"Ben-Hur" (1959)

Rank on the AFI List: #100

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
1) It stars Charlton Heston.
2) It has a famous chariot race scene.
3) It's some sort of Biblical epic.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
Finally getting around to watch this famous epic brought about a few surprises - good and bad - to me...

First, the good surprise: I didn't know it was a story told with the life of Jesus Christ as an intertwining side story.  As a Christian, I thought this brought a neat perspective of how "regular folks" around Jerusalem and Nazareth may have experienced and talked about Jesus during that time.

Next, the bad surprise: I didn't think I could spend 4 hours watching a movie and end up only knowing the characters superficially, but that's exactly what happened.  This is difficult to explain, but I'll try by using another 4-hour epic, Gone with the Wind, as an example.

In "Gone with the Wind", you really get to know the characters personally.  You learn their personalities, their passions, and their flaws.  You understand why they do what they do - even if it's irrational - because it fits who you know them to be.  You understand why Scarlett would vow, under God, to lie, cheat, and steal.  You can see why she antagonizes Rhett while depending on him to always be there.  And it makes perfect sense why Rhett ends up not giving a damn.

In "Ben-Hur", I never felt like the characters were exposed to the audience in the same way.  Yes, you learn how heroic Ben-Hur is, and that he loves his family, but that's about it (and really, how hard is it that?  Most people love their family, and if you put a characater in a situation where they can save people and do, you think of them as heroic.).  However, I never understood any of the characters past a generic "of course they would do that because that's what anyone would do" viewpoint.  What this film needed was a better script with more character vulnerability.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
It's a massive epic: over 300 sets were built for the film, and it featured more crew and extras than any other film ever made before it (there were 15,000 extras for the chariot race sequence alone).  Considering the scale of the film, it was done very well.  The aforementioned chariot race sequence was VERY impressive and deserves to be mentioned as one of the greatest scenes in movie history (it took 2 months to shoot the sequence and cost $1 million to produce).  It also won 11 Academy Awards, more than any other film before it (and not matched until "Titanic" in 1997), even though my wife and I really didn't think Charlton Heston's performance was worthy of the Best Actor award.

Complaints?
Along with the lack of character vulnerability I mentioned earlier, the beginning was slow with drawn-out scenes.  In fact, there were scenes throughout the film that seemed longer than necessary.  This did not have to be a 4-hour movie.

LET ME SUM UP...
Slow parts, but good action scenes, especially the famous chariot race.  The script seemed a bit shallow and didn't allow the audience to really get to know the characters too much.  The story itself is a neat idea, from a Christian perspective, to look at the life of Christ through the eyes of people who weren't necessarily followers - nor enemies - of His.

MY RATING: 5.5/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 77

"West Side Story" (1961) - RE-WATCH

Rank on the AFI List: #51

Synopsis (according to AFI):
The Romeo and Juliet tale gets resurfaced on the streets of New York with music by Leonard Bernstein and lyrics by Stephen Sondheim, based on their breakthrough Broadway hit.  The Sharks and the Jets mix it up for some of the most memorable dance sequences in film history.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
Let me start by saying this is kind of a re-watch for me in that I remember seeing it on the television in band class when we'd have a sub, but I never really paid much attention.  However, I did include this in my initial post as one of the films I had already seen.  Oh well...

Anyway, this viewing taught me something about myself: I'm really not a fan of the musical genre.  I thought I was because "Singin' in the Rain" is a great movie, and I really enjoyed the live production of "Les Miserables", "The Lion King", and "Blood Brothers".  Maybe I'm just more of a fan of live musicals, but even considering that, I have absolutely no desire to ever see "West Side Story" live (nor "Cats" for that matter.  Even though that has nothing to do with anything about this post, I just wanted to include that in my list of musicals I never want to see).

I was bored 15 minutes into this (I know because I remember thinking "Oh man....another 2 hours and 15 minutes to go...").  I was not a fan of the music, which surprised me because most famous musicals have at least a few numbers that are catchy and fun.  I didn't think any of the songs in this were really that good.

There was also the difficulty of getting into the story.  First, when it's about supposed "tough" gangs in New York, but you see them twirling in the air and dance-fighting with their rivals, it's REALLY difficult to not mock.  On top of that, the love story was pretty weak (I sensed NO chemistry between the two leads, though the girl did the best she could in her role).

The only real redeeming part of the movie was the ending.  It was a fairly good and climactic ending, but the rest of it was tough to get through.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
I'm the wrong guy to ask.  For some reason it's an acclaimed musical, and the AFI synopsis says it has some of the most memorable dance sequences in film history.  Whatever.  It also - somehow - won 10 Academy Awards, including Best Picture.  I'm perplexed, because I thought this was a pretty lame movie (though the leader of the Sharks DID have a performance worthy of the Best Supporting Actor Oscar he won).

Complaints?
See above.

LET ME SUM UP...
I may be in the minority here, but I did not like this movie.  The music and lyrics were surprisingly bad, the dancing - while done well - was a horrible style to depict two street gangs in a turf war.  The love story was weak with little chemistry.  The ending made the movie not a TOTAL waste, but still not enough to redeem the rest of it.

MY RATING: 3/10 (1 lower from my previous rating)

"The Best Years of Our Lives" (1946)

Rank on the AFI List: #37

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
1) It's about US soldiers who fought in World War II returning to the lives they left behind.
2) One of the stars wasn't a professional actor, but an actual soldier who lost his hands fighting in the war.
3) I just might cry watching this.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
I came into this movie with high expectations.  Ever since I first heard about it in my American Film class, I wanted to see it.  With its compelling storyline, I anticipated a great movie, and while the beginning feel of the movie wasn't quite what I was hoping, I ended up loving it by the time it was over.

Never before had a 3-hour black and white movie gone by so fast, with so many great, "real" characters to appreciate and care about (especially Harold Russell, who was a real US soldier who lost his hands in the war).  This is an absolutely wonderful movie, and when it ended I asked my wife what she thought.  Her response: "The best movie I've ever seen.  Ever."

And for those of you who are wondering what the answer to #3 of "What I Already Knew About the Movie" is, I'll admit it.  I got misty-eyed several times and only avoided a full-on cry because I fought so hard to keep from doing so.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
From a historical standpoint, it's about America just after World War II.  The film even came out just after the war ended, so I imagine that it encapsuled everything Americans were going through at the time.  From a filmmaking standpoint, it was an extremely well-done movie with a great screenplay, wonderful cinematography and camera angles, fantastic acting, and characters that were real and gritty while simulaneously noble and great examples of why they're called "the greatest generation".  It cleaned up at the Academy Awards, winning 8 of them, including Best Picture (the same year It's a Wonderful Life was nominated, which should tell you something).  Another awards tidbit I noticed on imdb.com: "The Best Years of Our Lives" was nominated for 17 total awards from 7 different film institutes, and there was only one it did NOT win (the Oscar for Best Sound).  I don't mean to hype up this movie too much, but this was one of the easiest films to answer the question of why it's considered one of the best ever made.

Complaints
This is more my fault than the movie's, but the beginning didn't quite seem as sharp as I was expecting/hoping (it's really hard to explain, so I won't try).  Other than that, this film was amazing.

LET ME SUM UP...
My wife says this is the best movie she has ever seen.  I had high expectations before watching it, and I was not disappointed when it was over.  It has some of the best moments in movie history, some of the best characters in movie history, and it tells a story that really happened for so many Americans.  I highly, HIGHLY recommend seeing this film.

MY RATING: 9.5/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 76

"Chinatown" (1974) - RE-WATCH

Rank on the AFI List: #21

Synopsis (according to AFI):
An evocative score is the backdrop for 1930s Los Angeles, Nicholson is a private eye investigating the murder of Dunaway's husband.  But that's just the tip of Towne's unforgettable screenplay, where water rights, land deals and corruption clash with the unbearable secrets between a father and daughter on a lonely street in Chinatown.  "Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown."

LET ME EXPLAIN...
I watched this film in the American Film class that inspired My Quest.  I thought it was alright back then, but I really liked it this time.  It's full of great acting, has an interesting plot (one you need to pay close attention to, though, because it's a bit complicated), and it has one of the best screenplays of any film I've seen before.

I was especially interested to watch this again so I could try and figure out the significance of why this film is called Chinatown (something I couldn't figure out after the first viewing).  I'd love to discuss my analysis here, but that might spoil it for those of you who haven't seen this yet.  All I will say is discussing the meaning of Chinatown with my wife after it ended was a lot of fun and gave the entire movie a deeper layer.  It also makes "Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown" not only one of AFI's Top 100 Movie Quotes of all time, but one of my favorites as well.  That quote speaks volumes to what this movie is about (and it's not about racism against Chinese people, if that's what you were thinking).

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
An amazing script, great acting, plot twists that the audience doesn't even expect, and a great tribute to the film noir genre from the 40s and 50s.  It also carries some historical significance since it's centered on the drought in Los Angeles during the 1930s.  It was nominated for 11 Academy Awards, winning Best Screenplay (it could have won 4 more if The Godfather Part II didn't come out that same year).

Complaints?
Just like my wife, I couldn't really find any particular fault with this movie, except that it was directed by a pedophile (Roman Polanski) and has a pretty complicated plot that doesn't necessarily resolve.

LET ME SUM UP...
A modern day film noir classic, this movie has an amazing screenplay.  It can get a bit confusing if you're not paying close attention to what's going on from scene to scene, but the significance of "Chinatown" in the story is a great focal point to think about once the credits start rolling.

MY RATING: 8.5/10 (1.5 higher than my previous rating)

"Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" (1966)

Rank on the AFI List: #67

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
1) It stars Elizabeth Taylor.
2) It's about a dinner party with a bickering married couple.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
This film started out with so much promise.  It reminded me of Meet the Parents and The Dinner Party episode from The Office because it was so uncomfortably awkward while simultaneously REALLY funny.  The lines were witty, and the young couple that comes over for a drink were great as the proper and polite audience trying their best not to show how uncomfortable they are.

Unfortunately, once the scene changes to the swing outside, the entire movie collapses to me.  The comedy evaporates, and the story gets weird, serious, and hard to understand.  When the movie ended, I had just about as many questions as I did after watching 2001: A Space Odyssey.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
I'm struggling to come up with an answer to this.  Sure, it was well acted (Elizabeth Taylor won an Oscar for her role, and Richard Burton was nominated), but not to the point that it becomes the 67th greatest film of all time.  The plot, while being a sad examination of what I'm sure some marriages are really like, didn't seem all that gripping or significant to me.  It was just sad, but the script got really confusing as the movie progressed.  Of course, this was nominated for 13 Academy Awards, winning 5 of them, so for some reason it's considered an amazing film. (Think about that for a moment.  This movie was nominated for 13 Oscars.  That's a ton for one film.  Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring had the same number of nominations in 2001.  Titanic, which shattered box office records in 1997, only had one more nomination than that.)

Complaints
Everything after the initial scene with the four main characters.  Once that scene ends, the movie gets confusing, weird, and not very enjoyable.

LET ME SUM UP...
I'd recommend watching the first part of this film.  It's funny with great wit and some classic awkward moments.  Once you see Richard Burton sitting in the tree swing in the front yard, you can turn it off.

MY RATING: 2/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 75

"2001: A Space Odyssey" (1968)

Rank on the AFI List: #15

Synopsis (according to AFI):
Kubrick's science fiction epic puts mankind in context between ape and space voyager.  The film created a stir for its special effects, the computer HAL, and the debate about the meaning of the film's final sequence.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
The only other time I watched this movie was in an 8th grade classroom.  I was confused by it way back then, and after another viewing I still think it's a trippy movie.  The effects are great and groundbreaking for 1968 (that's nine years before Star Wars came to theaters and wowed audiences with its special effects).  But there really seems to be no clear thread of connection throughout the movie except for the big black slab.

I have been to a rave before (believe it or not, but there was a rave on campus while I was in college and my friends and I checked it out), and it was pretty weird.  The ending of this film reminded me of the rave for one reason alone: you have to be on acid to appreciate either.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
Well, it's considered to be the first "real" science-fiction movie, so that right there would be a major reason.  Also, as I mentioned above, the special effects (for which this film won its lone Academy Award) are quite impressive.  And I'll admit - somewhat begrudgingly - that perhaps the absolutely crazy ending which spawns so much debate over its meaning adds to this film's acclaim.

Complaints:
I'm with the popular opinion here that the film is too slow.  Yes, I realize things take awhile in space, but show us once that it takes a long time to get from A to B as opposed to showing us EVERY time.  Other complaints I mentioned earlier: connect the story more and don't be so entirely off-the-wall with the ending.  It's no use to me to even analyze what it might mean if I don't think the creators even bothered to think about what it might mean (this is the exact same reason I hate "modern art").

LET ME SUM UP...
Impressive special effects, but a slow moving film with a ridiculously weird ending.  Too ludicrious to even try to analyze.

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

"Network" (1976)

Rank on the AFI List: #64

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
1) It was about a TV network
2) It stars Faye Dunaway
3) The famous line: "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!"

LET ME EXPLAIN...
I found it sadly funny that, being a movie that satirizes TV executives doing anything they can for better ratings, this didn't seem too far off from what television (specifically TV news) has actually become.  Regardless of your opinion on cable news (or which channels are fair and which are biased), this movie illustrates a transition from straight news to opinionated political grandiosity that is present on cable news today.  It was fascinating to watch this satire from 1976 in 2010.

Something that made this movie stand out to me was all the monologues.  I think every character had at least one major monologue pertaining to their view on life, the media, and the messy web that entangles them.  Several characters gave multiple monologues.  I appreciated these because you really got to know who the characters were, and one monologue toward the end helped sum up the point of the movie, which really helped me enjoy it more than I would have had it not been included.

I also thought the film was poignant in having characters without heart and soul; they're people going about life without any real care or compassion for others.  It's as if working in television has taken away what makes them truly human.  Sounds a bit like what happens when we watch too much television, doesn't it?

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
For one thing, it's a very well-done satire on a topic related to cinema (television).  It also seemed like it was an "anti-establishment" film that focuses on waking "a sleeping giant", which I could see might be considered significant and controversial for America (especially in the 70's).  It also had good acting (though I wasn't that impressed with Peter Finch as Howard Beale, though he won the very first posthumous Academy Award for Best Actor).  It was nominated for 10 Academy Awards, winning four: three for acting and one for writing.

Complaints:
I can't really put my finger on it, but how the movie moved along seemed a bit slow and dull at times.  And like I said earlier, had it not been for a monologue toward the end, I would have been a bit lost on the point of the movie.

LET ME SUM UP...
"Network" is an interesting film to watch in today's media climate because what was satire in the 70's is very close to reality in the 21st century.  It was well acted (Faye Dunaway's performance was my favorite) and well written with a TON of character monologues.  Not exactly the most entertaining film, but it's an interesting statement about the media.

MY RATING: 6/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 74