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

Rank on the AFI List: #50

Synopsis (according to IMDB.com)

In a small village in the Shire a young Hobbit named Frodo has been entrusted with an ancient Ring. Now he must embark on an Epic quest to the Cracks of Doom in order to destroy it.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
The newest film to be on the AFI List, I'm convinced this placement is for the entire trilogy and not just "The Fellowship of the Ring".  There is nothing universally different about any of them that would make "Fellowship" better than the other two, so this one makes the list simply because it was the first in the trilogy.  Nevertheless, I will (attempt to) base this review on the first film alone after re-watching it this past weekend.

First of all, I've never read the books.  I get too bored reading fiction and would much rather just watch the movie (thank you, Peter Jackson).  Second, I love these movies.  As a 3-film, 12-hour epic, this trilogy is quite an adventure to experience (unless you ask my wife, who's not a fan).  And this first one opened my eyes in several ways when I first watched it back in 2001.

For one thing, I didn't realize how epic this story really is.  It's one of the best good vs evil tales I've ever experienced, and all the characters, battles, and various regions of Middle Earth - combined with a deep and interesting backstory - make this an adventure that's easy and exciting to get lost in.

Another thing I really like about this movie in particular is all the Christian symbolism.  I don't know whether Tolkien was trying to express his faith through the story, and I don't really care.  That's not my point.  My point is this story has tons of Christian symbolism regardless of the author's intent, from the One Ring being sin (it's a terrible thing that everyone wishes never existed, but once you have it - or it has you, rather - you want to keep it, and you foster more and more selfishness and greed the longer you have it), to various Christ characters (Gandalf and Frodo, at least in this first movie).  Sure, Christ characters are often easy to find in stories and tend to be overblown in movies, but "Fellowship of the Ring" is an exception to this, if you ask me.

The third "eye-opener" for me is best explained in the next section...

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
How this movie was made was groundbreaking.  To film an epic trilogy all at the same time and produce each film one year apart had never been done before (at least, not to this level of quality and publicity).  That truly made these 3 parts fit together as one story.  The traditional approach to trilogies (film and produce one movie, then film and produce the next one, etc.) never flow as smooth, and with inevitable changes in staff between productions - not to mention the aging of the actors - styles and continuity between films tend to be issues.  Not so with "Lord of the Rings".  Furthermore, the special effects are amazing, right down to how Elijah Wood and Sean Astin really do look miniature next to Ian McKellen and Orlando Bloom.  And again, with this being one of the best "good vs evil" stories in film, it makes it a rather easy choice to have on the AFI List.  It was nominated for 13 Academy Awards, winning 4 of them (including Visual Effects).  The deserved "Best Picture" award was finally won two years later for the final film in the trilogy, "The Return of the King".

Complaints:
The Shire at the beginning is a little cheesy, and I tend to get bored with the film during the Lothlorien scenes.  There's also a few continuity issues during some action scenes (i.e. "The wraiths are right beside Frodo on the horses - wait, now they're about 10 yards behind....what's going on??").  All fairly minor issues, and the rest of the film certainly makes up for them.

LET ME SUM UP...
Epic story.  Deep, interesting characters.  A classic "good vs evil" fantasy adventure that is full of Christian symbolism.  There are a few scenes I'm not a huge fan of, but other than that, this is an incredible movie-watching experience.

MY RATING: 9/10 (No change from my previous rating)

"Casablanca" (1942) - RE-WATCH

Rank on the AFI List: #3

Synopsis (according to imdb.com)
Set in unoccupied Africa during the early days of World War II: An American expatriate meets a former lover, with unforeseen complications.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
The first time I watched this was shortly before I officially began My Quest.  I thought it was a decent movie at the time, but I didn't really get why it's considered the 3rd best movie of all time.  On top of that, my wife just didn't like it at all.  I was actually surprised that she was up for watching this one again with me.

Fortunately for both of us, we ended up "getting" this movie a lot more the second time around.  It's a good story that ties in World War II, a complicated romance, great acting, and a wonderful atmosphere and script (this film has more quotes on the AFI's Top 100 List than any other film in history, with six.  The next closest is Gone with the Wind and The Wizard of Oz with half that).  This is a great movie.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
1) An engaging plot with a script full of legendary movie quotes.
2) Terrific acting.
3) Characters that are "real" and developed well throughout.
4) Great cinematography.
5) It's set during a major war (and was even released in the middle of the war) and didn't shy away from letting the Nazis know what we thought of them.

"Casablanca" was nominated for 8 Academy Awards, winning Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Screenplay.

Complaints:
You really need to pay attention to even minor characters' names and practically every line (which was oftentimes difficult to hear or understand).  Sometimes the plot would seem to progress simply by a quick dialogue here or there.  This got me a little lost a couple times.

LET ME SUM UP...
Classic cinema with an interesting story and characters you really care about.  It's well acted, has several legendary movie quotes, and is set during World War II.  It took my wife and I a second viewing before we really began appreciating how good this film really is.

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

"Apocalypse Now" (1979) - RE-WATCH

Rank on the AFI List: #30

Synopsis (according to imdb.com):
During the on-going Vietnam War, Captain Willard is sent on a dangerous mission into Cambodia to assassinate a renegade Green Beret who has set himself up as a God among a local tribe.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
As I mentioned in my very first post on this blog, this movie freaked me out.  I literally couldn't stop trembling the rest of the night after I watched this in my American Film class.  And that's really all I remembered about it, so I was curious to see how I'd like watching it again, 10 years later.

Fortunately, I managed to not only keep from trembling, but I ended up realizing just how good this movie really is.  More than anything, it's very good storytelling.  My wife and I were engaged in the plot the entire time, and I kept wanting to know what was going to happen next.

Of course, I was also NOT wanting to know what happens next because the main characters kept moving deeper and deeper into a hellish environment (I still hold fast to my opinion in my Platoon post that "Apocalypse Now" isn't so much a movie about the Vietnam War, but a horror story set during the Vietnam War).  Seriously, when I hear the term "hell on earth", I picture scenes from this movie.

On that happy note, one thing my wife and I both realized after this movie ended: Francis Ford Coppola is one of the best story-telling directors ever.  You just can't get much better than this movie and "The Godfather" when it comes to how to tell a story on film.  Also, major props to being able to develop a character throughout the movie who doesn't even appear on screen until the end.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
This film has several things going for it:
1) Brilliant storytelling, as mentioned above.
2) It's set during a major war in America's history.
3) It's star-studded: Martin Sheen, Marlon Brando, Robert Duvall, Dennis Hopper, Harrison Ford (granted, it was a minor role), and Francis Ford Coppola as director.
4) Terrific cinematography, particularly with Marlon Brando's character.  There's some awesome use of lighting with him.

"Apocalypse Now" was nominated for 8 Academy Awards, winning 2 (Best Cinematography, Best Sound).  I've never seen it, but I find it hard to believe that Kramer vs Kramer deserved Best Picture, Director, and Adapted Screenplay more than this film.  Oh well.

Complaints:
Well, aside from not being the type of story I'd particularly enjoy sitting through on a whim, it actually felt a bit slow at times in the final 45 minutes.  Still good, but it didn't seem paced as well as the rest of the movie.

LET ME SUM UP...
An extremely well-told story of Vietnam soldiers venturing deeper and deeper into "Hell".  Felt a tad slow at times toward the end, but all in all a very, very well-made film.

MY RATING: 8/10 (2 higher from my previous rating)

"Annie Hall" (1977) - RE-WATCH

Rank on the AFI List: #35

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Spartacus" (1960) - RE-WATCH

Rank on the AFI List: #81

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

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

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

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

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

MY RATING: 4/10

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

Rank on the AFI List: #39

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Do the Right Thing" (1989)

Rank on the AFI List: #96

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

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

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

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

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

Complaints?
Spike Lee can't act.

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

MY RATING: 4.5/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 98

(WARNING! Clip contains profanity)

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

Rank on the AFI List: #33

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Nashville" (1975) - RE-WATCH

Rank on the AFI List: #59

 Synopsis (according to imdb.com)

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

LET ME EXPLAIN...

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

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

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

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?

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

Complaints:

1) The country music.

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

3) The country music.

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

5) Did I mention the country music?

LET ME SUM UP...

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

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

"The Searchers" (1956)

Rank on the AFI List: #12

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

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

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

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

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

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

MY RATING: 5/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 97

"Midnight Cowboy" (1969)

Rank on the AFI List: #43

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

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

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

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

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

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

MY RATING: 2/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 96

"Taxi Driver" (1976)

Rank on the AFI List: #52

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MY RATING: 3/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 95

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

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

Rank on the AFI List: #54

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MY RATING: 4/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 94

"Bringing Up Baby" (1938)

Rank on the AFI List: #88

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MY RATING: 7.5/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 93  

"Sullivan's Travels" (1941)

Rank on the AFI List: #61

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MY RATING: 3/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 92

"The General" (1926)

Rank on the AFI List: #18

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

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

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

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

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

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

MY RATING: 7.5/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 91

"Raging Bull" (1980)

Rank on the AFI List: #4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MY RATING: 8/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 90

"City Lights" (1931)

Rank on the AFI List: #11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MY RATING: 6/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 89

"The Wild Bunch" (1969)

Rank on the AFI List: #79

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MY RATING: 8/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 88