"Goodfellas" (1990) - PREVIOUS VIEWING

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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