"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