that I liked. What is that? You'll have to keep reading to find out...

I did learn something new watching this that I didn't pick up when watching A Night at the Opera. And that would be that Harpo Marx is a jerk. Apparently his role was to employ sight gags and physical comedy, but he always did it at the expense of others. I suppose one could argue that the people he picked on were jerks and deserved it, but there was no evidence of that until Harpo started burning their hats or cutting off their cigars and jackets. In other words, Harpo started it.

Actually, to be fair, I need to admit the following: Groucho is a pretty big jerk, too.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
As with the other Marx Brothers movie on the AFI List, "A Night at the Opera", I have no flippin' clue why this is even considered to be an average movie, let alone one of the best ever made. Seriously?? It's supposedly a groundbreaking political satire because of its focus on dictatorship and war right when Mussolini and Hitler were coming to power. But come on! The plot for Marx Brothers' films tend to be nothing more than trivial vehicles to give the comedy team a platform to say cheesy lines and perform stupid stunts. I just can't picture them thinking "let's do a film that cleverly satirizes politics and the possibility of war and makes fun of today's political environment." It seems much more likely that they thought "Hey, we have some more jokes to tell! What haven't we done yet? I know! We'll make Groucho the leader of a country!"

Complaints:
The Marx Brothers in general. I do not like them. Also, the best joke in the whole movie (the mirror gag) wasn't even original! Charlie Chaplin did it 17 years earlier in 1916's "The Floorwalker".

LET ME SUM UP...
The Marx Brothers are not funny. However, as I mentioned above, there was something I liked about this film. What is that? It's only 68 minutes long...

MY RATING: 1.5/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 79

"Goodfellas" (1990) - PREVIOUS VIEWING

2010-03-30T10:09:00.000-07:00

Rank on the AFI List: #92

Synopsis (according to AFI):
This gangster film for modern day is based on the true story of Henry Hill, played by Liotta, who dreamed as a kid of becoming a member of the glamorous mob who ran his New York City neighborhood. De Niro and Pesci are members of the family he ascends to, until he breaks the code and eventually falls from grace.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
This is a very well done movie. It contrasts with "The Godfather" in that "The Godfather" focuses on the decision-makers while "Goodfellas" centers on the guys who carry out the dirty work. So in a sense, "The Godfather" has a somewhat glamorous view of the mob lifestyle, but "Goodfellas" has a gritty and oftentimes downright awful portayal of what it's like to be part of a mob family.

There were two scenes that stuck out to me as impressive filmmaking. One is when Liotta pistol-whips a guy (it's a horrible scene, but from a filmmaking standpoint, it's quite impressive). The other scene (my favorite in the film) is when Liotta and his date enter a night club from the back, walk through a maze of busy hallways and kitchens, and eventually arrive at the dining area and sit down at a table right up front. What's so impressive about it? It was one continuous shot, and it went on for over 3 minutes (these are referred to as "tracking shots", and they are really cool when you realize how much effort goes into shooting them). Click here to check it out!

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
From a movie-making standpoint, "Goodfellas" is exceptional. From the film editing and cinematography to the screenplay and acting, this is a very well-done movie. Joe Pesci (who won the lone Oscar for this film for Best Supporting Actor) was terrific at being a horrible and angry person with a very short temper (in fact, Pesci's character in the very first scene really disturbed my wife). The content of the film was also interesting in that it took a lifestyle that is often glamourized in film and took a close look at just how "real" (and unglamorous) it can be. All in all, "Goodfellas" was nominated for six Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Director, Screenplay, and Film Editing, and it stands as the quintessential modern-day gangster film.

Complaints?
Like I said in my initial post, I felt like I needed a shower and de-tox after seeing this movie. The movie spends so much time in the gutters of life that it's not exactly fun to watch. This isn't really a complaint, however, since this is what the movie was trying to do, but I'm just not a fan of the content.

LET ME SUM UP...
A very good gangster movie that explores the lives of those who do the dirty work for the families. It's violent, drug-heavy, and not the most fun to watch, but it's done very well.

MY RATING: 6/10

"The Gold Rush" (1925)

2010-03-19T13:43:00.000-07:00

Rank on the AFI List: #58

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
Only that it stars Charlie Chaplin.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
This was my first Charlie Chaplin experience, and I was definitely more optimistic than my wife was before it began (I think she feared it'd be too much like a Marx Brothers film). Fortuntely for us, it wasn't like a Marx Brothers. In fact, it was quite funny!

I've always heard Chaplin was a great entertainer, and after seeing this movie, I can understand why.

First of all, there's a fine line in physical comedy between hilarious and corny; it's really easy to emphasize something so much that it's over the top. Also, the silent film era practically required actors to be overly dramatic in order to convey what's going on. Charlie Chaplin (at least in "The Gold Rush") incredibly avoids all of these pitfalls.

His gestures are strong but subtle when necessary. His face is expressive but real. And his comic timing is amazing.

To sum all this up: Charlie Chaplin is rightfully one of the greatest entertainers in film history.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
I'm not surprised at all that a Chaplin film is on the AFI List, seeing as how he was one of the greatest entertainers ever in film. I AM surprised, however, that there are three Chaplin films on the list. Because of this, I have to think about why "The Gold Rush" is one of the best movies ever made besides the fact that it's a Chaplin. Doing a little research (and watching the Bonus Features on the DVD), I learned that:
1. This is one of Chaplin's most famous films,
2. "The Gold Rush" is a contradictory film, taking an incredibly sad event like the Alaskan gold rush and turning it into a comedy,
3. There are some very impressive special effects (especially for being made in 1925),
4. The scene with the dinner rolls (included at the bottom of this post) is arguably the most famous Chaplin scene of all time, and
5. Of all the films he made, Chaplin wished to be remembered most for "The Gold Rush".

Complaints?
Actually, this is a praise about the revised version that we watched. Chaplin revised "The Gold Rush" in 1942, adding a great musical score to it, and instead of the silent film word frames, Chaplin himself narrated and dubbed the entire movie, which really made it much easier to enjoy. I definitely recommend watching this version if you can!

LET ME SUM UP...
Within the first ten minutes, my wife and I became Chaplin fans. He's a great physical comic, and "The Gold Rush" includes some rather impressive special effects for being made so long ago. It's a story that's easy to follow with great scenes that include a giant chicken, dinner rolls, and a teetering cabin on the edge of a cliff. I now see why Chaplin is practically immortalized as an entertainer (especially since he also wrote and directed all - or at least most - of the movies he was in). I'm now very much looking forward to watching the other two Chaplin films on the AFI List (Modern Times and City Lights).

MY RATING: 6.5/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 78

"Sunset Boulevard" (1950) - RE-WATCH

2010-03-16T12:26:00.000-07:00

Rank on the AFI List: #16

Synopsis (according to AFI):
Struggling writer Holden hides out from car repossessors in the ancient mansion of aging silent star Swanson ("I am big. It's the pictures that got small."). He sees a lucrative break for himself when she wants to make a return to the screen, but he is unaware of the price he will have to pay.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
I watched this one in my American Film class, and I thought it was decent. This time around, I still liked it and appreciated even more its film noir style. However, I can understand if some people don't really like this.

The first thing I think may turn some people off is Gloria Swanson's performance. To this, I recommend watching a silent film like Intolerance right before watching "Sunset Boulevard". This may put into context why Swanson's character is so dramatic with her facial expressions and body language.

Something else that may not play to everyone's liking is its focus on Hollywood. For the sole purpose of understanding this film more, I found myself wishing I was a struggling actor, or writer, or director living in Tinsel Town. This film was really made for the Hollywood crowd.

On a somewhat unrelated note...
After watching this a second time, and seeing The Bridge on the River Kwai earlier, I'm now a William Holden fan. I like his dry, sarcastic sense of humor.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
Similar to Tootsie, the fact that this film is about the acting/film industry is one reason I'm sure AFI considers it the 16th best film ever made. On top of that, most sources consider this the first movie to ever showcase the dark, unglamorous side of Hollywood, which adds to its critical acclaim. It was nominated for 11 Academy Awards, winning three (Best Music, Best Art Direction, and Best Writing, all of which were very much deserved).

Not really a complaint, but...
I would have loved to know more about Max. I think his story was told enough to be effective, but he's one of the most intriguing characters to me and I ended up wanting to know more about him.

LET ME SUM UP...
Great film noir that is set in Hollywood as opposed to a detective's office. It's #16 on the AFI List because of its well-done examination of the bowels of Hollywood.

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

"Ben-Hur" (1959)

2010-03-12T11:21:00.000-08:00

Rank on the AFI List: #100

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
1) It stars Charlton Heston.
2) It has a famous chariot race scene.
3) It's some sort of Biblical epic.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
Finally getting around to watch this famous epic brought about a few surprises - good and bad - to me...

First, the good surprise: I didn't know it was a story told with the life of Jesus Christ as an intertwining side story. As a Christian, I thought this brought a neat perspective of how "regular folks" around Jerusalem and Nazareth may have experienced and talked about Jesus during that time.

Next, the bad surprise: I didn't think I could spend 4 hours watching a movie and end up only knowing the characters superficially, but that's exactly what happened. This is difficult to explain, but I'll try by using another 4-hour epic, Gone with the Wind, as an example.

In "Gone with the Wind", you really get to know the characters personally. You learn their personalities, their passions, and their flaws. You understand why they do what they do - even if it's irrational - because it fits who you know them to be. You understand why Scarlett would vow, under God, to lie, cheat, and steal. You can see why she antagonizes Rhett while depending on him to always be there. And it makes perfect sense why Rhett ends up not giving a damn.

In "Ben-Hur", I never felt like the characters were exposed to the audience in the same way. Yes, you learn how heroic Ben-Hur is, and that he loves his family, but that's about it (and really, how hard is it that? Most people love their family, and if you put a characater in a situation where they can save people and do, you think of them as heroic.). However, I never understood any of the characters past a generic "of course they would do that because that's what anyone would do" viewpoint. What this film needed was a better script with more character vulnerability.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
It's a massive epic: over 300 sets were built for the film, and it featured more crew and extras than any other film ever made before it (there were 15,000 extras for the chariot race sequence alone). Considering the scale of the film, it was done very well. The aforementioned chariot race sequence was VERY impressive and deserves to be mentioned as one of the greatest scenes in movie history (it took 2 months to shoot the sequence and cost $1 million to produce). It also won 11 Academy Awards, more than any other film before it (and not matched until "Titanic" in 1997), even though my wife and I really didn't think Charlton Heston's performance was worthy of the Best Actor award.

Complaints?
Along with the lack of character vulnerability I mentioned earlier, the beginning was slow with drawn-out scenes. In fact, there were scenes throughout the film that seemed longer than necessary. This did not have to be a 4-hour movie.

LET ME SUM UP...
Slow parts, but good action scenes, especially the famous chariot race. The script seemed a bit shallow and didn't allow the audience to really get to know the characters too much. The story itself is a neat idea, from a Christian perspective, to look at the life of Christ through the eyes of people who weren't necessarily followers - nor enemies - of His.

MY RATING: 5.5/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 77

"West Side Story" (1961) - RE-WATCH

2010-03-10T11:19:00.000-08:00

Rank on the AFI List: #51

Synopsis (according to AFI):
The Romeo and Juliet tale gets resurfaced on the streets of New York with music by Leonard Bernstein and lyrics by Stephen Sondheim, based on their breakthrough Broadway hit. The Sharks and the Jets mix it up for some of the most memorable dance sequences in film history.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
Let me start by saying this is kind of a re-watch for me in that I remember seeing it on the television in band class when we'd have a sub, but I never really paid much attention. However, I did include this in my initial post as one of the films I had already seen. Oh well...

Anyway, this viewing taught me something about myself: I'm really not a fan of the musical genre. I thought I was because "Singin' in the Rain" is a great movie, and I really enjoyed the live production of "Les Miserables", "The Lion King", and "Blood Brothers". Maybe I'm just more of a fan of live musicals, but even considering that, I have absolutely no desire to ever see "West Side Story" live (nor "Cats" for that matter. Even though that has nothing to do with anything about this post, I just wanted to include that in my list of musicals I never want to see).

I was bored 15 minutes into this (I know because I remember thinking "Oh man....another 2 hours and 15 minutes to go..."). I was not a fan of the music, which surprised me because most famous musicals have at least a few numbers that are catchy and fun. I didn't think any of the songs in this were really that good.

There was also the difficulty of getting into the story. First, when it's about supposed "tough" gangs in New York, but you see them twirling in the air and dance-fighting with their rivals, it's REALLY difficult to not mock. On top of that, the love story was pretty weak (I sensed NO chemistry between the two leads, though the girl did the best she could in her role).

The only real redeeming part of the movie was the ending. It was a fairly good and climactic ending, but the rest of it was tough to get through.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
I'm the wrong guy to ask. For some reason it's an acclaimed musical, and the AFI synopsis says it has some of the most memorable dance sequences in film history. Whatever. It also - somehow - won 10 Academy Awards, including Best Picture. I'm perplexed, because I thought this was a pretty lame movie (though the leader of the Sharks DID have a performance worthy of the Best Supporting Actor Oscar he won).

Complaints?
See above.

LET ME SUM UP...
I may be in the minority here, but I did not like this movie. The music and lyrics were surprisingly bad, the dancing - while done well - was a horrible style to depict two street gangs in a turf war. The love story was weak with little chemistry. The ending made the movie not a TOTAL waste, but still not enough to redeem the rest of it.

MY RATING: 3/10 (1 lower from my previous rating)

"The Best Years of Our Lives" (1946)

2010-03-08T12:43:00.000-08:00

Rank on the AFI List: #37

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
1) It's about US soldiers who fought in World War II returning to the lives they left behind.
2) One of the stars wasn't a professional actor, but an actual soldier who lost his hands fighting in the war.
3) I just might cry watching this.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
I came into this movie with high expectations. Ever since I first heard about it in my American Film class, I wanted to see it. With its compelling storyline, I anticipated a great movie, and while the beginning feel of the movie wasn't quite what I was hoping, I ended up loving it by the time it was over.

Never before had a 3-hour black and white movie gone by so fast, with so many great, "real" characters to appreciate and care about (especially Harold Russell, who was a real US soldier who lost his hands in the war). This is an absolutely wonderful movie, and when it ended I asked my wife what she thought. Her response: "The best movie I've ever seen. Ever."

And for those of you who are wondering what the answer to #3 of "What I Already Knew About the Movie" is, I'll admit it. I got misty-eyed several times and only avoided a full-on cry because I fought so hard to keep from doing so.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
From a historical standpoint, it's about America just after World War II. The film even came out just after the war ended, so I imagine that it encapsuled everything Americans were going through at the time. From a filmmaking standpoint, it was an extremely well-done movie with a great screenplay, wonderful cinematography and camera angles, fantastic acting, and characters that were real and gritty while simulaneously noble and great examples of why they're called "the greatest generation". It cleaned up at the Academy Awards, winning 8 of them, including Best Picture (the same year It's a Wonderful Life was nominated, which should tell you something). Another awards tidbit I noticed on imdb.com: "The Best Years of Our Lives" was nominated for 17 total awards from 7 different film institutes, and there was only one it did NOT win (the Oscar for Best Sound). I don't mean to hype up this movie too much, but this was one of the easiest films to answer the question of why it's considered one of the best ever made.

Complaints
This is more my fault than the movie's, but the beginning didn't quite seem as sharp as I was expecting/hoping (it's really hard to explain, so I won't try). Other than that, this film was amazing.

LET ME SUM UP...
My wife says this is the best movie she has ever seen. I had high expectations before watching it, and I was not disappointed when it was over. It has some of the best moments in movie history, some of the best characters in movie history, and it tells a story that really happened for so many Americans. I highly, HIGHLY recommend seeing this film.

MY RATING: 9.5/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 76

"Chinatown" (1974) - RE-WATCH

2010-03-04T12:08:00.000-08:00

Rank on the AFI List: #21

Synopsis (according to AFI):
An evocative score is the backdrop for 1930s Los Angeles, Nicholson is a private eye investigating the murder of Dunaway's husband. But that's just the tip of Towne's unforgettable screenplay, where water rights, land deals and corruption clash with the unbearable secrets between a father and daughter on a lonely street in Chinatown. "Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown."

LET ME EXPLAIN...
I watched this film in the American Film class that inspired My Quest. I thought it was alright back then, but I really liked it this time. It's full of great acting, has an interesting plot (one you need to pay close attention to, though, because it's a bit complicated), and it has one of the best screenplays of any film I've seen before.

I was especially interested to watch this again so I could try and figure out the significance of why this film is called Chinatown (something I couldn't figure out after the first viewing). I'd love to discuss my analysis here, but that might spoil it for those of you who haven't seen this yet. All I will say is discussing the meaning of Chinatown with my wife after it ended was a lot of fun and gave the entire movie a deeper layer. It also makes "Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown" not only one of AFI's Top 100 Movie Quotes of all time, but one of my favorites as well. That quote speaks volumes to what this movie is about (and it's not about racism against Chinese people, if that's what you were thinking).

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
An amazing script, great acting, plot twists that the audience doesn't even expect, and a great tribute to the film noir genre from the 40s and 50s. It also carries some historical significance since it's centered on the drought in Los Angeles during the 1930s. It was nominated for 11 Academy Awards, winning Best Screenplay (it could have won 4 more if The Godfather Part II didn't come out that same year).

Complaints?
Just like my wife, I couldn't really find any particular fault with this movie, except that it was directed by a pedophile (Roman Polanski) and has a pretty complicated plot that doesn't necessarily resolve.

LET ME SUM UP...
A modern day film noir classic, this movie has an amazing screenplay. It can get a bit confusing if you're not paying close attention to what's going on from scene to scene, but the significance of "Chinatown" in the story is a great focal point to think about once the credits start rolling.

MY RATING: 8.5/10 (1.5 higher than my previous rating)

"Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" (1966)

2010-03-01T12:32:00.000-08:00

Rank on the AFI List: #67

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
1) It stars Elizabeth Taylor.
2) It's about a dinner party with a bickering married couple.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
This film started out with so much promise. It reminded me of Meet the Parents and The Dinner Party episode from The Office because it was so uncomfortably awkward while simultaneously REALLY funny. The lines were witty, and the young couple that comes over for a drink were great as the proper and polite audience trying their best not to show how uncomfortable they are.

Unfortunately, once the scene changes to the swing outside, the entire movie collapses to me. The comedy evaporates, and the story gets weird, serious, and hard to understand. When the movie ended, I had just about as many questions as I did after watching 2001: A Space Odyssey.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
I'm struggling to come up with an answer to this. Sure, it was well acted (Elizabeth Taylor won an Oscar for her role, and Richard Burton was nominated), but not to the point that it becomes the 67th greatest film of all time. The plot, while being a sad examination of what I'm sure some marriages are really like, didn't seem all that gripping or significant to me. It was just sad, but the script got really confusing as the movie progressed. Of course, this was nominated for 13 Academy Awards, winning 5 of them, so for some reason it's considered an amazing film. (Think about that for a moment. This movie was nominated for 13 Oscars. That's a ton for one film. Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring had the same number of nominations in 2001. Titanic, which shattered box office records in 1997, only had one more nomination than that.)

Complaints
Everything after the initial scene with the four main characters. Once that scene ends, the movie gets confusing, weird, and not very enjoyable.

LET ME SUM UP...
I'd recommend watching the first part of this film. It's funny with great wit and some classic awkward moments. Once you see Richard Burton sitting in the tree swing in the front yard, you can turn it off.

MY RATING: 2/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 75

"2001: A Space Odyssey" (1968)

2010-02-24T12:10:00.000-08:00

Rank on the AFI List: #15

Synopsis (according to AFI):
Kubrick's science fiction epic puts mankind in context between ape and space voyager. The film created a stir for its special effects, the computer HAL, and the debate about the meaning of the film's final sequence.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
The only other time I watched this movie was in an 8th grade classroom. I was confused by it way back then, and after another viewing I still think it's a trippy movie. The effects are great and groundbreaking for 1968 (that's nine years before Star Wars came to theaters and wowed audiences with its special effects). But there really seems to be no clear thread of connection throughout the movie except for the big black slab.

I have been to a rave before (believe it or not, but there was a rave on campus while I was in college and my friends and I checked it out), and it was pretty weird. The ending of this film reminded me of the rave for one reason alone: you have to be on acid to appreciate either.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
Well, it's considered to be the first "real" science-fiction movie, so that right there would be a major reason. Also, as I mentioned above, the special effects (for which this film won its lone Academy Award) are quite impressive. And I'll admit - somewhat begrudgingly - that perhaps the absolutely crazy ending which spawns so much debate over its meaning adds to this film's acclaim.

Complaints:
I'm with the popular opinion here that the film is too slow. Yes, I realize things take awhile in space, but show us once that it takes a long time to get from A to B as opposed to showing us EVERY time. Other complaints I mentioned earlier: connect the story more and don't be so entirely off-the-wall with the ending. It's no use to me to even analyze what it might mean if I don't think the creators even bothered to think about what it might mean (this is the exact same reason I hate "modern art").

LET ME SUM UP...
Impressive special effects, but a slow moving film with a ridiculously weird ending. Too ludicrious to even try to analyze.

MY RATING: 4/10 (2 lower from my previous rating)

"Network" (1976)

2010-02-23T08:23:00.000-08:00

Rank on the AFI List: #64

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
1) It was about a TV network
2) It stars Faye Dunaway
3) The famous line: "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!"

LET ME EXPLAIN...
I found it sadly funny that, being a movie that satirizes TV executives doing anything they can for better ratings, this didn't seem too far off from what television (specifically TV news) has actually become. Regardless of your opinion on cable news (or which channels are fair and which are biased), this movie illustrates a transition from straight news to opinionated political grandiosity that is present on cable news today. It was fascinating to watch this satire from 1976 in 2010.

Something that made this movie stand out to me was all the monologues. I think every character had at least one major monologue pertaining to their view on life, the media, and the messy web that entangles them. Several characters gave multiple monologues. I appreciated these because you really got to know who the characters were, and one monologue toward the end helped sum up the point of the movie, which really helped me enjoy it more than I would have had it not been included.

I also thought the film was poignant in having characters without heart and soul; they're people going about life without any real care or compassion for others. It's as if working in television has taken away what makes them truly human. Sounds a bit like what happens when we watch too much television, doesn't it?

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
For one thing, it's a very well-done satire on a topic related to cinema (television). It also seemed like it was an "anti-establishment" film that focuses on waking "a sleeping giant", which I could see might be considered significant and controversial for America (especially in the 70's). It also had good acting (though I wasn't that impressed with Peter Finch as Howard Beale, though he won the very first posthumous Academy Award for Best Actor). It was nominated for 10 Academy Awards, winning four: three for acting and one for writing.

Complaints:
I can't really put my finger on it, but how the movie moved along seemed a bit slow and dull at times. And like I said earlier, had it not been for a monologue toward the end, I would have been a bit lost on the point of the movie.

LET ME SUM UP...
"Network" is an interesting film to watch in today's media climate because what was satire in the 70's is very close to reality in the 21st century. It was well acted (Faye Dunaway's performance was my favorite) and well written with a TON of character monologues. Not exactly the most entertaining film, but it's an interesting statement about the media.

MY RATING: 6/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 74

"The Graduate" (1967)

2010-02-18T17:33:00.000-08:00

Rank on the AFI List: #17

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
1) It stars Dustin Hoffman.
2) It's about a young guy having an affair with an older woman.
3) It had the song "Here's to You, Mrs. Robinson" in it.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
I liked this movie. Despite the fact that it is an entire web of sexually immoral situations, it had some of the best humor, best writing, and far and away best cinematography I've seen in a comedy on the AFI List.

"The Graduate", while considered a comedy, sometimes felt like a comedy-drama. And I found it easier to enjoy the comedy if I thought of the film as a drama (which I thought it was before watching it). And for those moments when I felt the development of relationships and characters wasn't very strong, I reminded myself that it's a comedy, and comedies tend to not focus as heavily on developing characters and relationships. This really helped me enjoy "The Graduate".

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
First, it's a funny movie, and unlike many comedies, it doesn't rely on sight gags or goofiness (as opposed to Tootsie, which ironically enough, is another film on the AFI List starring Dustin Hoffman). Rather, the wit of the script and the talent of the cast are what drive the humor. On top of that, the intro and wrap-up of the film on Turner Classic Movies (a TV channel I recently discovered as a goldmine of AFI Top 100 films) pointed out how the content of "The Graduate" was so taboo back in the 60s that it was somewhat groundbreaking in going where no film had gone before. It was also nominated for 7 Academy Awards including Best Picture, Actor, Actress, and Supporting Actress. It won Best Director, and in my opinion should have definitely won Best Cinematography (Bonnie and Clyde won it that year, much to my dismay).

Any Complaints?
Well, like I mentioned above, the film sometimes lacked in illustrating the development of one particular relationship. Also, the scuba diving scene - while funny - was confusing and I didn't get why it happened.

LET ME SUM UP...
"The Graduate" is a well written comedy that is very well acted. It also has some of the best cinematography I've seen during My Quest. The content isn't the most moral, but if you don't mind that, this is a classic comedy worth seeing.

MY RATING: 8/10

TOTAL # OF FILMED WATCHED: 73

"Bonnie & Clyde" (1967)

2010-02-09T19:24:00.000-08:00

Rank on the AFI List: #42

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
1) It stars Warren Beatty
2) It's about a real-life couple from the 1930s who robbed banks

LET ME EXPLAIN...
This movie wasn't exactly what I was expecting. For some reason, I thought it would have a fair amount of humor and really glamourize the gangster, robbers-on-the-lamb lifestyle. It did the latter somewhat, but it also portrayed the couple and their lifestyle as being rather tumultuous and unhappy (at least, that's the impression I got while watching it).

Now as far as the style of this film, it reminded my wife and I a LOT of Easy Rider, though this was certainly more enjoyable (of course, that's not saying much). These two films had such a similar style in terms of film editing, sound, and lack of connectivity between scenes. All this to say: I'm not a fan of this style.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
I'll let the American Film Institute answer this question because I couldn't figure out why this is considered one of the best films ever made until I read the description on their website: "We rob banks!" Dunaway and Beatty star in this story of real-life 1930s bank robbers Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow, a film that mixed romance, adventure, glamour, comedy and violence in a way never seen before.

While I agree with the violence and glamour, I thought the romance was odd and somewhat awkward, the adventure was lacking (I would have preferred more bank robbing scenes), and the comedy just wasn't very funny. This may have been a groundbreaking blend of different genre elements, but I wasn't overly impressed with it.

Complaints:
1) It seemed a bit slow at times and lacked a lot of the action I was expecting.
2) Buck's wife has quite possibly the most irritating voice/scream EVER!
3) The style of this film is too similar to "Easy Rider".

LET ME SUM UP...
I was somewhat disappointed with this movie because I was expecting more action, better humor, and a different overall style. However, I thought the acting was terrific, the action scenes were quite intense and very well done, and it was interesting to learn more about the infamous duo of Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow.

MY RATING: 5/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 72

"Shane" (1953)

2010-02-01T13:30:00.000-08:00

Rank on the AFI List: #45

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
Only that it's a Western.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
This was only the second western I had ever seen (the other one being Unforgiven), and if there was ever a movie that encapsuled EVERYTHING I thought a Western film would be, this was it. Take, for instance, the following: it was set in a wide open range with cowboys and homesteaders; it had quick-draws, spurs rattling, a saloon fight, a guy falling from a balcony after being shot, another guy get up from his chair and leave the saloon before the guns started firing, etc. It even had a tumbleweed blowing across the screen! I think the only thing it didn't have was John Wayne, but it did have a young Jack Palance for all you City Slickers fans.

In fact, some of my favorite movies that spoof on the Western cliches include Three Amigos! and Back to the Future III. It was cool to see a serious Western utilizing (and perhaps introducing?) things these films and plenty of others have copied and spoofed.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
I already mentioned how this movie is an all-around classic Western. I don't know what other films are out there that carry as many elements of the Western genre that this one carries. On top of that, it's about something that I think is ingrained and timeless in America: the right to own property. Much like The Grapes of Wrath, this film grips you with the anger/sadness/hopelessness of watching people lose their home which they've put so much effort into building for their families. Furthermore, there was great acting, and it was overall a very well-done movie (it won an Oscar for Best Cinematography: Color, and was nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay, and two Best Supporting Actor awards)

Complaints:
About two-thirds of the way through the movie up until about the last 10 minutes, it seemed to slow down a bit. The story was progressing well up until that point, but then scenes seemed to drag on a little longer than necessary. Not a big complaint, but something I noticed.

LET ME SUM UP...
As someone who has only seen two Westerns in my life, this is what I'd consider to be a classic Western. It had a ton of recognizable Western elements (making it seem like one giant cliche, except that this may be where most of those cliches came from), but it also had a good story that gets the audience invested in what's going on and caring about what happens to the characters. It's well acted and a well done movie overall.

MY RATING: 7/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 71

"The Maltese Falcon" (1941) - RE-WATCH

2010-01-21T17:22:00.000-08:00

Rank on the AFI List: #31

Synopsis (according to AFI):
Bogart's Sam Spade is the detective whose partner is murdered. The cops are after him and he's after the woman who hired his partner, which leads them to Greenstreet and Lorre, who are all after a priceless statuette. Bogart suggested the take on Shakespeare: "The, uh, stuff that dreams are made of."

LET ME EXPLAIN...
I'm a bit confused. I remember watching this movie in my American Film class in college. I remember being utterly confused by the plot. And, I remember thinking the movie was over at least two times before it actually ended.

I prepped myself to pay extra close attention to what's going on this time. However, when it ended, it felt like a completely different movie: the plot wasn't THAT complicated, and there weren't any "false endings" like last time. This may beg the question: Are you sure this was the movie you saw in your film class? Yes, it was. I remember Humphrey Bogart (as this was the first Bogart film I had ever seen), and I remember the maltese falcon.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
This has been one of the more difficult films to analyze with this question. In fact, while I've generally based this answer for every other film I've watched during My Quest solely on my own personal opinion, I actually went digging online to see what others say about it. I just don't know why this is considered such a great movie because nothing really stood out to me. I'd say the best part is probably the acting (Bogart was great, but I still like him better in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre). Besides that, I didn't find it to be much of a thriller, or mystery, or even film noir (there are elements of film noir in it, but Double Indemnity is, in my opinion, a much better film noir - and better movie overall).

So what did I find in my online search for why this is one of the greatest films ever made? Not a whole lot. It's apparently considered the first film noir (please see above for my opinion of this). It's also considered a great mystery/thriller. It actually reminded me a lot of Charade with Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn, but I found "Charade" to be much more entertaining.

Complaints:
While I can't point out any specific complaints, I just wasn't that entertained by this film.

LET ME SUM UP...
It's a better than average film, but not by much. Humphrey Bogart does a good job in his breakout role, but that's about it. "Double Indemnity" is a better film noir, and "Charade" is a better movie with a similar plot.

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

"Rear Window" (1954) - RE-WATCH

2009-12-24T18:29:00.000-08:00

Rank on the AFI List: #48

Synopsis (according to AFI)
When a broken leg forces photographer Stewart to become wheelchair-bound in his New York city apartment, he amuses himself by spying on his neighbors and soon becomes obsessed when he thinks he has witnessed a murder. Kelly, as his fashionmodel girlfriend, helps with amateur detective work.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
This was the first film my wife and I watched since I began My Quest that we had actually both already seen before. But it's so good (and I wanted to blog about it) that we couldn't resist another viewing.

Before it started, I remembered that it was a great thriller. I remembered the plot. I also remembered Grace Kelly (my wife would probably kill me if I say anymore about her). However, what I did NOT remember was how voyeuristic it is. You spend the majority of the film looking into people's windows, watching them live their lives, completely unaware that someone is looking at them. That's just creepy in general, but I think it adds to the overall suspense and nervousness of the film.

I also have to add that I think one reason this is such a popular movie is that it's a detective story (just look at how many crime-drama TV shows there are and tell me that people don't get into them), but the investigation is done by average people. This gives the audience a chance to feel like THEY could solve a murder and do detective work, too.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
First, there's the fact that it's got some great suspense. Second, that suspense consistently builds up as the story progresses (its crescendo is as steady as any film I've seen). And to top it off, the entire film (except for one short scene) is set in one room. To be able to create such a great thriller while only using one set is a great testimony to Hitchcock and how "Rear Window" is one of the best - and most unique - films ever made.

Complaints
In my opinion, the love story saga between Jimmy Stewart and Grace Kelly tended to "get in the way" of moving the plot along. It didn't really add anything to the story. Of course, it was a reason to have Grace Kelly in the film, so I can't really complain too much (on that note, my wife's complaint would probably be Grace Kelly is in this movie).

LET ME SUM UP...
Classic Hitchock film with great suspense, though it's a tad uncomfortable to watch because it's so voyeuristic. Nevertheless, it's a great movie and quite entertaining.

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

"The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" (1948)

2009-12-08T20:25:00.000-08:00

Rank on the AFI List: #38

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:

Only that it had the famous line "We don't need no stinking badges!" (actually, the quote is "Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges!")

LET ME EXPLAIN...
Having not read the synopsis for this film before watching it (I've done that for a handful of these movies because I sometimes like to go in with a blank slate), I was surprised that it's not so much an adventure film as it is a statement about what greed can do to a person. I was expecting to see a lot of action, but instead I got a lot of thought-provoking situations and performances, and those are what make this a good movie.

Humphrey Bogart, in particular, is phenomenal. In fact, this is my favorite performance of his (comparing that to his roles in "Casablanca", The Maltese Falcon, and "The African Queen", all of which are also on the AFI List). I was shocked to discover he wasn't even nominated for an Oscar.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
Besides being an all-around well done movie, "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" is a great examination of what greed can do to people, and (maybe even more importantly) how a person's response to financial gain or loss can shape his or her entire life. This illustration of one of mankind's most primal and sinister desires is why I think it's considered one of the best films ever made.

Not really a complaint, but...
I wasn't sure how much I was liking this movie as I was watching it. While I expected an adventure, I got something else, and it wasn't until after the movie ended and I talked about it with my wife that I started to really like it. It's the examination of the characters and their actions that I really liked about the movie, and not so much the film itself.

LET ME SUM UP...
This is a well done and thought-provoking illustration of greed. It's also the best performance by Humphrey Bogart that I have seen so far.

MY RATING: 7/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 70

"Swing Time" (1936)

2009-12-07T22:27:00.000-08:00

Rank on the AFI List: #90

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
Only that it was a musical.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
This is considered one of the best films by famous dancing pair Fred Estaire and Ginger Rogers. And for me, it's the first and only film I've seen of theirs. I'll say this: they are incredible dancers. One of the most impressive things to see in this movie is how they move together, as if they're one graceul person rather than two separate people (specifically, watch how in sync they bounce together). And I have to point out that the number they do in the dance class is easily my favorite part of the whole film.

There's some good humor in this as well (which right there makes it better than A Night at the Opera), some famous songs that are fun, and an unexpectedly large amount of gambling. But it's the dancing of Estaire and Rogers that make this movie.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?

Fred Estaire and Ginger Rogers are a very famous dancing couple who made ten films together. "Swing Time" is considered by many to be their best. I have to think this is the reason it's on the AFI list.

Complaints:

A well conceived plot and good storyline are lacking, to say the least. I found myself thinking throughout the film: "I don't get that character's motive for doing what they're doing in this scene", but I eventually realized that this movie is about the dancing and not the story. Nevertheless, I like a good story and would prefer a little more effort in establishing motives for the actions of characters.

Another complaint: there's a big dance number in the middle of the movie with Estaire and a bunch of other dancers, but it was boring, odd, and too long (which, strangely enough, reminded me and my wife of the extended dance number in "Singin' in the Rain", which drags on for 10 minutes and is also more weird than enjoyable - was this a requirement for musicals back in the day or something?).

LET ME SUM UP...

This is a better than average movie, if for nothing more than to see some great dancing by Fred Estaire and Ginger Rogers. It's certainly not worth watching for its plot or character development, but it's a lighthearted musical that doesn't try to be something it's not.

MY RATING: 5.5/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 69

"The Deer Hunter" (1978)

2009-11-24T22:59:00.000-08:00

Rank on the AFI List: #53

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
Just one thing: it stars Robert De Niro.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
As a general big picture, I get the idea of what this movie is saying: the Vietnam War forever and drastically altered the lives of both those who fought in it and their loved ones back home.

But if you ask me to explain some of the more minor ideas, symbolisms, and themes in "The Deer Hunter", I couldn't tell you what they were. In fact, there were countless moments, lines, and shots in this film where I thought, "hmm, that's really saying something significant...and I have no idea what that is..." Because of this, I found myself somewhat frustrated and bored.

Random Note: I didn't realize that so much of this film is centered around Russian Roulette. I can definitely see how playing this "game" could make a person lose their mind.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
I'm starting to think that a lot of the films on the AFI List are there because they illustrate significant times in American history. I have to think "The Deer Hunter" is one of them, even though I wasn't overly impressed with it from a movie-making standpoint. But in terms of how the Vietnam War changed those who fought in it and challenged the bonds of friendship, this movie is a good portrayal. It also won 5 Academy Awards, including Best Picture in 1978.

Complaints:
This film lacks a sense of what "relevent footage" means. It's just over three hours long, and so much of it is filled with seemingly pointless footage and extended scenes that have no reason to be extended. Yet the scenes that move the story along seem cut short and disconnected.

LET ME SUM UP...
While "The Deer Hunter" has an overarching theme about the Vietnam War, all of the smaller themes were lost on me. On top of that, this movie could have easily been better and closer to two hours instead of three if they would have cut out all the pointless footage and replaced some of it with story-connecting scenes. I'm not a fan of this film.

MY RATING: 3/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 68

"The Bridge on the River Kwai" (1957)

2009-11-20T15:52:00.000-08:00

Rank on the AFI List: #36

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THIS MOVIE:
Only that it's some sort of war movie.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
Let me just start out by saying that I really like the plot for this movie: British POWs in a WWII Japanese prison camp are forced to build a bridge for the Japanese, and the captured British colonel is dedicated to building it to perfection. Meanwhile, an American POW who escapes the prison camp must return on a mission to sabotage the very same bridge.

That's a unique and very interesting plot, if you ask me.

As for the movie itself, I can break it down into two parts: the first hour and 40 minutes, and the last hour.

The first hour and 40 minutes just seemed OK. It really felt like they were taking the time to set up the last hour of the movie (which they did), but by itself, I didn't think the first half was all that impressive.

The last hour of the film, on the other hand, was great. The plot really seemed to start moving along to the inevitably climactic ending, and I thought it began to take itself more seriously, which is what I was expecting from a war movie. By the end, I was a fan.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
I didn't come up with an answer to this question until after the movie ended. My wife asked me why I thought this was a Top 100 movie, and my first response was "I don't know why." Then we started talking about the ending and particular characters, and I realized how thought-provoking the film is. We sat there discussing the movie for quite awhile before I said, "maybe this is why it's considered such a great movie. There's so much to analyze." This film also won 7 Academy Awards including Best Picture, and Best Actor for Alec "Obi-Wan" Guinness, who was particularly good in his role.

Complaint:
The soundtrack! Oh my gosh it was bugging me! I was prepared to get into a war-movie mood (serious, somber, etc.), and the somewhat cheesy army marching music and whistling seemed very counter-intuitive. And yet, this film won an Academy Award for "Best Music, Scoring," so I don't know how I feel about that. In fact, the only time I liked the music was at the very end because the lighthearted happiness of it seemed SO contradictory to what was happening that it was "inappropriately appropriate", if that makes sense.

LET ME SUM UP...
This film has a great plot. And while I felt underwhelmed with the first 100 minutes - and irritated by the soundtrack - the final hour was great. The ending was particularly good and begs to be analyzed because so much happens, and depending on which character you focus on, the happenings are different. The intricacies of the ending make this a movie that should probably be watched more than once.

MY RATING: 6.5/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 67

"Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" (1939) - RE-WATCH

2009-11-11T10:21:00.000-08:00

Rank on the AFI List: #26

Synopsis (according to AFI):
Appointed to the US Senate because the power brokers believe they've got a hayseed on their hands, Jefferson Smith surprises everyone with his honesty and gravitas. Framed by the political machine that cleverly twists the truth, Smith almost waves a white flag, but Clarissa Saunders gives him a fast lesson in civics. Filibuster!!!

LET ME EXPLAIN...
I saw this movie a few years ago and really liked it. I like Jimmy Stewart, and I like the director Frank Capra (who also directed It's a Wonderful Life, #20 on the AFI List). From my viewing experience, Capra films include a little cheese and a lot of human spirit triumph.

"Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" has both the cheese and the triumph, but if you ask me, the cheese is a little too thick. There's a bit too much fanfare throughout the film (in contrast, "It's a Wonderful Life" thankfully and appropriately saves it all for the very end). There were also more corny moments than I remembered the first time I watched it. Nevertheless, it's still a neat movie to watch and sadly amazing to see how politics 70 years ago were just as corrupt and meddlesome as they are today.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
This film is worth watching just to get an inside look at how the U.S. Senate and our government system works. I would argue that this is why "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" is considered one of the best in American film history. I just don't think it's put together all that well from a strictly movie-making standpoint, so it must be the content that merits the honor of it being the 26th best American film ever.

Complaints:
I already mentioned the cheese factor. On top of that, I felt this movie was missing a very important scene. I really believe it needed to better illustrate just how much Claude Rains' character wanted to become President and how his whole life was dedicated to that achievement. This would have made the ending much more powerful.

LET ME SUM UP...
This is truly a "Patriotic" film. It's a great look into Congress and how our political system works. However, it's a bit cheesy and lacking one very important scene, in my opinion. Nevertheless, if you're an American, it's a movie worth watching at least once in your life.

MY RATING: 6/10 (2 lower from my previous rating)

"The Silence of the Lambs" (1991) - RE-WATCH

2009-11-10T12:59:00.000-08:00

Rank on the AFI List: #74

Synopsis (according to AFI):
"I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti," hisses Hopkins' Hannibal Lecter, a brilliant serial killer engaged by Foster's FBI agent in an effort to capture another killer on the loose.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
I've always been one who, for some reason, enjoys creepy movies. I watched a lot of horror films that I probably shouldn't have when I was younger, and I was looking forward to watching "The Silence of the Lambs" again.

Maybe I'm getting older, or maybe my movie palate is changing, but I really didn't enjoy it this time. The content is just too disturbing and uncomfortable because you're essentially spending two hours inside the mind of a serial killer. And unlike Psycho, this film doesn't leave the horror to the imagination; all the gruesomeness is shown to the audience throughout.

There was really only one scene I enjoyed and wasn't uncomfortable watching, and that's where you find out why this movie is called "The Silence of the Lambs". In my opinion, that's the best scene because of how it brings about a comparison between the mind of a madman and the mind of a good person with a traumatic past.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
Despite the disturbing content, this film is very well done all around. It won 5 Academy Awards in 1991, including Best Picture (Anthony Hopkins and Jodie Foster both won Lead Acting Oscars as well). However, I'm not sure why it's considered one of the best films ever made. From reading some of the review quotes on the cover, it seems like there may have been a lull in thrillers for several years before this movie, so maybe "The Silence of the Lambs" is credited with bringing the genre back into the American mainstream.

Complaints:
I already mentioned this, but the content was really uncomfortable and disturbing.

LET ME SUM UP...
While this is a well-done film with great acting (especially by Anthony Hopkins) the content is really disturbing and uncomfortable to watch. I appreciated the talent that went into making "The Silence of the Lambs", but I did not enjoy it and have no desire to ever watch it again.

MY RATING: 4/10 (3 lower from my previous rating)

"Psycho" (1960)

2009-11-05T12:24:00.000-08:00

Rank on the AFI List: #14

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
I knew quite a bit: Norman Bates, psycho "mother", famous shower scene...

LET ME EXPLAIN...
Even though I pretty much knew the story and "twists" in this movie well before I ever watched it, I really enjoyed it. This is a seriously creepy movie with virtually non-stop suspense. My wife and I loved it, especially since we watched it right before Halloween.

The shower scene, while being one of the most famous and well known scenes in movie history, still felt new and cringe-worthy when it came up. And in the production notes on the DVD, the lead actress Janet Leigh points out that the scene doesn't actually show any of the violence, leaving the horror of what's happening completely up to the audience's own imagination (horror movies nowadays show as much gore and violence as they can, taking away all the imagination. I'll take "Psycho" over those movies any day).

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?

It's a classic horror flick, and unlike most horror films, it is extremely well done. Great cinematography, great acting (Janet Leigh was nominated for an Oscar, and Anthony Perkins became an international star after playing Norman Bates), and like I said earlier, great suspense. This is probably considered the greatest horror movie of all time, and the AFI List needs to have that genre represented.

Complaints:
These are very minor, but when the psychiatrist is basically explaining the entire plot at the end, it seemed a little forced. It felt like Hitchcock thought "we need to answer all the audience's questions at the end, so let's have an omniscient psychiatrist come in and explain everything in one scene." I thought that was a bit cheap. Another complaint was the staircase scene with the detective. It's hard to explain unless you've seen the film, but all I have to say is it made an otherwise scary and gruesome scene somewhat silly.

LET ME SUM UP...
I've seen my share of horror movies, and "Psycho" is by far one of the best. Unlike most horror flicks, it didn't rely on being gruesome, or coming up with the most creative way for characters to die. It simply did a terrific job at building and carrying suspense, and it was very creepy without being gory or gratuitous. There were only a couple scenes that distracted me from the story, but they were very minor.

MY RATING: 9/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 66

"Vertigo" (1958) - RE-WATCH

2009-10-30T19:55:00.000-07:00

Rank on the AFI List: #9

Synopsis (according to AFI)
Stewart's fear of heights, Novak's woman of mystery, Bernard Herrmann's haunting score, and the city of San Francisco provide Hitchcock with a great love story and sexual obsession on a grand psychological level.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
First of all, this was my favorite movie out of the 8 or 9 that we watched in my American Film class. Even though I thought the majority of it was slow, I was literally on the edge of my seat toward the end because I had no idea what was going to happen. And it was because of this that I thought it was a great movie.

Having said that, I was quite surprised to see that this is considered the 9th best film of all time. This surprises me because this really isn't the type of movie that makes me say "how can anyone NOT like this movie?!" For one thing, it's a complex movie, and the ending is so unconventional that not everyone really likes it. But, since this was my third time seeing it, I'm convinced that it's one you need to see multiple times to really begin to appreciate how well the story is put together. That was my experience, anyway.

I'm also really surprised that this is the highest rated Hitchcock film because I don't think it's the most well known of his movies. Most people I know have heard of and/or seen Rear Window, Psycho, and "The Birds", but practically none of them have even heard of "Vertigo".

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
According to the production notes on the DVD, "Vertigo" is one of the most discussed and debated films in history because of its dark and deep venture into the human psyche. This is probably the reason it's considered the 9th best film ever made in American history: it might not be the most entertaining Hitchcock movie, but I certainly think it's the most intriguing and thought-provoking of the Hitchcock films I've seen.

Complaints:
Before this third viewing, I thought the bulk of the movie was too slow and boring. After this time, however, I only think a couple scenes had a little bit of unnecessary footage. Another "complaint" would be one of the supporting roles didn't seem to have much of a purpose other than to be the vehicle in giving the audience tidbits of information to help the story make more sense.

LET ME SUM UP...
This is considered Hitchcock's deepest delve into the complexities of the human psyche, and that is what makes this movie so critically acclaimed. Not everyone will enjoy this movie or appreciate it, but I certainly do. It may seem a little slow, or the ending may put you off, but if you're anything like me, you'll love the ending and, in turn, love this movie.

MY RATING: 8.5/10 (0.5 higher from my previous rating)

"Tootsie" (1982)

2009-10-17T10:19:00.001-07:00

Rank on AFI's List: #69

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
Only that it was a comedy with Dustin Hoffman dressing up like a woman.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
I never realized just how unoriginal Mrs. Doubtfire was until I watched this movie. While many of the plot points differ between these two films, the comedy is practically the same, but "Tootsie" did it first and, in my opinion, did it very well.

It felt a little slow in the middle, as if the need to move the story along got in the way of the comedy, but the rest of it had me laughing a lot. I wouldn't mind watching this one again.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
In my opinion, comedies are the most debatable films on the AFI List, so it's difficult to answer this question. However, I will give three possible reasons "Tootsie" is considered one of the best films ever made:
1) It's about actors and their struggles of finding work. Since the AFI List is voted on by people in this industry, I'm sure they found this story relatable.
2) "Tootsie" is really a very funny movie and was even nominated for 10 Academy Awards, winning one (Jessica Lange, Best Supporting Actress).
3) This list seems to enjoy cross-dressing comedies (such as this one and Some Like it Hot).

Complaints:
1) This movie was a bit formulaic. In fact, while watching practically every scene, I felt like I already had a general idea of what was going to happen in the upcoming scene because a lot of comedies follow a similar formula.
2) It felt very 80's-ish in both style and music.

LET ME SUM UP...
Overall, this is a very funny movie. I laughed quite a bit and had a great time watching it. It seemed a little bit slow in the middle, but the rest of the movie was funny enough to make up for it. And with a story about struggling actors trying to land roles in theatre, TV, and film, it's pretty easy to understand why the members of AFI voted this one of the best movies of all time.

MY RATING: 7/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 65

"The Philadelphia Story" (1940) RE-WATCH

2009-10-12T18:53:00.000-07:00

Rank on the AFI List: #44

Synopsis (according to AFI)
Sophisticated and screwball all at once, Hepburn's cool, icy heiress really belongs with Grant, her ex. It takes tabloid newsman Stewart to bring out the fires buried deep inside her. This is a comedy of manners and class distinction. "The prettiest sight in this fine, pretty world is the privileged class enjoying its privileges."

LET ME EXPLAIN...
This was one of the first "classics" I watched after taking my American Film class in college. The reason being? I wanted to see Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart in a movie together. Add in Katherine Hepburn, and you've got a star-powered comedy.

Not only does "The Philadelphia Story" have the actors to make it successful, but it's full of great comedic moments and quirky situations. Plus, my wife thought this was a really cute movie, so I have to add that it's a well done romantic comedy, too.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
I was curious to watch this film again during My Quest to figure out why it's considered the 44th best movie ever made. The aforementioned star power certainly doesn't hurt. And while I'm discovering that comedies seem to be the most subjective, debatable inclusions on AFI's list, this is simply a classic comedy. It has a little bit of upper-class disfunctionality which I felt was a fun way for the "common folk" audience to get a peak into the glitz and glamor of the wealthy and feel good about seeing them acting just as goofy and stupid as the rest of us. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if this was one of the first movies to capitalize on the fact that drunk people tend to say and do funny things.

Complaint:
For a good chunk of the movie I felt it was similar to Some Like it Hot in that it had funny parts but wasn't consistently funny. However, as it gets closer to the end, it gets more consistent.

LET ME SUM UP...
This is a funny movie. It takes the audience into the inner circle of the wealthy and showcases their lives as just as screwy as everyone else's. It does this with class, with drunkenness, and with some of the biggest stars in the history of film. The comedy of the film feels a little inconsistent in the first half, but it ends strong.

MY RATING: 7/10 (No change from my previous rating)

"A Night at the Opera" (1935)

2009-10-08T09:18:00.000-07:00

Rank on the AFI List: #85

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
Nothing, but once I picked it up from the library, I saw that it was a Marx Brothers movie.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
Every once in a while I will watch a comedy that endears itself to me. One I can watch countless times and still crack up at the same jokes and comic situations each time. One that seems to get funnier every time I see it. One I love to randomly think about and laugh quietly to myself. And I can say, without equivocation, that "A Night at the Opera" is not and will never be included in this category.

This was one of the worst, most unfunny "comedies" I have ever seen. The humor was so far beyond cheesy and ridiculous that I can't even fathom how anyone could possess a sense of humor that finds this movie entertaining (and my deepest apologies to anyone who may have just said "Hey! I think this movie is funny!" I'm sorry I don't understand you.).

On top of that, there was singing of opera music. Now I happen to like musicals, but I am NOT a fan of the opera. I simply find that musical style to be very unappealing. I think I was optimistic that, even with a name like "A Night at the Opera", there would just be comedy and not any opera singing. Unfortunately for me, the opera singing was there, and the comedy was missing.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
There are other movies on the AFI list that I don't like (Easy Rider, The French Connection, and Nashville), but I can somewhat understand why these made the list. "A Night at the Opera", on the other hand, is just baffling to me. While trying to figure out why this is considered one of the best movies ever made, I first thought "maybe this is on the AFI list because the Marx Brothers were a very famous comedy team that needed to be represented on the list, and perhaps this was their best movie." However, I reminded myself that Duck Soup, at #60 on the list, is also a Marx Brothers movie. Not only did that revelation depress me because it means I have to sit through another Marx Brothers production, but it also left me unable to answer this question about why "A Night at the Opera" is considered a Top 100 film.

Complaint:
This movie.

LET ME SUM UP...
This movie is terrible. In fact, I think every movie that did not make it onto the AFI list got short-changed because practically ANY OTHER FILM deserves a place on the list before "A Night at the Opera".

MY RATING: 1/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 64

"Sophie's Choice" (1982)

2009-10-08T09:12:00.000-07:00

Rank on the AFI List: #91

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
Absolutely nothing, but after picking it up from the library, I learned it stars Meryl Streep and has something to do with Jews and World War II.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
This was a very interesting movie to watch, and I'm not quite sure how to give an organized critique because my thoughts on it are a bit how the movie seemed: scatter-brained (that's not to say I thought the movie was bad). Therefore, I will make random points in short paragraphs.

I'll start by saying this almost seemed like two different films. It was certainly two different stories being told which didn't seem to fit together at all until the end (however, my wife didn't think the ending brought the stories together, so I guess it's up to the viewer to decide).

This movie was intriguing to watch because it slowly unveils the two main characters' stories in such a way that I wanted to keep watching to find out who they really are. This made the movie enjoyable for me to watch once, but I don't think I want to watch it again.

Meryl Streep's performance (in which she won the Academy Award for Best Actress in 1982) was amazing. Her Polish accent seemed spot on, and all the German and Polish she had to learn to speak was incredibly impressive. Plus, she IS regarded as arguably the greatest actress of her time.

Then of course, there's "the choice" Sophie makes. Through the entire movie I was trying to figure out what the choice would be, but I certainly did not predict what it actually was. All I will say is it's so surreal and incredible that I just can't fathom making the choice and living with the consequences.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
I can't really tell you why "Sophie's Choice" is considered one of the best films ever made. I'm certain a major reason it's on the list is because of its portrayal of the Holocaust. Another feather in its cap is the terrific acting all around (particularly Streep and Kevin Kline). But even with all that said, I'm just not sure what makes this a Top 100 movie.

Complaints:
"Sophie's Choice" is a bit strange. The friendship between the main characters was quite peculiar, and how and when the film revealed things about each character seemed random. This is what made my wife really not like the movie, and while I didn't really appreciate its randomness either, I don't think it bothered me as much.

LET ME SUM UP...
As a one-time view, I enjoyed this movie. I thought the casting was very good (Meryl Streep was brilliant, and Kevin Kline was a great choice to play Nathan), the concentration camp scenes were the most gripping (as you'd expect), and I thought the ending was very powerful and really brought two seemingly separate stories together (at least somewhat). However, the way the movie revealed things seemed very random, and the central friendship was odd. But I'd recommend this movie just to see Streep's performance and to wrestle in your own mind with the choice Sophie makes.

MY RATING: 6.5/10

TOTAL # OF FILMED WATCHED: 63

"American Graffiti" (1973)

2009-09-18T12:06:00.000-07:00

Rank on the AFI List: #62

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
It starred Richard Dreyfus and Ron Howard, was directed by George Lucas, and is some sort of coming of age story about teenagers in the 60s.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
If you were in high school in the late '90s, I'll assume you've seen Can't Hardly Wait, the multicharacter coming of age teen comedy about high school graduates with different agendas during one crazy night.

And if you were in high school in the '60s or early '70s, I'll assume you've seen "American Graffiti", the multicharacter coming of age teen comedy about high school graduates with different agendas during one crazy night.

Obviously, I saw similarities between these two movies. And one thing I will say about both is this: they are very enjoyable. They're fun to watch. They made me laugh. Plus, there's a certain charm to following multiple stories of kids on the cusp of becoming adults as they deal with different situations. It's a great formula that keeps the audience from getting bored because it bounces around so much from one story to another.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
One reason I think this is considered one of the best movies of all time is because it created a formula (which I just talked about) that is unique, fun, and executed very well. Add in the great acting all-around, an amazing soundtrack (10% of this film's entire budget went just to obtaining the rights to use all the great '50s and '60s music), and a screenplay that does a great job of weaving together the fun of being a teenager with the reality of becoming an adult, and this movie is impressive all around.

Not really a complaint, but...
A lot of this movie involves teens "cruising" on the streets. Since I was born in 1981, I never experienced "cruising", so I didn't really feel connected to the story or the characters too much. But after hearing stories from my mother-in-law (some very amusing stories, by the way) of her group of friends cruising when they were teenagers, I can't fault this movie for apparently doing an excellent job at conveying what teenagers did in the early 60s.

LET ME SUM UP...
This is an entertaining movie. It's fun to watch and has a great coming-of-age formula for following a group of teenagers on one crazy night. It was also neat to see Richard Dreyfus, Ron Howard, and Harrison Ford as young actors. All in all, this was fun to watch.

MY RATING: 7/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 62

"In the Heat of the Night" (1967)

2009-08-31T09:22:00.000-07:00

Rank on the AFI List: #75

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
Only that it starred Sidney Poitier and included the famous quote, "They call me Mr. Tibbs."

LET ME EXPLAIN...
This was my first Sidney Poitier film, and I was excited to see him act. I might be ignorant about this, but I always thought he was kind of like the Jackie Robinson of film (even though other African Americans had been in movies before him, and even won awards). So, with that, I assumed "In the Heat of the Night" would convey at least some racial issues (especially since it was made in the 1960s). And that is certainly what it did.

It was a bit amusing that when my wife and I paused it at about 40 minutes in, I said, "this is pretty good, but something quite significant better happen in the second half, or I will be really confused as to why this is considered one of the best movies ever made." Then we started watching again, and in about 10 minutes, I really began to understand why it's such a good movie (and why "They call me Mr. Tibbs" is considered one of the greatest quotes in movie history).

Yes, it was a good cop-drama, mystery-thriller, CSI-like movie. If you like that stuff, this is a movie I'd recommend, especially thinking about how cutting edge CSI must have been in 1967. But that's not why this is considered to be one of the best movies ever made.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
Sidney Poitier is a great cop from Pennsylvania. He's very smart. He's also black and forced to solve a crime in a bigoted town in the deep South in the 60s. Consider that scenario. A black man who has a job that demands respect is forced to do his job in a place where black people get absolutely no respect (to say the least). And then add to that that he is far and away the smartest, most level-headed person in the bigoted town, yet he still gets treated like he's inferior. The racial tension throughout the entire movie is what makes this one of the best in American history. Oh, and it was also nominated for seven Academy Awards and won five of them, including Best Picture.

Not really a complaint, but...
When the crime is solved at the end, it was a little confusing as far as motive and what exactly happened. I sort of deduced those things after a few minutes, but it almost felt like the actual crime being solved was beside the point. Of course, as I said earlier, it's the scenario of the story that's the real plot, so I guess I can't really fault the movie for not straying off its intended course.

Great Movie Moment!
I don't want to ruin this particular scene for anyone, so I can't give specifics. But I just have to say that "In the Heat of the Night" has one of the all-time BEST movie moments EVER!! My wife and I absolutely LOVED it! (You'll have to watch this to know what I'm talking about. But you'll know it when it happens.)

LET ME SUM UP...
This was a very good movie. The scenario of the story alone is provocative, and then add in some great acting (Rod Steiger won the Academy Award for Best Actor, and Sidney Poitier deserved at least a nomination) a well-written screenplay (which also won an Academy Award), and one of the best scenes EVER in film, and this was a thoroughly enjoyable movie.

MY RATING: 8/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 61

"Intolerance" (1916)

2009-08-30T17:16:00.000-07:00

Rank on the AFI List: #49

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
Only that it was a silent film, and the oldest movie on the AFI list.

AFI Synopsis:
[D.W.] Griffith's monumental exploration of intolerance is told through four different but parallel stories from ancient Babylon, to the time of Christ in Judea, to Paris in 1572, to social reformers in contemporary America. A milestone in filmmaking, each story was tinted in a different color (but the version we watched didn't have the tinted colors).

LET ME EXPLAIN...
This was the second silent film I've ever seen (the other one being Sunrise), and I'm really glad I had something to compare "Intolerance" to (and a movie I'm now able to compare "Sunrise" to), even though they were made 11 years apart.

With being one of the earliest major movies ever made, it was a different kind of experience. The film begins with the audience literally being told the plot, the theme, and the reason the movie was made (which I found to be a little annoying because I like watching a movie and coming to those conclusions on my own). There were several times when a "note" was included to give historical background - or even information about the set - for the upcoming scene. And watching this movie didn't really bring out any emotions for me (except for one small feeling of suspense toward the end). Again, it was just a different experience, but I'm really glad I watched "Intolerance" to help broaden my horizons.

Something that shocked me quite a bit was how graphic this movie was. There was a beheading and other violent acts like people being run-through with swords (these "special effects" were actually quite impressive considering when this movie was made). But even more shocking was the nudity: several shots of boobs hanging out, and I think I saw a rear-end in one scene. I always thought there was a strict forbiddance of nudity in film until maybe the 1960s. Apparently "Intolerance" was made before censorship came upon the film industry.

So how does it compare to the other silent film I've seen? Without a doubt, I liked "Sunrise" more. To me, "Sunrise" has more of a timeless quality, and it did an amazing job at telling its story by conveying feelings and emotions using little to no words or explanations. "Intolerance" didn't really do that, but it did tell its story on a much grander scale (keep reading to find out what I mean).

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
For a movie made in 1916, it was pretty impressive. The term "epic" is perfect, too, because there were battle scenes, four different stories interweaving between each other, over 16,000 extras (I don't even want to think about how many of them were either injured or killed during filming), and the largest set ever made in the history of film (watch the Babylonian scenes and you will be amazed by just how grandiose the sets were). And the entire movie cost about $2 million to make.....in 1916. I found an "inflation calculator" online and was surprised that that's the equivalent of only $39+ million in 2008. But still, that's a ton of money, people, and resources for one film. And I read in several places that the way the four stories were told in spurts and bounced back and forth between each other was groundbreaking and changed the way stories were (and continue to be) told through film.

Complaints:
One could argue that, by today's movie-making standards, this was a bit of a "rough cut". The story-telling wasn't the sharpest, the flow of the movie wasn't that smooth, and a lot of shots didn't seem to be very relevent. Of course, it was 1916, so the art of telling a story through film probably hadn't yet been fine-tuned or sharpened.

Another small complaint of mine: the four stories didn't relate all that well to the definition of intolerance (or even to each other). It was like D.W. Griffith saw everything in life through the "intolerance lens". Even if it didn't really apply to a situation, intolerance was what he saw, and to me, that made some of these stories weak because they weren't really about intolerance. I think "hate" and "greed" are better descriptors of what all four stories are about.

LET ME SUM UP...
"Intolerance" is a very different movie experience. I never really had any sort of emotional investment in any of the characters, and I didn't like how the movie bluntly describes the plot and themes that come up. However, I was very impressed with the grand scale of this movie. And 1916 was such a different time for film that I can't fault "Intolerance" for the weird little peculiarities that make it so different from modern day movies. So with that, I'll say that I think this was a good movie and I'm glad I've now watched it, but I wouldn't say I liked it.

MY RATING: 5/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 60

"North by Northwest" (1959) - RE-WATCH

2009-07-20T12:54:00.000-07:00

Rank on the AFI List: #55

Synopsis (according to AFI)
Grant is the Hitchcockian everyman caught up in something he doesn't understand as he travels from New York to Mount Rushmore in this mire of spies, counterspies, and romance.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
My wife went out with some friends for the evening, so I decided to do a "re-watch" of an AFI movie I own and love: "North by Northwest". I rated it a 10 out of 10 on my very first post because it's one of my favorite movies of all time and a down-right fun adventure. But now that my film critiquing is in full swing with the AFI list, I was curious to see if I would still consider it a perfect 10.

Surpisingly enough, I ended up finding some things that I didn't really like about it, but the cool stuff (and there's a ton of it) became even better during this most recent viewing.

What "cool stuff" became even better this time around? Well, the suspense, for one thing. I don't think I ever really appreciated just how much of it is in this movie. Honestly, this is my favorite Hitchcock film, even though I always felt this didn't seem very Hitchcockian. That is, until I watched it again this weekend. There's so much suspense in this movie that I either didn't pick up on before, or I simply forgot about since the last time I watched it. But the suspense is there, and it's extremely well done (as you'd expect from Hitchcock).

Another great aspect to "North by Northwest" is the plot. It's such a fun scenario: Cary Grant as a normal guy who's mistaken for a spy and has to go on a cross-country chase as both a target for the bad guys and a fugitive from justice, all while trying to figure out what the heck is going on. (If that description doesn't peak your interest to see this movie, I'll assume you don't like adventures.)

And I have to mention how much I love James Mason as the villain. He is one of the coolest, most debonair bad guys ever (he's right up there with Hans Gruber from "Die Hard", in my opinion), and I admit that a big reason I feel that way is his voice. Take the following dialogue exchange, for example (my favorite line by James Mason):

Cary Grant's character: "Apparently the only role that will satisfy you is when I play dead."
James Mason's character: "Your very next role, and you'll be quite convincing, I assure you."

It takes an extremely cool, suave, and charming bad guy to pull off a line like that.

What Makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
Even for being made in 1959, this is one of the best adventure movies ever. I may be a little biased since I love this movie so much, but AFI agrees with me, and even members of IMDB.com have ranked it as the #30 best movie of all time. So clearly my opinion isn't skewed from the overall public opinion very much. I just think it's a travesty it was only nominated for 3 Academy awards and didn't win any of them (though it did win a "Best Motion Picture" and "Best Action Drama" from other award ceremonies, as well as earned Alfred Hitchcock an International film festival award).

Complaints...
Now that I watched this with a more critical eye, I have found some things that prevent this from being a "perfect" movie for me. First, there are a few somewhat awkward moments in the acting that cause me to snicker, even when it's not supposed to be funny (nothing major or really worth noting, but they're there). The other thing I have a problem with is Cary Grant's mother being (and looking) the same age as him. Yes, the actress was funny and good in that role, but casting someone who looks like they actually COULD be his mother would have been better.

LET ME SUM UP...
"North by Northwest" is one of my favorite movies of all time. It's a great adventure film with plenty of suspense, funny moments, and classic scenes. Cary Grant and James Mason are so much fun as the protagonist and antagonist, and while there are some tiny bits of awkward acting, it's still a movie I love to own and watch regularly.

MY RATING: 9.5/10 (0.5 lower from my previous rating)

"The Grapes of Wrath" (1940)

2009-07-07T09:10:00.000-07:00

Rank on the AFI List: #23

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
The only things I knew was that it starred Henry Fonda and was based on a book of the same name. I also had some pre-conceived notions that it took place in the deep South, was probably pretty boring, and quite depressing.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
Out of my aforementioned pre-conceived notions, I was only correct about one of them. No, it was not set in the deep South; it begins in Oklahoma and ends in California. No, it was not boring at all. The 2 hours and 9 minutes were engaging and well-done. And while I was correct that it's a depressing movie, it is also one of the best movies I've ever seen.

I don't even know where to start about what made this so great. One thing I appreciated was the ensemble cast. Every single person in this movie - but particularly the Joad family - seemed born to play their roles. My wife even made the comment afterward that she couldn't tell if they were acting, or if they were just being themselves in the movie. The acting was that great all-around. Ma Joad (played by Jane Darwell, who won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress) was probably my favorite, but Henry Fonda (nominated for Best Actor) was amazing, too. After seeing this and "12 Angry Men", I can now say that I am without question a Henry Fonda fan.

The screenplay was also incredible. There were so many lines that encapsuled what "The Grapes of Wrath" is about. Here's a sampling of some of the lines that I found particularly poignant (though they may seem odd when left on their own and out of context as I'm about to do):

"This is my dirt! It's no good, but it's - it's mine. All mine."

"Seems like the government's got more interest in a dead man than a live one."

"They ain't human. Human being wouldn't live the way they do. Human being couldn't stand to be so miserable."

"Well, maybe it's like Casy says. A fellow ain't got a soul of his own, just little piece of a big soul, the one big soul that belongs to everybody, then..."

Just remembering some of these lines wrenches my heart, which brings me to my next point...

This is the most heart-wrenching movie I have ever seen. For practically the entire film you're seeing people getting "kicked while they're down". They lose practically everything that matters to them, and then they lose even more. They get exploited and taken advantage of, and then discarded like they're nothing. They get beaten down so much that hope is literally all they have left, but even that is almost gone. And in it all, I think that's what makes this such a powerful movie: it's an examination of the human heart, good and bad. There are those who depend on hope (the Joad family), those filled with compassion (the people in the truckstop - one of my favorite scenes, by the way), those drained of compassion (the Californians), and those filled with greed (the exploiters and many of the police).

Why is this a "Top 100" Movie?
This is a timeless story. As I just stated above, it's an examination of the human heart, so while it's set during the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl, "The Grapes of Wrath" does an amazing job of conveying humanity in it's most beautiful and ugly ways. On top of that, the acting was superb, the dialogue was powerful and deep, and I particularly liked the lighting in some scenes where they literally only used the flame of a match or lantern, letting the darkness and shadows take up a significant portion of the shot. This film was also nominated for seven Academy awards in 1940, and won 2 of them (including Best Director).

Complaint
The only blemish to this movie that my wife and I thought it had was the Socialist message. Granted, this movie came out at a time where workers WERE being exploited in many places around the country, and the Socialist movement hadn't yet been tested and found to be a poor system of government. But nonetheless, I can't give a movie that essentially endorses Socialism a perfect 10/10.

LET ME SUM UP...
I love this movie. It's incredibly powerful and has some of the best all-around acting and dialogue I have seen on film. This is not a movie to watch when you want to laugh (though there are a surprising number of truly funny parts that my wife and I laughed out loud at), and it's definitely not one to watch when you want to be uplifted or cheered up. But if you want to see a truly great film that says a lot about humanity, I highly recommend "The Grapes of Wrath".

MY RATING: 9.5/10

TOTAL # OF FILMED WATCHED: 59

NO PREVIEW VIDEO AVAILABLE

"Easy Rider" (1969)

2009-07-05T21:38:00.001-07:00

Rank on the AFI List: #84

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
Only that it's a "motorcycle across America" story of some sort.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
I'm amazed. Not only did what I already knew about this movie end up being (almost) the entire plot, but I now dislike a film on the AFI list even more than I dislike "Nashville".

Now that I've watched "Easy Rider", I can add two little words to "motorcycle across America" and pretty much give you the entire plot: "drugs and motorcycles across America."

No backstories. No real character development. No explanation of what's going on or why characters are doing what they're doing. You're basically just spending 90 minutes of your life watching people get high while riding their motorcycles from California to Florida. It's also got a hippie commune, a New Orleans whorehouse, deep South rednecks, and a VERY annoying transition between some scenes. I hate this movie.

I also hated "Nashville", but the end of that film was surprising and at least said something politically. "Easy Rider" may have tried to say something, too, but I think only those who lived through the 60s can know what that is.

Why is this a "Top 100" Movie?
The ONLY (and I mean ONLY) reason I can think of is that it seems to epitomize the 60s counterculture. Perhaps the "American Film Institute" thinks it's important to honor movies that do nothing more than portray a particular culture in American history (but after watching this, I don't think it's THAT important).

Complaint
A group of people got together in 1969 and decided to make this movie.

LET ME SUM UP...
Crap. With motorcycles. Crap. With drugs. Crap.

MY RATING: 1/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 58

"The French Connection" (1971)

2009-07-04T11:14:00.001-07:00

Rank on the AFI List: #93

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
Only 2 things:
1) It starred Gene Hackman
2) It has a famous car chase scene

LET ME EXPLAIN...
I knew I'd eventually get to a movie on this list that I wouldn't like. I was a bit surprised that it was "The French Connection."

This movie is based on a true story. It's about drug smuggling, but we were more than 30 minutes into the movie before my wife and I figured that out. For the vast majority of the film, the premise seemed to be: Watch detectives tail people and go on stakeouts. Apparently, there's no real need to let the audience know WHY you're tailing people (except for some VERY serendipitious observations in a bar), or WHO the guys are you're following. It felt like the movie just wants the audience to watch cops follow supposed bad guys (sometimes doing so very poorly).

The famous car chase scene was entertaining at least. It was cool to finally see, though it wasn't the type of car chase I was expecting since there was only one car involved. Nevertheless, it was the most entertaining part of the film.

There was another scene I thought was cool, when the cops COMPLETELY strip a car looking for drugs. Unfortunately, the follow-up to that scene was somewhat unbelievable and made the whole scenario less entertaining to me. New York cops are apparently SO good at putting a car they ripped apart back together in 4 hours that the owner of it still thinks it's in perfect condition.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
Good question. Really. I don't know why this is considered such a great movie (it also won 5 Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Director in 1971, so I must have missed something). It was certainly gritty, I'll give it that. And I could tell the cinematography was somewhat unique. But this film should not be on the AFI list, in my opinion, unless someone can explain to me the reason(s) it's considered one of the best movies ever made.

Complaints
I'll try to keep these short: the protagonist isn't very likeable; the plot wasn't really explained; there wasn't much of a climax; there wasn't much in the way of character development; it attempted to be more "real" and gritty at the expense of helping the audience follow the story (I think I had more complaints than that, but you get the picture).

LET ME SUM UP...
If you've ever watched Mystery Science Theater 3000 (MST3K), there's one episode where they watch a really bad secret agent movie. There's a critical piece to its lame plot that the audience doesn't realize the main character already knows about until the very end of the movie. Once he explains that he already knew about it, one of the MST3K characters follows up with "I didn't tell the audience because I didn't feel they needed to know." I thought about this line several times while watching "The French Connection". All in all, this movie was less about the actual plot and more about watching detectives follow guys around the city and go on stakeouts. If it wasn't for the car chase scene, I would have given this a lower rating.

MY RATING: 3/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 57

"Unforgiven" (1992)

2009-06-11T12:58:00.000-07:00

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)

2009-06-11T12:50:00.000-07:00

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)

2009-06-01T12:13:00.000-07:00

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

"It Happened One Night" (1934)

2009-05-28T11:30:00.000-07:00

Rank on the AFI List: #46

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
Only 2 things:
1) It starred Clark Gable
2) It was a romantic comedy

LET ME EXPLAIN...
This is a cute movie. When it started I was a little worried that I wasn't really going to enjoy it because the humor was a bit corny. But as the plot progressed, and the chemistry between Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert began to shine, this became a fun movie.

Without giving any spoilers, I will just say that there were 2 scenes in particular that my wife and I were cracking up out loud at. The first one was when the detectives show up at the motel and Gable and Colbert pretend to be an old married couple. The second - and my personal favorite - was the hitchhiking scene (which involves one of the most overly-used cliches in film and TV, but it must have been strikingly original in this movie). Clark Gable's part in this scene is what really cracked me up, though.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
I can understand why this is considered one of the best movies ever made. From a romantic comedy perspective, I'm assuming this was the first film to use the plotline of "a seemingly incompatible bickering couple fight and argue as they have to stick together, only to fall in love at the end" (and I don't think that's a spoiler since it says they fall in love on the back of the DVD case). That plot idea has been used so many times since then that it stands to reason this movie was groundbreaking in how to create a successful romantic comedy scenario.

This was also the first movie to sweep all the major Academy Awards. It won Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, and Best Screenplay in 1934. And I can see why. The lead actors were terrific (although Clark Gable's character seemed VERY similar to his character in Gone With the Wind. Was he type-casted or something?), and the story and dialogue was often quick and witty.

Complaints:
Some of the humor was a little too corny for me, and Claudette Colbert looked MUCH more like a silent film actress, which was a little weird. And one scene on the bus where people are singing (what sounds like an Irish drinking song) went on a little long. But these were all very minor things that didn't bother me too much.

LET ME SUM UP...
"It Happened One Night" is a cute movie with good chemistry between the two main characters. Two scenes in particular are laugh-out-loud funny, and aside from a little bit of corny humor, this was a fun film to watch.

MY RATING: 7/10

TOTAL # OF FILMED WATCHED: 53

"Gone With the Wind" (1939)

2009-05-25T20:24:00.000-07:00

Rank on the AFI List: #6

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
It starred Clark Gable, Vivien Leigh, and it was a love story set in the South during the Civil War (Yeah, I really didn't know very much about it).

LET ME EXPLAIN...
Since I was never shown this movie in school growing up, I didn't think I'd ever see it. I mean....it's a "love story", right? And 4 hours long? No thanks. However, watching movies that are considered classics - no matter what genre they belong to - and broadening my horizons are what My Quest is all about. And thanks to said quest, I ended up seeing a really good movie after all.

However, this movie was different than what I was expecting. I don't get when people refer to this movie as "romantic" and a "love story", unless they're referring to a relationship that reflects too many relationships in real life: unhealthy, selfish, and ultimately destructive. My wife and I were both surprised and disappointed that both protagonists in this movie were not very likeable at all.

From an acting standpoint, Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh were both terrific. But from a character standpoint, my favorites by FAR were Mammy (the black servant, played by Hattie McDaniel) and Melanie (who is married to the man Scarlett is in love with). Those two characters were the only encouraging parts in much of the movie.

I also found it VERY interesting and encouraging that Hattie McDaniel - who played Mammy, my favorite character - was the first African American to be nominated for AND WIN an Oscar. I can only imagine what that must have been like to have a black actress honored above white actresses BEFORE the civil rights movement. The fact that that happened in 1939 is both amazing AND really cool.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
It's really easy to see why this movie is considered one of the top 10 movies of all time. The acting was terrific, the story was engaging and was based around one of the most significant times in American history, AND I think this was the first major "epic" movie ever made (there were more than 50 speaking roles and 2,400 extras used in this film). Not surprisingly, it cleaned up at the Oscars that year, winning 8 Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Writing, and Best Art Direction.

My complaint...
(To start, this observation was actually brought to my attention by my wife, but after she pointed it out, it was pretty blatant throughout the movie.) Aside from Mammy, all the black servants in this movie are portrayed as extremely simple-minded. I wondered if they did this as a way to illustrate the lack of education among black slaves, or were they playing into some sort of stereotype in the 1930s about black people being dumb? Despite which assumption may be correct, this is definitely a complaint because they could have illustrated the lack of education among slaves in a better way.

LET ME SUM UP:
While the love story wasn't exactly what I expected, this was an extremely well done film with wonderful acting and a great screenplay. I enjoyed it quite a bit, even though it's 4 hours long.

MY RATING: 7/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 52

"Some Like it Hot" (1959)

2009-05-25T19:43:00.000-07:00

Rank on the AFI List: #22

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
Two musicians witness a mob hit and run away disguised as women in a female band.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
This was the first movie I saw with Marilyn Monroe in it. This was also the first movie I saw with a YOUNG Jack Lemmon. AND this movie is ranked as the #1 comedy in American film history (according to the AFI Comedy List from 2000).

Despite (or maybe because of) the fact that this movie is ranked as AFI's #1 greatest comedy, I had reservations. The reason being that the comedies I've already seen on the AFI Top Movies list ("Annie Hall" and "Dr. Strangelove") aren't in my personal Top 10 Comedies list. While still good movies with original comic elements, I just didn't laugh as much as I was hoping I was going to. Watching "Some Like it Hot" ended up being a similar experience for me.

I would describe this movie not so much as a "funny movie", but more like "it has funny parts". But let me just say, those "funny parts" were often flippin' hilarious! There are some lines in this movie that were so funny my wife and I wished we had a paper and pen and wrote them down as we watched. And other funny parts (I can think of Tony Curtis driving backwards in the boat as one I particularly thought was funny) made this movie enjoyable. But like I said, it wasn't funny enough to me that I would consider it one of my favorite comedies.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
Another question should also be addressed: why is this considered the #1 comedy of all time? And my guess would be because of some possible ground-breaking elements. For a movie from the 1950s, there was a LOT of sexual humor, which I would imagine was probably pretty risque back then. And I wonder if this was the first cross-dressing comedy ever made (or at least made well). And let's face it, guys dressed up as girls, trying to act "lady-like" but usually doing so very badly (or doing so a little too well), all while getting hit on by older men is just plain funny. I wouldn't be surprised if this movie was the #1 Comedy of all time because it was the first film to base its entire plot around that gem of a comic idea.

Not really a complaint, but...
I was under the impression that Marilyn Monroe was going to be a seductress-type character with a throaty, raspy voice (my pre-conceived notion about what Marilyn Monroe was like). What she turned out to be was ditzy eye candy who was the quintessential "dumb blonde". To get a better idea of just how she is in this movie, my wife came up with a good comparison: think of characters Jessica Simpson plays, but in the 1950s.

LET ME SUM UP...
This movie has some VERY funny moments, and if those moments would have been a little more consistent for my taste, I would give "Some Like it Hot" a higher rating. But don't get me wrong, I did enjoy this movie and wouldn't mind watching it again. It may even be one of those movies that need to be watched more than once to really appreciate how good it is.

MY RATING: 6/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 51

"All the President's Men" (1976)

2009-05-17T16:08:00.000-07:00

Rank on the AFI List: #77

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
Before I read the back of the DVD case? NOTHING. Then I learned it was about the journalistic investigation into the Watergate scandal.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
I thought this was a good movie. It had great acting and a documentary-like feel to it that made it different from the vast majority of movies. Having said that, this is a peculiar movie to have on the AFI Top 100 list.

Why do I say that? My wife made this very good observation: "All the President's Men", unlike the vast majority of films in the Top 100, doesn't really have that "timeless" quality. For example, there are those classic love stories, good vs evil tales, underdogs to cheer for, groundbreaking technical accomplishments, and adventure movies that will live on forever that future generations can watch and appreciate. "All the President's Men", on the other hand, is about a specific scandal from the 1970s. Yes, it was a major scandal and a devastation to the U.S. government, but it's not a timeless story of betrayal and drama. I can't see this movie remaining on AFI's Top 100 list for a very long time.

Now, I say again that I thought this was a good movie, and my thought on why it's considered one of the best movies ever made would be the "realistic" approach to telling the story. To explain this, I've included a spectrum that my film professor described to us in class.

On one end of the film spectrum is "Realism". These would be your typical documentary films. While watching a "realism" movie, viewers are meant to see the story as real life and not necessarily a movie. Fictional movies that lean this way include The Blair Witch Project and Cloverfield.

On the other end is "Formalism". These would be avant-garde type movies that are so artistic and creatively delivered that you are constantly reminded that it's a movie and not real life. The best example I personally know for such a film is Run Lola Run out of Germany (an awesome movie, by the way).

In the middle of these two spectrums is "Classicism", which is where most movies reside. In these films, you know you're watching a movie, but it's told in a fairly realistic way.

So what does this have to do with "All the President's Men"? My opinion is this film, while still a classic-style movie, does a great job of feeling like a realism-style film.

"All The President's Men" seemed almost like the real thing (despite the fact that well-recognized Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman were the main actors). In fact, there were several times during the movie when my wife and I referred to it as a "documentary". Maybe it's because it's about a true story, but the lack of music in most scenes, the realistic delivery of many of the lines, and the fact that no scene was "dramatized" up with music, slow motion, close-ups, etc. (in other words, it was told in a very straightforward, journalistic way) really helped this movie feel much more "real" than most movies.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
I'm inclined to think it was this movie's "realism" that made it onto AFI's Top 100 list. (Were there any other movies before it that told a story in such a realistic and undramatized way? If so, did they do anywhere near as good of a job as this movie did? I don't know those answers, but I'm inclined to think they're both probably a "no".) Or maybe because it was a well-done film about the biggest government scandal in American history has something to do with it.

Complaint:
This is not really the movie's fault, but it sure got a bit confusing with all the names and different characters being brought up and investigated. It made me wish I had more knowledge of the whole Watergate scandal before I watched this. The movie progresses with the assumption that the viewers already know who all the politicians and people are/were. I didn't.

LET ME SUM UP...
This felt like a very different "AFI Top 100" movie, but that made it enjoyable for me. I appreciated the realistic way this movie told the story of how two writers from the Washington Post managed to uncover the biggest U.S. government scandal in history. My wife didn't like it, particularly because it didn't strive to address any morality issues - not with any of the politicians, not with the reporters, not with the President. If you want that sort of approach to Watergate, this is not the movie to watch. But if you like seeing a movie that feels almost like watching real life, this is a great one to check out.

MY RATING: 7/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 50

My Quest to Watch AFI's Top 100 Movies of All Time

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

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

"JAWS" (1975) - RE-WATCH

"Star Wars" (1977) - RE-WATCH

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

"Casablanca" (1942) - RE-WATCH

"Apocalypse Now" (1979) - RE-WATCH

"Annie Hall" (1977) - RE-WATCH

"Spartacus" (1960) - RE-WATCH

"Dr. Strangelove" (1964) - RE-WATCH

"Do the Right Thing" (1989)

"One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" (1975) - RE-WATCH

"Nashville" (1975) - RE-WATCH

"The Searchers" (1956)

"Midnight Cowboy" (1969)

"Taxi Driver" (1976)

"M*A*S*H" (1970)

"Bringing Up Baby" (1938)

"Sullivan's Travels" (1941)

"The General" (1926)

"Raging Bull" (1980)

"City Lights" (1931)

"The Wild Bunch" (1969)

"Blade Runner" (1982)

"It's a Wonderful Life" (1946) - RE-WATCH

"King Kong" (1933) - RE-WATCH

"Toy Story" (1995) - RE-WATCH

"A Clockwork Orange" (1971)

"The Sound of Music" (1965) - RE-WATCH

"Cabaret" (1972)

"The Last Picture Show" (1971)

"The Apartment" (1960)

"Modern Times" (1936)

"All About Eve" (1950)

"Schindler's List" (1993) - PREVIOUS VIEWING

"To Kill a Mockingbird" (1962) - RE-WATCH

"Rocky" (1976) - PREVIOUS VIEWING

"Yankee Doodle Dandy" (1942)

"Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid" (1969) - PREVIOUS VIEWING

"Duck Soup" (1933)

"Goodfellas" (1990) - PREVIOUS VIEWING

"The Gold Rush" (1925)

"Sunset Boulevard" (1950) - RE-WATCH

"Ben-Hur" (1959)

"West Side Story" (1961) - RE-WATCH

"The Best Years of Our Lives" (1946)

"Chinatown" (1974) - RE-WATCH

"Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" (1966)

"2001: A Space Odyssey" (1968)

"Network" (1976)

"The Graduate" (1967)

"Bonnie & Clyde" (1967)

"Shane" (1953)

"The Maltese Falcon" (1941) - RE-WATCH

"Rear Window" (1954) - RE-WATCH

"The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" (1948)

"Swing Time" (1936)

"The Deer Hunter" (1978)

"The Bridge on the River Kwai" (1957)

"Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" (1939) - RE-WATCH

"The Silence of the Lambs" (1991) - RE-WATCH

"Psycho" (1960)

"Vertigo" (1958) - RE-WATCH

"Tootsie" (1982)

"The Philadelphia Story" (1940) RE-WATCH

"A Night at the Opera" (1935)

"Sophie's Choice" (1982)

"American Graffiti" (1973)

"In the Heat of the Night" (1967)

"Intolerance" (1916)

"North by Northwest" (1959) - RE-WATCH

"The Grapes of Wrath" (1940)

"Easy Rider" (1969)

"The French Connection" (1971)

"Unforgiven" (1992)

"Platoon" (1986)

"Double Indemnity" (1944)

"It Happened One Night" (1934)

"Gone With the Wind" (1939)

"MAS*H" (1970)