"The Godfather, Part II" (1974) - RE-WATCH

Rank on the AFI List: #32

Synopsis (according to IMDB.com)
The early life and career of Vito Corleone in 1920s New York is portrayed while his son, Michael, expands and tightens his grip on the family crime syndicate.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
It's difficult for me to review this on its own since I can't help but compare it to Part 1 (especially since I saw these two films back to back recently).  The story here is more of a downer, and I find so many scenes in Part 1 to be more memorable and iconic, so I'm struggling to give this film the acclaim it deserves.  Having said that, here I go...

Much like the first film, Part 2 is extremely well done.  It's a bit more of a complex story to follow, but the storytelling is once again terrific - it feels like an epic at 3 hours and 20 minutes, but it goes by rather quickly.  I loved seeing how Vito Corleone came to power and how his story is juxtaposed with Michael's efforts to retain that power.  It's well done filmmaking to interweave these two stories as Coppola does, and the screenplay, acting, lighting, and atmosphere all add to that, which is why this is another masterpiece.

Complaints?

No complaints, but I found it interesting that the only real moment of levity in either of these two films comes in a short scene in Part 2 (since, like I mentioned above, Part 2 is more of a downer to me, so it's ironic that it's the one with a semi-funny moment).  Nevertheless, seeing the landlord visit Vito after taking his money and insulting him, only to find out later the reputation Vito now has, is a pretty funny scene.

LET ME SUM UP...
Another masterpiece, though not quite as enjoyable for me as the original.

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

"The Godfather" (1972) - RE-WATCH

Rank on the AFI List: #2

Synopsis (according to IMDB.com)
The aging patriarch of an organized crime dynasty transfers control of his clandestine empire to his reluctant son.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
Whenever I talk about this movie, I always say "it's probably as close to a perfect movie as there is."  After re-watching it again, that statement holds true.  This is simply the poster child of a masterpiece.  The storytelling.  The acting.  The screenplay.  The cinematography.  "The Godfather" is simply amazing.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
I'm going to cheat and copy and paste the Critics Consensus from Rotten Tomatoes because they say it much better than I could: One of Hollywood's greatest critical and commercial successes, The Godfather gets everything right; not only did the movie transcend expectations, it established new benchmarks for American cinema.

Complaints?
Despite my raving above, I do actually have one complaint.  To try and avoid spoilers as much as possible, there is a fight scene out in the street between two characters, and at one point the camera is positioned in such a way that you can clearly see one "punch" that gets thrown misses the other guy's face by about a foot.  The rest of the fight scene looks believable enough, but the very first time I saw the film I noticed this fake punch and it sort of ruins the scene for me every time I watch it.

LET ME SUM UP...
As I said above and I say every time I talk about "The Godfather": it's probably as close to a perfect movie as there is.

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

"Shawshank Redemption" (1994) - RE-WATCH

Rank on the AFI List: #72

Synopsis (according to IMDB.com)
Two imprisoned men bond over a number of years, finding solace and eventual redemption through acts of common decency.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
I remember seeing this movie for the first time on cable television.  I was in high school, it came out about five years earlier, and I didn't really know much about it.  After I watched it, it was on my mind practically nonstop for several days, along with the thought: "that was such a good movie!"  Ergo, this has been one of my absolute favorite movies ever since.

The casting is terrific, the story compelling, and the characters are easy to like and really care about - even if they are convicted felons.  The examination of Fear and Hope is also well done, as there are plenty of "I never want to go to prison after seeing that" moments, right alongside several scenes that give me goosebumps and make me think "what a great moment".  I love this movie.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
This is one where I firmly believe the story was simply too good to not be recognized as one of the best in film.  I mean, what other movie could involve prison life and a river of s*** and leave audiences feeling so good??  "Shawshank Redemption" is superbly acted, paces well, and was nominated for 7 Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Adapted Screenplay.

Complaints?
I always feel sad when it ends.  Not with how it ends, but I come to love the characters so much that I want to stay with them and see where their stories go.  I guess that could be considered more a kudos to the film for its character development and storytelling ability, but I still feel like complaining that this movie has to end.

LET ME SUM UP...
Great story.  Great characters.  Great themes.  Great acting.  Great direction.  Great screenplay.  Great movie.

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

"Saving Private Ryan" (1998) - RE-WATCH

Rank on the AFI List: #71

Synopsis (according to AFI.com)
James Ryan, who has parachuted into France during the Allied invasion of Europe, has just lost three brothers in combat. Government policy dictates that he should return home lest his family be deprived of all its male offspring. A team of soldiers, led by Captain John Miller and fresh from the beaches of Normandy, is assembled to find and save Private Ryan.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
Having never served in the military and experienced the terror of war, movies are really the only avenue to help me imagine what it might be like.  And while there are other war movies on the AFI List, none of them seem as realistic and uncensored as "Saving Private Ryan" (Platoon probably comes the closest, but it definitely falls short in terms of effects and absolute realism).  For example, the film's opening with the D-Day invasion is one of the most incredible scenes in movie history.  It sets the stage for the rest of the film - being as true to war and battle as possible, without being gratuitous nor restrained in any way.  That balance alone is a credit to Spielberg and everyone else who worked on it.

In addition to the incredible production value, the story carries an ethical question that adds to the confusion of the situation - when is one man's life worth risking the lives of 8 others?  Given the situation presented in the film, there's no easy answer...except perhaps, FUBAR.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
I would argue it's because this is the most true-to-life, realistic war movie ever made.  It's meticulously produced, extremely well-acted, and so realistic I remember hearing about all the vets who got flashbacks while watching it.  It was nominated for 11 Academy Awards, winning 5 of them including Best Director, Cinematography, Sound Effects, Editing, and Sound.  It's a travesty that Shakespeare in Love won Best Picture over "Saving Private Ryan".  I would also argue Tom Hanks deserved the Best Actor award, but 1999 was quite a bonanza when it came to great movies and acting performances, with Edward Norton in American History X and the winner Roberto Benigni in Life is Beautiful.  Wow, that makes "Shakespeare in Love" winning Best Picture even more absurd, knowing those films didn't win it, either.  Sheesh.

Complaints
Having credited this movie with outstanding production, I do have to point out three very minor details that have always bothered me.

1) During the D-Day invasion, when Wade, the medic, is administering morphine to the dying soldiers, it looks like he just holds the morphine over the guy's leg without actually pricking him with it (like they do later on in the movie).

2) Also during the D-Day invasion, after they break through and are about to flamethrow that big square shooting room thing, they throw 2 grenades into the trench leading to it, but only one explosion occurs.  I always expect them to wait for the second explosion, but they proceed as if only one grenade was thrown.  Hmm.....

3) In the final battle scene, when the Nazis shoot that huge 20mm gun at the tank swarming with US soldiers, one soldier is clearly a dummy standing straight up in one place before getting literally shot to pieces.  The rest of the soldiers appear real and are moving, so that one in the middle really stands out like a sore thumb to me.  (Check out the scene below to see what I'm talking about.)

LET ME SUM UP...
Amazing movie with incredibly realistic effects and an ethically compelling story.  Perhaps the closest thing one can get to experiencing World War II for themselves.

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

"The Sixth Sense" (1999) - RE-WATCH

Rank on the AFI List: #89

Synopsis (according to imdb.com)
A boy who communicates with spirits that don't know they're dead seeks the help of a disheartened child psychologist.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
Here we come to the "Twist" movie.  I remember "The Sixth Sense" was huge when it came out and made M. Night Shyamalan a household name.  Since then, the famous twist ending has been referenced so many times in TV shows and pop culture it's basically become a punchline.  It also introduced a new wave of making movies with crazy twist endings, some good, some bad, but none that compare to this one.

Even without the twist, this is still a great movie.  It's well-acted and well-paced as the story builds and progresses steadily.  It also hits on all the emotions, and is scary without being gratuitous.  And the movie does a fantastic job of looking at several different types of relationships (mother and son, husband and wife, doctor and patient) very genuinely, and very equally throughout, which may have impressed me the most (just try to answer the question of which relationship was truly the most prominent in the story, or the most genuine).

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
"The Sixth Sense" has the greatest twist in film history.  On top of being an exceptionally-made movie, the twist must have been what solidified its place on the AFI List.  It was nominated for 6 Academy Awards: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay, Best Editing, and two acting nominations for Haley Joel Osment and Toni Collette.

Complaints?
Even though the movie introduces "rules" that ultimately make the twist ending work, it never explains what Bruce Willis does immediately before or immediately after certain scenes where some of the rules would really come into play (like when Cole comes home and finds Bruce Willis sitting down with his mom like they had been talking - what was going on before that scene and what did Bruce Willis seem to think was going on?).  There's just a few holes like that that make me a little less impressed with the twist overall.

LET ME SUM UP...
Very well-done movie with the biggest twist in film history, even if a few holes exist in its logic.

MY RATING: 8/10 (0.5 higher from my previous rating)

"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" (1937) - RE-WATCH

Rank on the AFI List: #34

Synopsis (according to imdb.com)
Snow White, pursued by a jealous queen, hides with the Dwarfs; the queen feeds her a poison apple, but Prince Charming awakens her with a kiss.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
I hadn't seen this one in quite some time.  The story is certainly a classic, but the entire 84 minutes really only has about 15 minutes of actual story (if that).  The rest is just songs and doing mundane things like cleaning a house and washing up before dinner (I can understand the songs since it's Disney, but the other stuff?).

It's also pretty incredible what kind of freaky stuff Disney included in their classics, such as the Queen telling the huntsman to cut out Snow White's heart and give it to her in a box, the freaky branches-turning-to-hands that kept grabbing at Snow White as she ran away through the forest, etc.

It's a classic story and introduced the iconic seven dwarfs, but - except for its animated groundbreaking-ness - it's not all that great of a film.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
It was the first ever animated feature film.  That's it.  It was nominated for Best Musical Score in 1938, and won an honorary award from the Academy for "a significant screen innovation which has charmed millions and pioneered a great new entertainment field (one statuette - seven miniature statuettes)" the following year.

Complaints?
I know it's just a fairy tale cartoon, but the story rarely progressed and was pretty boring.  First, you get the story setup via the "Once upon a time" book opening, then Snow White sings with animals, then a little progression in the story, then Snow White sings with animals, then the dwarfs sing, then Snow White sings with the animals and dwarfs, then Snow White sings with just the dwarfs, then progression to the story's climax, then the dwarfs are sad, then a quick wrap-up ending.  I like a little more story than that...

LET ME SUM UP...
The first animated film in history, of course it's on the list.  It's a classic fairy tale that's fun enough, but there's virtually no story and too much singing for me to really enjoy.

MY RATING: 4/10 (No change from my previous rating)

"Pulp Fiction" (1994) - RE-WATCH

Rank on the AFI List: #94

Synopsis (according to imdb.com)
The lives of two mob hit men, a boxer, a gangster's wife, and a pair of diner bandits intertwine in four tales of violence and redemption.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
As a Christian, I think I have a pretty high tolerance for "adult" themes and elements in film.  Some examples: I'm not a fan of swearing, but I can tolerate it rather easily in movies like Phone Booth, Die Hard, and other films with potty language; I abhore violence, but even disturbingly violent Apocalypse Now captivates me, and I enjoy watching The Following on TV.

Having said that, two "adult" elements that really turn me off in movies or TV are sex and drugs (read my post on The Last Picture Show to get an idea of how I feel about the former).

In "Pulp Fiction", drugs are quite rampant and practically celebrated throughout, so it's a movie I would normally be repelled by.  The peculiar thing is, I like the film.  Even with all the drug elements, the way the story is told is so different, and the dialogue so unique (many of the conversations remind me of dialogue from Seinfeld, where the characters are just chit-chatting about seemingly random, irrelevant stuff), that I appreciate the film as a whole.  It's so unconventional that I don't know of any other movie out there that this compares to in terms of structure.  On the other hand, my wife really doesn't like this movie, and after it ended she asked the simple question, "what is the point of this movie?"  Aside from the excuse to break as many conventions as possible in storytelling and shocking the audience, I didn't have an answer.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
I'll leave it to a well-written AFI description of "Pulp Fiction": Maverick director Quentin Tarantino exploded conventional cinematic storytelling and single-handedly created a new genre – one that re-purposed well-worn pop cultural tropes into something fiercely original and uniquely his own. His non-linear crime story broke new ground with its irreverent dialogue, eclectic soundtrack, stylized violence and quintessentially cool ensemble cast – including Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta as two contract killers at the beck and call of the city's kingpin.  The movie was nominated for 7 Academy Awards, winning only one, deservedly for Best Original Screenplay.

Complaints?
It's too long.  The infamous "Zed" storyline feels like the climax with the ending just around the corner, yet there are two more stories after that.  "The Bonnie Situation" in particular tends to drag and slows the whole film down.

Another complaint is that "Pulp Fiction" is so low on the AFI List, at #94.  I think this deserves to be much higher.

LET ME SUM UP...
One of the most uniquely original films ever made.  It's a stylized yet gritty film that pulls no punches when it comes to language, drugs, and violence especially.  It's a bit too long for me, and extremely lurid (the word used as part of the definition for "pulp" at the very beginning of the film), but very well done for what it is.

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

"E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial" (1982) - RE-WATCH

Rank on the AFI List: #24

Synopsis (according to AFI)
An extra-terrestrial is accidentally left behind on Earth and is befriended by a young boy and his brother and sister. As Elliot attempts to help his extra-terrestrial companion contact his home planet so that he might be rescued, the children must elude scientists and government agents determined to apprehend the alien for their own purposes...which results in an adventure greater than any of them could have imagined.... 

LET ME EXPLAIN...
This movie has never been near and dear to my heart like it seems to be with so many people (especially with the AFI, who rank this quite high at #24 of all time).  Watching it as a kid, I remember being more bored than excited, and the atmosphere of the film was more creepy than magical.  Having said that, I was legitimately excited to watch "E.T." again as an adult to see what would change for me.

Well, I still don't really like the atmosphere.  All the fog and haze through the first part of the movie bothers me a lot for some reason.  Then in the second half, when the government sets up the biohazard area inside the home, that still is pretty freaky and uncomfortable.  However, I think the government scientists get undeservedly characterized as bad guys here, when no real sinister or cold motives are every actually presented in the film.  They even have the heart to leave Elliott alone with E.T. to say goodbye and deal with his grief.  But hey, it's an 80's children's movie, so NO adults can be trusted, right?  The movie even dehumanizes adults a bit in its cinematography, as you don't see any of their faces (except for Elliott's mom) until the second half of the film (thanks to my wonderful wife for pointing that out to me).

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
Good question, since I don't think this is a very well-done movie.  Granted, it's a children's movie, so explaining certain plot points, or connecting the story in a way that makes sense to the viewer, isn't as crucial, but come on, if you're supposed to be the 24th best American film ever made, I would think that kind of stuff would be prerequisites.  Having said that, I'll suppose this is in the Top 100 because it was the first real, live-action, children's fantasy movie; a boy gets an alien for a buddy and can fly through the air on his bicycle?  I'll admit I would love that if I was still 10 years old.  "E.T." was nominated for 9 Academy Awards, winning 4 of them: Best Sound, Best Sound Effects Editing, Best Visual Effects, and Best Music.

Complaints?
I already touched on this above, but seriously, several plot points never get addressed, explained, or paid much attention to.  And it's not like explaining them would ruin the magic of the story.  They'd actually help make the story more clear.  Oh well.

LET ME SUM UP...
The original live-action children's fantasy movie.  It lacks in cohesive storytelling and continues to leave me a bit bored, but it's not terrible to sit through.

MY RATING: 5/10 (No change from my previous rating)

"High Noon" (1952)

Rank on the AFI List: #27

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
1. It's a western starring Gary Cooper.
2. It's about a guy looking for people in a small town to help him in an impending gun fight with outlaws.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
I had been looking forward to watching this one for a while.  In fact, for some reason, as I got closer to completing this bucket list item, I decided that "High Noon" would be the final "new" film I'd see.  I thought it was a safe bet that I'd like the movie and feel good about ending the AFI list quest on a high note (as opposed to say, any of these films).

Well, I did end up enjoying this movie.  I wouldn't say I loved it, but it had some great things going for it: Gary Cooper's acting, a simple yet compelling story that really made me feel for the main character, and the ultimate use of time as a tension-builder.  In fact, except for a couple edits, this movie moves in real time, which was a pleasant surprise once I noticed it (I wonder if the creators of 24 got their inspiration from this movie).  That really built the tension for me, sort of like a giant wave coming right at you from miles away - it's a steadily-moving doom that's impossible to escape or ignore.  It made the shots of the empty train station and tracks ominous, too - you don't see anything coming, but you know it's only a matter of time.

However, once the climactic ending finally arrived, I felt a bit underwhelmed, though I think that's probably because of all the other movies I have seen that have huge, explosive endings with crazy twists in the action (there is a twist in this one, but it's presented so mildly that you might not even notice it).  For its time, I'd say this was probably a great ending.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
It's a classic western with a story that's extremely simple, but with so much subtext it leaves you thinking about virtue, courage, cowardice, and standing up for what's right (it did for me, at least).  It was nominated for 7 Academy Awards, winning 4 of them (Best Actor, Best Film Editing, Best Song, and Best Music).  For the record, the award-winning song seemed a bit strange and lame in the beginning, but its use throughout the movie, and how the lyrics align with the story, made this one of the most appropriate Oscar-winning songs ever, in my opinion.  Too many songs win when they are only played during the closing credits, and they're over-produced and homogenized - like "Into the West" from Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.

Complaints
The few times they edited scenes in such a way that it ceased to be truly in real-time, and the underwhelming ending.

LET ME SUM UP...
Classic western with a simple story that makes you want to be there for Gary Cooper's character.  A great tension-builder that falls a little flat in the end, but overall a very good movie.

MY RATING: 7/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 100!!!

"Lawrence of Arabia" (1962)

Rank on the AFI List: #7

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
1. It stars Peter O'Toole
2. It's based on a true story
3. The sweeping desert shots are so breathtaking that this is deemed a movie that "must be seen on a big screen."

LET ME EXPLAIN...
I've been stuck at 98 films on this list for quite a long time (over a year, I believe), and #3 above is the main reason why. I wanted to wait and see this film on a big screen - at least bigger than our modest TV at home. And I wanted to make "High Noon" the last film I see on this list (don't ask me why because I don't really know). But alas, with my first baby due in less than 2 weeks, my wife and I decided it might be good to finish off the Top 100 before we're engrossed with caring for a newborn. All that said, I ended up finally watching "Lawrence of Arabia"...on our modest TV at home.

This was a peculiar film. The 1st half was a whole lot of wandering through the desert, and the 2nd half had the story move along quite a bit. However, I found the 1st half to be more interesting and enjoyable, with the 2nd half confusing and disappointing. There was so much in this movie that didn't make sense to me, including motives and natural progressions in the plot, that I didn't really know where the story was going, and I didn't really care. I think I must have missed a lot in the dialogue that I got lost, because I can't figure out how in the world this ranks as a Top 10 film.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?

Breathtaking scenery, good acting, and an epic production are what I can think of, but it's not put together that great (for one thing, my wife and I both felt the opening scene should have been the final scene of the film, to improve both the story-telling as well as adding suspense to the action sequences).  However, it was nominated for 10 Academy Awards, winning 7 of them, including Best Picture, so what do I know?

Complaints:

1. Lawrence was a strange guy that I never felt I knew, even after watching him for almost 4 hours.  He's odd, soft-spoken, flamboyant, narcissistic at times, and his conflicting loyalties didn't help me understand him any better.
2. The scene when Lawrence meets the Turk leader guy after being apprehended is one of the most awkward scenes I've ever seen in a movie.
3. The ending is quite a whimper.  With an epic ranked at #7, I expected this to go out with a bang.  Either I missed some underlying "bang" at the end, or this movie really putters out.

LET ME SUM UP...

Strange main character, difficult-to-follow storytelling, and a weak ending combine with good acting and sweeping desert shots to make this a film I'm glad I finally watched, but I didn't really enjoy it like I thought I would.

MY RATING: 5/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 99

"12 Angry Men" (1957) - RE-WATCH

Rank on the AFI List: #87

Synopsis (according to imdb.com)
A dissenting juror in a murder trial slowly manages to convince the others that the case is not as obviously clear as it seemed in court.

(The trailer I found on YouTube - embedded below - is a pretty good modern-day-style video.  Check it out!)

LET ME EXPLAIN...
I absolutely love this movie.  It's in my Top 3 of all time.  It's one of the most well-acted movies by the entire cast I think there is.  Its attention to detail (in the storytelling, character subtleties, interactions, etc.) is incredibly impressive.  And I find it amazing that a film can provide so much background for so many different characters in such little time and space.

Speaking of "so many different characters", this is a great melting pot of personalities.  In just 12 people, you have a sports fanatic, a businessman, a slumdog, an intellectual, an everyday joe, a racist, a blue collar worker, an elderly man, an immigrant, an angry old man, an upbeat, and a voice of reason.  All forced to sit down together, discuss a case, and come to a consensus.  A great look into American culture, both then and now.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
Great acting.  Great storytelling.  Great cinematography for being set in one room.  IMDB.com rankings have this (as I'm writing this post, at least) as the #6 film of all time, so I'm not the only average joe who thinks this movie is one of the best.  It was nominated for 3 Academy Awards - Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Picture (losing out to The Bridge on the River Kwai in every category).

Complaints
1. This movie didn't even make it onto AFI's first Top 100 list, in 1997 (!!!).
2. When it finally made it onto the list in 2007, it's way down at #87 (!!!!!!!).
3. It's ranked lower on the list than Titanic (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!).

LET ME SUM UP...
One of the best films ever made.  It's a very simple story, but with great characters and character development.  I get just as excited (if not moreso) when I'm about to sit down and watch this as I do when I'm about to watch The Dark Knight (which, if you know me, is saying a lot).  A must-see.

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

"Titanic" (1997) - PREVIOUS VIEWING

Rank on the AFI List: #83

Synopsis (according to imdb.com)
Fictional romantic tale of a rich girl and poor boy who meet on the ill-fated voyage of the 'unsinkable' ship. 

Note: It's been so long since I've seen this that I probably should watch it again, but I just don't want to...deal with it.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
The love story?  Too contrived.  DiCaprio's acting?  Not very good.  However, this is a fairly good historical portrayal of a devastating event, and the actual ship sinking is pretty impressive.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
It's centered around a major historic event.  It was crazy expensive to make at the time, as they made a smaller version of the whole freakin' ship.  It reigned as the #1 box office success in film history until Avatar.  And James Cameron, love him or hate him, knows how to create an uber-successful movie.  It won 11 Academy Awards, including Best Picture.

Complaints:
I'm at least glad Leonardo DiCaprio didn't even get nominated for Best Actor, as his performance is probably the most annoying thing about this movie to me.

LET ME SUM UP...
Typical Hollywood-esque ill-fated romance, but with impressive effects once the ship starts sinking.

MY RATING: 5/10

"Forrest Gump" (1994) - RE-WATCH

Rank on the AFI List: #76

Synopsis (according to imdb.com)
Forrest Gump, while not intelligent, has accidentally been present at many historic moments, but his true love, Jenny, eludes him.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
For some reason, this film tends to be fairly polarizing.  I know people who absolutely love this movie.  I also know just as many people who loathe it.  Not sure why it's so divisive, but I'm happy to say that I belong in the "I love it" boat.

"Forrest Gump" is a heartwarming film, filled with great humor, thoughtful themes on life and death, and historical moments.  It's almost like being guided through a tour of late 20th century history by a loving, cheerful child.  It's a unique perspective from someone who's very easy to care about.

In that same vein, for taking place during such a complicated time in American history, I'm extremely impressed at the film's ability to illustrate how a true innocent managed to experience all that Forrest Gump did and sincerely remain just as innocent in the end.  It's a refreshing thought that a person could actually maintain a child-like heart that doesn't know any better than to be honest, loving, and selfless no matter what they're facing.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
"Forrest Gump" is sort of a hybrid of both emotions and American history, which I think is a major factor.  It's a love story, a drama, a comedy, an adventure flick, a war movie, a history lesson, a coming-of-age story, and a biopic (even if it's of a fictional character).  On top of that, it's a very well-made film with top-notch acting, direction, music, and overall production.  "Forrest Gump" was nominated for 13 Academy Awards, winning 6 of them for Best Picture, Director, Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Editing, and Visual Effects (how exactly DID they remove Gary Sinise's legs back in 1994??  I've always wondered that...).

Complaints:
I've been sitting here for about 5 minutes trying to think of anything specific I didn't really like about this movie, and I just can't think of anything.

LET ME SUM UP...
Great, great movie about a simpleton who lives life to the fullest.  An all-around terrific story that's fun, dramatic, inspiring, and full of heart.

MY RATING: 9/10 (1.0 higher from my previous rating)

"Wizard of Oz" (1939) - RE-WATCH

Rank on the AFI List: #10

Synopsis (according to imdb.com, as if you need one)
Dorothy Gale is swept away to a magical land in a tornado and embarks on a quest to see the Wizard who can help her return home.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
Really, though, what's there to explain?  Everybody knows this movie, the story, the lines, the songs, and the characters.  It may not have much in character development or real depth, but it's a family movie about imagination, a magical land, and the message that "there's no place like home."  It's not trying to be Chinatown or On the Waterfront, so I can't fault it for not trying to be something it's not.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
Quite simply, it's the most iconic film ever made.  I can't think of any other movie that has permeated pop culture as much as "Wizard of Oz".  It also had wonderful art direction, though that Academy award went to Gone with the Wind.  All in all, though, it received 6 Oscar nominations, winning 2, for Best Song and Best Score.

Complaints:
They spend way too much time in munchkin land.  And while I said earlier that I can't fault this movie for not having much character development or depth, those are two things I really appreciate in a film.

LET ME SUM UP...
Cute and well-made family film that has no equal when it comes to its influence on popular culture.

MY RATING: 6/10

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

Rank on the AFI List: #65

Synopsis (according to imdb.com)
In Africa during WW1, a gin-swilling riverboat owner/captain is persuaded by a strait-laced missionary to use his boat to attack an enemy warship.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
This was actually the last movie on the AFI List that I watched before I decided to start this blog.  I remember thinking it was a pretty good adventure movie the first time I saw it, so I wondered what - if anything - might change in my opinion after a second viewing.

Unfortunately, I ended up not really liking it as much the second time.  For being a movie featuring two Hollywood legends - albeit aging ones - the acting wasn't all that memorable.  Plus, their whole relationship is a bit cooky: Bogart's flirting with the hippos, and his use of "old girl" as some sort of endearing nickname for his brand new beau, are two examples.  There's also a real lack of backstory for any of the characters.  Giving them more depth would have helped me care more, and I like to care.  Awwww.

On the positive side, there were some exciting scenes of the boat going through river rapids.  Additionally, the plot is intriguing.  Whenever I started to lose interest in the movie (due to the issues mentioned above), remembering the plot helped bring me back each time...even if the ending isn't really THAT exciting.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
Thanks to the Special Features on the DVD, I can pretty much confirm the reason this is on the AFI List: it was one of the first-ever Hollywood movies filmed "on location" (virtually all movies up to that point were shot in film studios).  On top of that, they didn't just go to some nearby city or lake to shoot; they traveled to Africa and shot in the middle of the wild.  All that to say, "The African Queen" was groundbreaking for filming on location in the jungle.  It was also nominated for 4 Academy Awards, with Humphrey Bogart winning the lone statue for this film, for Best Actor.

Complaints:
I already mentioned them, but the lack of backstory for the main characters made this film a bit shallow.  The cooky-ness of the relationship between Bogart and Hepburn was also strange, and a bit embarrassing to watch at times.  And come on, you two just became a couple, so quit pretending like it's a rock-solid, years-old relationship you're both in that's sustaining you through the tough trip down river.  You're barely into the honeymoon phase...

LET ME SUM UP...
For being a combination of an action adventure/romantic comedy/war movie, this is a bit shallow for me to fully appreciate.  Bogart's character in particular was a little embarrassing to watch, though apparently it was good enough to win the Oscar for Best Actor.  The simple plot of a dangerous trek into hostile territory, however, kept me interested enough to not completely dislike "The African Queen".

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

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

Rank on the AFI List: #66

Synopsis (according to imdb.com)
Archeologist and adventurer Indiana Jones is hired by the US government to find the Ark of the Covenant before the Nazis.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
At the risk of being lambasted for this, I don't get the love affair everyone seems to have with this movie.  I watched it a number of times growing up, and it's enjoyable enough, but it's never been anywhere near the top of my favorites list.  I was further mystified when a fellow AFI blogger watched this movie for the very first time just recently (you can read her post here).  That right there goes against my thought that people love this because it's one of those classics they grew up with.  Apparently not!

Having said all that, I feel the need to state again that I don't dislike this movie.  I like it.  It's a fun adventure, and Indiana Jones is arguably the most iconic character in movie history (he was also perfectly cast by Harrison Ford...makes me wonder how successful this franchise would have been if George Lucas's first choice - Tom Selleck - had accepted the part instead).

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
Not really sure.  I'm probably not the best person to answer this question, but here are some of my guesses:
     - The pure adventure of the story is possibly unlike any other.
     - It was the introduction of one of the most iconic, heroic characters in movie history.
     - Great stunts, faraway locations, and classic action sequences.
Those all seem like fairly weak arguments to me.  Oh well.  "Raiders of the Lost Ark" was nominated for 9 Academy Awards, winning 5 of them (Visual Effects, Film Editing, Sound, and Art Direction, as well as a Special Achievement Award for Sound Effects Editing).

Complaints:
Well, the incredibly erroneous assumptions this film took regarding the nature of the Ark of the Covenant is something I, being a Christian, had trouble accepting, even just for the sake of enjoying the story.  This issue also made the ending really lame and ridiculous for me.  Additionally, I felt the movie did a poor job explaining things sometimes (who exactly was that creepy German guy with the glasses?  Why/how the heck did the natives know to perfectly coordinate hiding the truck from the ensuing Nazis?  Etc.).  Also, Marion was a pretty annoying character.

LET ME SUM UP...
Fun adventure with a classic movie icon.  However, the poetic license the film takes, in both storytelling and the Ark itself, leaves me a bit underwhelmed compared to the seemingly vast majority of people who absolutely love this movie.

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

"JAWS" (1975) - RE-WATCH

Rank on the AFI List: #56

Synopsis (according to imdb.com)
When a gigantic great white shark begins to menace the small island community of Amity, a police chief, a marine scientist and grizzled fisherman set out to stop it.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
While not considered a typical horror film, some movie lists rank this as the #1 scariest movie of all time.  Why?  Well, for one thing, sharks are real, and people have been attacked by sharks in real life (I don't recall hearing about too many dead guys coming back to become a serial killer while wearing a hockey mask, or a burn victim being able to murder people via their dreams).  In other words, it's the fear that something like this could actually happen.

For another thing, I heard this movie had a devastating effect on beach attendance the year it came out.  I can't think of another movie that has done something like that in society (Psycho didn't stop people from staying in hotels or taking showers; "Alien" hasn't stopped mankind's desire to explore outerspace, etc.).  One could argue that "JAWS" is the most influential movie ever.

All that being said, this isn't a straight-up horror flick.  It's also an adventure movie and - unlike virtually all horror movies - has some absolutely terrific acting.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
Aside from its incredible influence on popular culture, this is also a flat out well-made film.  Its direction, story, cinematography, and score are all terrific.  But it's the acting that stands out to me more than anything.  The entire film is well acted, especially by Shaw, Scheider, and Dreyfus.  In fact, one of my favorite scenes of all time is when those three guys are in the cabin of the boat at night talking.  The conversation goes from silly to eery through nothing more than top-notch acting and great writing (Robert Shaw's description of being on the USS Indianapolis - a true event in history - is extremely chilling - see the video clip below).  "JAWS" was nominated for 4 Academy Awards, winning three of them (Film Editing, Score, and Sound).

Complaints:
The scene when Dreyfus is in the cage underwater, getting attacked by the shark.  For some reason, it really bothers me that the shots underwater don't match up with the above-water shots from the boat.  What do I mean...?
Underwater Shot: Shark is tearing the cage apart, with parts of its body thrashing in and out of the water...
Above-water Shots: No sign of a shark - or fin, or anything - breaching the water during the attack.
It's really a pretty minor continuity issue, but it just bugs me every time I watch it.

LET ME SUM UP...
Very well-made horror/adventure film that has arguably influenced society more than any other.  Very good acting and film-making all around.

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

"Star Wars" (1977) - RE-WATCH

Rank on the AFI List: #13

Synopsis (according to imdb.com)
Luke Skywalker leaves his home planet, teams up with other rebels, and tries to save Princess Leia from the evil clutches of Darth Vader.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
And so I come to the movie on this list I've watched more than any other.  Yes, I loved Star Wars growing up.  I've watched it countless times, including on Opening Night when they re-released the Special Editions of the originals in the latter half of the 90s.  Surprisingly enough to me, it's been a number of years since I've watched any of the original trilogy, so I was curious to see what I thought of "A New Hope" now.

Well, it's still a great movie.  It's a fun adventure in space, with great effects (for its time), a classic Good vs Evil story, a few quirks I've always loved (my favorite can be seen in the video clip below), and renowned characters.  It's one of the most fun "classics" there is.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
Its special effects were considered groundbreaking when it came out in 1977 (I say "considered" because I thought the effects in 2001: A Space Odyssey were just as good and came out 9 years earlier).  It's also a Good vs Evil tale, it has permeated popular culture for as long as it's been around, and it has one the greatest villains in movie history.  It was nominated for 11 Academy Awards, winning 7 of them (Art/Set Direction, Costume Design, Visual Effects, Film Editing, Musical Score, Sound, and a Special Achievement Award for the creation of all the different alien/creature/robot voices).

Complaints:
Well, considering it's meant to be a fun adventure movie, I can't be too disappointed that the acting isn't all that great (particularly Mark Hamill as Luke Skywalker), and the script is certainly nowhere near as good as Chinatown.  But alas, I still have to bring these issues up.

LET ME SUM UP...
The classic epic fairy tale set in space.  A fun time created in one of the most imaginative galaxies ever, and a movie so firmly implanted in society that everyone should see this at least once in their lifetime - just not for its acting or screenwriting.

MY RATING: 9/10 (1 lower from my previous rating)

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

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)