"The Maltese Falcon" (1941) - RE-WATCH

Rank on the AFI List: #31

Synopsis (according to AFI):
Bogart's Sam Spade is the detective whose partner is murdered.  The cops are after him and he's after the woman who hired his partner, which leads them to Greenstreet and Lorre, who are all after a priceless statuette.  Bogart suggested the take on Shakespeare: "The, uh, stuff that dreams are made of."

LET ME EXPLAIN...
I'm a bit confused.  I remember watching this movie in my American Film class in college.  I remember being utterly confused by the plot.  And, I remember thinking the movie was over at least two times before it actually ended.

I prepped myself to pay extra close attention to what's going on this time.  However, when it ended, it felt like a completely different movie: the plot wasn't THAT complicated, and there weren't any "false endings" like last time.  This may beg the question: Are you sure this was the movie you saw in your film class?  Yes, it was.  I remember Humphrey Bogart (as this was the first Bogart film I had ever seen), and I remember the maltese falcon.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
This has been one of the more difficult films to analyze with this question.  In fact, while I've generally based this answer for every other film I've watched during My Quest solely on my own personal opinion, I actually went digging online to see what others say about it.  I just don't know why this is considered such a great movie because nothing really stood out to me.  I'd say the best part is probably the acting (Bogart was great, but I still like him better in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre).  Besides that, I didn't find it to be much of a thriller, or mystery, or even film noir (there are elements of film noir in it, but Double Indemnity is, in my opinion, a much better film noir - and better movie overall).

So what did I find in my online search for why this is one of the greatest films ever made?  Not a whole lot.  It's apparently considered the first film noir (please see above for my opinion of this).  It's also considered a great mystery/thriller.  It actually reminded me a lot of Charade with Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn, but I found "Charade" to be much more entertaining.

Complaints:
While I can't point out any specific complaints, I just wasn't that entertained by this film.

LET ME SUM UP...
It's a better than average film, but not by much.  Humphrey Bogart does a good job in his breakout role, but that's about it.  "Double Indemnity" is a better film noir, and "Charade" is a better movie with a similar plot.

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

"Rear Window" (1954) - RE-WATCH

Rank on the AFI List: #48

Synopsis (according to AFI)
When a broken leg forces photographer Stewart to become wheelchair-bound in his New York city apartment, he amuses himself by spying on his neighbors and soon becomes obsessed when he thinks he has witnessed a murder.  Kelly, as his fashionmodel girlfriend, helps with amateur detective work.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
This was the first film my wife and I watched since I began My Quest that we had actually both already seen before.  But it's so good (and I wanted to blog about it) that we couldn't resist another viewing.

Before it started, I remembered that it was a great thriller.  I remembered the plot.  I also remembered Grace Kelly (my wife would probably kill me if I say anymore about her).  However, what I did NOT remember was how voyeuristic it is.  You spend the majority of the film looking into people's windows, watching them live their lives, completely unaware that someone is looking at them.  That's just creepy in general, but I think it adds to the overall suspense and nervousness of the film.

I also have to add that I think one reason this is such a popular movie is that it's a detective story (just look at how many crime-drama TV shows there are and tell me that people don't get into them), but the investigation is done by average people.  This gives the audience a chance to feel like THEY could solve a murder and do detective work, too.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
First, there's the fact that it's got some great suspense.  Second, that suspense consistently builds up as the story progresses (its crescendo is as steady as any film I've seen).  And to top it off, the entire film (except for one short scene) is set in one room.  To be able to create such a great thriller while only using one set is a great testimony to Hitchcock and how "Rear Window" is one of the best - and most unique - films ever made.

Complaints
In my opinion, the love story saga between Jimmy Stewart and Grace Kelly tended to "get in the way" of moving the plot along.  It didn't really add anything to the story.  Of course, it was a reason to have Grace Kelly in the film, so I can't really complain too much (on that note, my wife's complaint would probably be Grace Kelly is in this movie).

LET ME SUM UP...
Classic Hitchock film with great suspense, though it's a tad uncomfortable to watch because it's so voyeuristic.  Nevertheless, it's a great movie and quite entertaining.

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

"The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" (1948)

Rank on the AFI List: #38

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:

Only that it had the famous line "We don't need no stinking badges!" (actually, the quote is "Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges!")

LET ME EXPLAIN...
Having not read the synopsis for this film before watching it (I've done that for a handful of these movies because I sometimes like to go in with a blank slate), I was surprised that it's not so much an adventure film as it is a statement about what greed can do to a person.  I was expecting to see a lot of action, but instead I got a lot of thought-provoking situations and performances, and those are what make this a good movie.

Humphrey Bogart, in particular, is phenomenal.  In fact, this is my favorite performance of his (comparing that to his roles in Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, and The African Queen, all of which are also on the AFI List).  I was shocked to discover he wasn't even nominated for an Oscar.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
Besides being an all-around well done movie, "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" is a great examination of what greed can do to people, and (maybe even more importantly) how a person's response to financial gain or loss can shape his or her entire life.  This illustration of one of mankind's most primal and sinister desires is why I think it's considered one of the best films ever made.

Not really a complaint, but...
I wasn't sure how much I was liking this movie as I was watching it.  While I expected an adventure, I got something else, and it wasn't until after the movie ended and I talked about it with my wife that I started to really like it.  It's the examination of the characters and their actions that I really liked about the movie, and not so much the film itself.

LET ME SUM UP...
This is a well done and thought-provoking illustration of greed.  It's also the best performance by Humphrey Bogart that I have seen so far.

MY RATING: 7/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 70

"Swing Time" (1936)

Rank on the AFI List: #90

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
Only that it was a musical.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
This is considered one of the best films by famous dancing pair Fred Estaire and Ginger Rogers.  And for me, it's the first and only film I've seen of theirs.  I'll say this: they are incredible dancers.  One of the most impressive things to see in this movie is how they move together, as if they're one graceul person rather than two separate people (specifically, watch how in sync they bounce together).  And I have to point out that the number they do in the dance class is easily my favorite part of the whole film.

There's some good humor in this as well (which right there makes it better than A Night at the Opera), some famous songs that are fun, and an unexpectedly large amount of gambling.  But it's the dancing of Estaire and Rogers that make this movie. 

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?

Fred Estaire and Ginger Rogers are a very famous dancing couple who made ten films together.  "Swing Time" is considered by many to be their best.  I have to think this is the reason it's on the AFI list.

Complaints:

A well conceived plot and good storyline are lacking, to say the least.  I found myself thinking throughout the film: "I don't get that character's motive for doing what they're doing in this scene", but I eventually realized that this movie is about the dancing and not the story.  Nevertheless, I like a good story and would prefer a little more effort in establishing motives for the actions of characters.

Another complaint: there's a big dance number in the middle of the movie with Estaire and a bunch of other dancers, but it was boring, odd, and too long (which, strangely enough, reminded me and my wife of the extended dance number in "Singin' in the Rain", which drags on for 10 minutes and is also more weird than enjoyable - was this a requirement for musicals back in the day or something?).

LET ME SUM UP...

This is a better than average movie, if for nothing more than to see some great dancing by Fred Estaire and Ginger Rogers.  It's certainly not worth watching for its plot or character development, but it's a lighthearted musical that doesn't try to be something it's not.

MY RATING: 5.5/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 69

"The Deer Hunter" (1978)

Rank on the AFI List: #53

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
Just one thing: it stars Robert De Niro.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
As a general big picture, I get the idea of what this movie is saying: the Vietnam War forever and drastically altered the lives of both those who fought in it and their loved ones back home.

But if you ask me to explain some of the more minor ideas, symbolisms, and themes in "The Deer Hunter", I couldn't tell you what they were.  In fact, there were countless moments, lines, and shots in this film where I thought, "hmm, that's really saying something significant...and I have no idea what that is..."  Because of this, I found myself somewhat frustrated and bored.

Random Note: I didn't realize that so much of this film is centered around Russian Roulette.  I can definitely see how playing this "game" could make a person lose their mind.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
I'm starting to think that a lot of the films on the AFI List are there because they illustrate significant times in American history.  I have to think "The Deer Hunter" is one of them, even though I wasn't overly impressed with it from a movie-making standpoint.  But in terms of how the Vietnam War changed those who fought in it and challenged the bonds of friendship, this movie is a good portrayal.  It also won 5 Academy Awards, including Best Picture in 1978.

Complaints:
This film lacks a sense of what "relevent footage" means.  It's just over three hours long, and so much of it is filled with seemingly pointless footage and extended scenes that have no reason to be extended.  Yet the scenes that move the story along seem cut short and disconnected.

LET ME SUM UP...
While "The Deer Hunter" has an overarching theme about the Vietnam War, all of the smaller themes were lost on me.  On top of that, this movie could have easily been better and closer to two hours instead of three if they would have cut out all the pointless footage and replaced some of it with story-connecting scenes.  I'm not a fan of this film.

MY RATING: 3/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 68

"The Bridge on the River Kwai" (1957)

Rank on the AFI List: #36

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THIS MOVIE:
Only that it's some sort of war movie.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
Let me just start out by saying that I really like the plot for this movie: British POWs in a WWII Japanese prison camp are forced to build a bridge for the Japanese, and the captured British colonel is dedicated to building it to perfection.  Meanwhile, an American POW who escapes the prison camp must return on a mission to sabotage the very same bridge.

That's a unique and very interesting plot, if you ask me.

As for the movie itself, I can break it down into two parts: the first hour and 40 minutes, and the last hour.

The first hour and 40 minutes just seemed OK.  It really felt like they were taking the time to set up the last hour of the movie (which they did), but by itself, I didn't think the first half was all that impressive.

The last hour of the film, on the other hand, was great.  The plot really seemed to start moving along to the inevitably climactic ending, and I thought it began to take itself more seriously, which is what I was expecting from a war movie.  By the end, I was a fan.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
I didn't come up with an answer to this question until after the movie ended.  My wife asked me why I thought this was a Top 100 movie, and my first response was "I don't know why."  Then we started talking about the ending and particular characters, and I realized how thought-provoking the film is.  We sat there discussing the movie for quite awhile before I said, "maybe this is why it's considered such a great movie.  There's so much to analyze."  This film also won 7 Academy Awards including Best Picture, and Best Actor for Alec "Obi-Wan" Guinness, who was particularly good in his role.

Complaint:
The soundtrack!  Oh my gosh it was bugging me!  I was prepared to get into a war-movie mood (serious, somber, etc.), and the somewhat cheesy army marching music and whistling seemed very counter-intuitive.  And yet, this film won an Academy Award for "Best Music, Scoring," so I don't know how I feel about that.  In fact, the only time I liked the music was at the very end because the lighthearted happiness of it seemed SO contradictory to what was happening that it was "inappropriately appropriate", if that makes sense.

LET ME SUM UP...
This film has a great plot.  And while I felt underwhelmed with the first 100 minutes - and irritated by the soundtrack - the final hour was great.  The ending was particularly good and begs to be analyzed because so much happens, and depending on which character you focus on, the happenings are different.  The intricacies of the ending make this a movie that should probably be watched more than once.

MY RATING: 6.5/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 67

"Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" (1939) - RE-WATCH

Rank on the AFI List: #26

Synopsis (according to AFI):
Appointed to the US Senate because the power brokers believe they've got a hayseed on their hands, Jefferson Smith surprises everyone with his honesty and gravitas.  Framed by the political machine that cleverly twists the truth, Smith almost waves a white flag, but Clarissa Saunders gives him a fast lesson in civics.  Filibuster!!!

LET ME EXPLAIN...
I saw this movie a few years ago and really liked it.  I like Jimmy Stewart, and I like the director Frank Capra (who also directed It's a Wonderful Life, #20 on the AFI List).  From my viewing experience, Capra films include a little cheese and a lot of human spirit triumph.

"Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" has both the cheese and the triumph, but if you ask me, the cheese is a little too thick.  There's a bit too much fanfare throughout the film (in contrast, "It's a Wonderful Life" thankfully and appropriately saves it all for the very end).  There were also more corny moments than I remembered the first time I watched it.  Nevertheless, it's still a neat movie to watch and sadly amazing to see how politics 70 years ago were just as corrupt and meddlesome as they are today.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
This film is worth watching just to get an inside look at how the U.S. Senate and our government system works.  I would argue that this is why "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" is considered one of the best in American film history.  I just don't think it's put together all that well from a strictly movie-making standpoint, so it must be the content that merits the honor of it being the 26th best American film ever.

Complaints:
I already mentioned the cheese factor.  On top of that, I felt this movie was missing a very important scene.  I really believe it needed to better illustrate just how much Claude Rains' character wanted to become President and how his whole life was dedicated to that achievement.  This would have made the ending much more powerful.

LET ME SUM UP...
This is truly a "Patriotic" film.  It's a great look into Congress and how our political system works.  However, it's a bit cheesy and lacking one very important scene, in my opinion.  Nevertheless, if you're an American, it's a movie worth watching at least once in your life.

MY RATING: 6/10 (2 lower from my previous rating)