"Rear Window" (1954) - RE-WATCH

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 really reached the fine-tuning stage yet.

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Rank on the AFI List: #68

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MY RATING: 9/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 56

"Platoon" (1986)

Rank on the AFI List: #86

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MY RATING: 8.5/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 55

"Double Indemnity" (1944)

Rank on the AFI List: #29

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MY RATING: 7.5/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 54