"Unforgiven" (1992)

Rank on the AFI List: #68

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
It's a Western, starring Clint Eastwood, Morgan Freeman, and Gene Hackman, and directed by Clint Eastwood.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
I have to admit, there was a fair amount of anticipation for me to see this movie. This was the first Clint Eastwood Western I had ever seen, and everyone I know who had already seen it always say things like "SUCH a great movie" at just the mention of its name.

However, when my wife and I saw another Western, "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" (rated #73 on AFI's list), we didn't like it. Or more appropriately, we didn't get it. We'd heard from so many people how great that film was, but we thought it was slow and we never really got into the plot. (If anybody can explain to me why that movie is so good, please leave a comment on here and tell me.) So with this being really only the 2nd Western I had ever seen after "Butch Cassidy", I was nervous I wouldn't like this one, either.

Fortunately, I did like this movie. Actually, I liked the movie right up until the ending. Then I loved it.

I really don't know how to discuss what I thought about "Unforgiven" without giving away anything to those who haven't already watched it. My wife and I spent a good half hour after it ended talking about what we both thought, and the crux for every topic - all the character development, every crucial scene or piece of dialogue, etc. - is dependent on seeing this movie in its entirety. It's like watching a mystery whodunnit: most of it might not make much sense or seem that great until you find out who the murderer is. Then, after the big revelation, you end up thinking the whole movie is great (at least, I do). "Unforgiven" isn't a mystery whodunnit, but it has that same dependency on the ending to make every other scene better. And it delivered. Trust me on that!

Why is this a "Top 100" Movie?
While being an admitted "Western novice", I felt watching "Unforgiven" educated me on what a good Western should be. Of course, not having a lot of viewing experience to compare it to in that genre, I can only say that I at least know that this particular Western is awesome. This movie also speaks volumes into the complexities of life and morals in the Old West, particularly regarding the act of killing a person (which most Old West examples I've seen portray killing as practically just another job, but this film rightly conveys it as a difficult and horrible act to commit). So I'm inclined to say it's a Top 100 movie because it's an epic Western, but in my opinion, it's just an awesome movie. It also won multiple awards for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Supporting Actor (Gene Hackman) in 1992.

Not really a complaint, but...
Through most of "Unforgiven", Clint Eastwood's acting seemed to be wooden and emotionless. But - once again - the ending changed all that for me. I ended up seeing his character as someone fighting emotion and his natural tendencies which - to me - explained his "wooden" demeanor. Plus, Clint Eastwood at the end was entirely believable, so this is just another example of how the ending made the entire movie - including Eastwood's acting - better.

LET ME SUM UP...
I would not call myself a fan of Western films by any means, but this movie was awesome. It's a fantastic example of how an ending can kick the rest of a movie up a notch just by being so good (Vertigo is another classic example of this). When the movie ended, I almost wanted to start watching it all over again to see just how much better I'd like the rest of it after knowing how it ends.

MY RATING: 9/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 56

"Platoon" (1986)

Rank on the AFI List: #86

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
Only 2 things:
1) It starred Charlie Sheen
2) It's about the Vietnam War

LET ME EXPLAIN...
This is the third "Vietnam" movie I have seen. The first one being "We Were Soldiers" (decent, but it felt more like a Mel Gibson movie than a Vietnam War movie), and "Apocalypse Now", which I would categorize not so much as a Vietnam movie (though it does convey the horrors of it very well), but more of a horror story set in the Vietnam War (if that makes sense). "Platoon", in my opinion, has been the best example of showing what fighting in the Vietnam War was like.

Being too young to have lived through Vietnam, I've always been a little confused about why we were there, though I keep getting the feeling most people were confused why we were there while we were there. This film did nothing to make me think otherwise. In fact, if I had to describe "Platoon" in two words, it would be TOTAL AMBIGUITY... What are we doing here? Who's really in charge here? Who are the real bad guys? At a confusing time in American history, this movie does an excellent job of illustrating how confusing being in the war must have been.

Another quick note on the overall story: the tagline for the film is "The first casualty of war is innocence." This is spot on in "Platoon", and Charlie Sheen's character is the perfect illustration of that.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
When I think of what movie probably conveys World War 2 the best, "Saving Private Ryan" immediately comes to mind.  And now when I think of what movie probably conveys the Vietnam War the best, I'll think of "Platoon".  It's a very well done film about a significant war in American history.  It was also nominated for 8 Academy Awards, winning 4 of them, including Best Picture and Best Director.

Not really a complaint, but...
At first I was disappointed at the lack of back-story for practically every character in the movie. You only get tiny hints of where guys came from and what they did back home, but then I realized that that's something that made the movie better. Why? Well, this movie was very realistic, and it puts the audience in the situation of being a brand new soldier who's thrown into the hell of Vietnam. Just like a new soldier, you don't know the other guys, and you don't know their back-stories. That's more realistic than getting told through flashbacks or heavy monologues why some guys are the way they are. It also added to the ambiguity of the movie because you couldn't truly know what some guys were capable of.

LET ME SUM UP...
"Platoon" was captivating (the 2 hours went by really fast), it was hard to watch, it was sickening, and it was realistic. I was really glad I finally saw it, but I didn't feel like I wanted to ever watch it again. However, it seems like the best illustration on what the Vietnam War was probably like; it was well acted (Tom Berenger and Willem Dafoe were both nominated for Best Supporting Actor, and Charlie Sheen did an excellent job in his transformation from "innocent" to "corrupted by war"); and all that together makes me say this is definitely a film to watch at least once in your life.

MY RATING: 8.5/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 55

"Double Indemnity" (1944)

Rank on the AFI List: #29

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
Only one thing: it's of the film noir genre.

Film Noir, according to the ever-so dependable Wikipedia, is defined as: "a cinematic term used primarily to describe stylish Hollywood crime dramas, particularly those that emphasize moral ambiguity and sexual motivation."

LET ME EXPLAIN...
Seeing as how "Double Indemnity" is a film noir, I was apprehensive about watching it, especially since I didn't like The Maltese Falcon. However, after watching this film, I've come to the conclusion that it's not film noir I dislike.  I'm just not a big fan of "The Maltese Falcon".  In other words, I really liked "Double Indemnity".

What did I like about this movie? Well, the use of lighting and shadows was very cool. I thought Barbara Stanwyck's performance was excellent. Edward G. Robinson was also outstanding, and his character - "Keyes" - was my favorite. But the story itself was easily the best thing about this movie.

It had some outstanding suspense (two scenes in particular I remember feeling REALLY nervous that they were going to get caught), and it was very Hitchcock-esque. And to spend the whole movie hoping the characters get away with murder while their plan continues to unravel (not really spoilers, since you know from the very first scene they don't get away with it) made this movie fly by quickly.  I was surprised when I looked down at the clock and realized there were only about 5 minutes left.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
After watching a special on the DVD's "Bonus Features", I got a pretty good idea why this movie is considered one of the greatest ever. First of all, "Double Indemnity" is considered by many to be the first real American "film noir" movie, and seeing how that genre holds a significant niche in film history, it makes sense that the first great example of it is considered one of the best. The story itself was also quite controversial, as it took 8 years before the Hollywood Production Code allowed it to be filmed because it centered around such an immoral plot (and I'm learning that controversy in a well-made film usually helps boost its significance in film history). It also received seven Oscar nominations in 1944. And from my perspective, the story had great suspense and the basic idea has been re-done so many times since that it seems to be quite the groundbreaking plot.

My complaint (or, in honor of Keyes, "What the little man inside me says")...
The ending. Maybe I missed the subtleties of it, or I just couldn't appreciate it enough. Up until the last 5 to 10 minutes, I was ready to give this a solid 8/10, but the ending seemed really flat and anti-climactic, and it made my opinion of the whole movie drop a bit.

LET ME SUM UP...
This is a great story of suspense and could almost be mistaken for a Hitchcock film. Even though elements in this movie have been re-used in many suspense-thrillers since 1944, I found it to have some original excitement. Up until the ending, I was extremely entertained and found the first hour and 40 minutes to fly by.

MY RATING: 7.5/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 54

"It Happened One Night" (1934)

Rank on the AFI List: #46

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
Only 2 things:
1) It starred Clark Gable
2) It was a romantic comedy

LET ME EXPLAIN...
This is a cute movie. When it started I was a little worried that I wasn't really going to enjoy it because the humor was a bit corny. But as the plot progressed, and the chemistry between Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert began to shine, this became a fun movie.

Without giving any spoilers, I will just say that there were 2 scenes in particular that my wife and I were cracking up out loud at. The first one was when the detectives show up at the motel and Gable and Colbert pretend to be an old married couple. The second - and my personal favorite - was the hitchhiking scene (which involves one of the most overly-used cliches in film and TV, but it must have been strikingly original in this movie). Clark Gable's part in this scene is what really cracked me up, though.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
I can understand why this is considered one of the best movies ever made. From a romantic comedy perspective, I'm assuming this was the first film to use the plotline of "a seemingly incompatible bickering couple fight and argue as they have to stick together, only to fall in love at the end" (and I don't think that's a spoiler since it says they fall in love on the back of the DVD case). That plot idea has been used so many times since then that it stands to reason this movie was groundbreaking in how to create a successful romantic comedy scenario.

This was also the first movie to sweep all the major Academy Awards. It won Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, and Best Screenplay in 1934. And I can see why. The lead actors were terrific (although Clark Gable's character seemed VERY similar to his character in Gone With the Wind. Was he type-casted or something?), and the story and dialogue was often quick and witty.

Complaints:
Some of the humor was a little too corny for me, and Claudette Colbert looked MUCH more like a silent film actress, which was a little weird. And one scene on the bus where people are singing (what sounds like an Irish drinking song) went on a little long. But these were all very minor things that didn't bother me too much.

LET ME SUM UP...
"It Happened One Night" is a cute movie with good chemistry between the two main characters. Two scenes in particular are laugh-out-loud funny, and aside from a little bit of corny humor, this was a fun film to watch.

MY RATING: 7/10

TOTAL # OF FILMED WATCHED: 53

"Gone With the Wind" (1939)

Rank on the AFI List: #6

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
It starred Clark Gable, Vivien Leigh, and it was a love story set in the South during the Civil War (Yeah, I really didn't know very much about it).

LET ME EXPLAIN...
Since I was never shown this movie in school growing up, I didn't think I'd ever see it. I mean....it's a "love story", right? And 4 hours long? No thanks. However, watching movies that are considered classics - no matter what genre they belong to - and broadening my horizons are what My Quest is all about. And thanks to said quest, I ended up seeing a really good movie after all.

However, this movie was different than what I was expecting. I don't get when people refer to this movie as "romantic" and a "love story", unless they're referring to a relationship that reflects too many relationships in real life: unhealthy, selfish, and ultimately destructive. My wife and I were both surprised and disappointed that both protagonists in this movie were not very likeable at all.

From an acting standpoint, Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh were both terrific. But from a character standpoint, my favorites by FAR were Mammy (the black servant, played by Hattie McDaniel) and Melanie (who is married to the man Scarlett is in love with). Those two characters were the only encouraging parts in much of the movie.

I also found it VERY interesting and encouraging that Hattie McDaniel - who played Mammy, my favorite character - was the first African American to be nominated for AND WIN an Oscar. I can only imagine what that must have been like to have a black actress honored above white actresses BEFORE the civil rights movement. The fact that that happened in 1939 is both amazing AND really cool.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
It's really easy to see why this movie is considered one of the top 10 movies of all time. The acting was terrific, the story was engaging and was based around one of the most significant times in American history, AND I think this was the first major "epic" movie ever made (there were more than 50 speaking roles and 2,400 extras used in this film).  Not surprisingly, it cleaned up at the Oscars that year, winning 8 Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Writing, and Best Art Direction.

My complaint...
(To start, this observation was actually brought to my attention by my wife, but after she pointed it out, it was pretty blatant throughout the movie.) Aside from Mammy, all the black servants in this movie are portrayed as extremely simple-minded. I wondered if they did this as a way to illustrate the lack of education among black slaves, or were they playing into some sort of stereotype in the 1930s about black people being dumb? Despite which assumption may be correct, this is definitely a complaint because they could have illustrated the lack of education among slaves in a better way.

LET ME SUM UP:
While the love story wasn't exactly what I expected, this was an extremely well done film with wonderful acting and a great screenplay.  I enjoyed it quite a bit, even though it's 4 hours long.

MY RATING: 7/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 52

"Some Like it Hot" (1959)

Rank on the AFI List: #22

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
Two musicians witness a mob hit and run away disguised as women in a female band.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
This was the first movie I saw with Marilyn Monroe in it. This was also the first movie I saw with a YOUNG Jack Lemmon. AND this movie is ranked as the #1 comedy in American film history (according to the AFI Comedy List from 2000).

Despite (or maybe because of) the fact that this movie is ranked as AFI's #1 greatest comedy, I had reservations. The reason being that the comedies I've already seen on the AFI Top Movies list ("Annie Hall" and "Dr. Strangelove") aren't in my personal Top 10 Comedies list. While still good movies with original comic elements, I just didn't laugh as much as I was hoping I was going to. Watching "Some Like it Hot" ended up being a similar experience for me.

I would describe this movie not so much as a "funny movie", but more like "it has funny parts". But let me just say, those "funny parts" were often flippin' hilarious! There are some lines in this movie that were so funny my wife and I wished we had a paper and pen and wrote them down as we watched. And other funny parts (I can think of Tony Curtis driving backwards in the boat as one I particularly thought was funny) made this movie enjoyable. But like I said, it wasn't funny enough to me that I would consider it one of my favorite comedies.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
Another question should also be addressed: why is this considered the #1 comedy of all time? And my guess would be because of some possible ground-breaking elements. For a movie from the 1950s, there was a LOT of sexual humor, which I would imagine was probably pretty risque back then. And I wonder if this was the first cross-dressing comedy ever made (or at least made well). And let's face it, guys dressed up as girls, trying to act "lady-like" but usually doing so very badly (or doing so a little too well), all while getting hit on by older men is just plain funny. I wouldn't be surprised if this movie was the #1 Comedy of all time because it was the first film to base its entire plot around that gem of a comic idea.

Not really a complaint, but...
I was under the impression that Marilyn Monroe was going to be a seductress-type character with a throaty, raspy voice (my pre-conceived notion about what Marilyn Monroe was like). What she turned out to be was ditzy eye candy who was the quintessential "dumb blonde". To get a better idea of just how she is in this movie, my wife came up with a good comparison: think of characters Jessica Simpson plays, but in the 1950s.

LET ME SUM UP...
This movie has some VERY funny moments, and if those moments would have been a little more consistent for my taste, I would give "Some Like it Hot" a higher rating. But don't get me wrong, I did enjoy this movie and wouldn't mind watching it again. It may even be one of those movies that need to be watched more than once to really appreciate how good it is.

MY RATING: 6/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 51

"All the President's Men" (1976)

Rank on the AFI List: #77

WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE MOVIE:
Before I read the back of the DVD case? NOTHING. Then I learned it was about the journalistic investigation into the Watergate scandal.

LET ME EXPLAIN...
I thought this was a good movie. It had great acting and a documentary-like feel to it that made it different from the vast majority of movies. Having said that, this is a peculiar movie to have on the AFI Top 100 list.

Why do I say that? My wife made this very good observation: "All the President's Men", unlike the vast majority of films in the Top 100, doesn't really have that "timeless" quality. For example, there are those classic love stories, good vs evil tales, underdogs to cheer for, groundbreaking technical accomplishments, and adventure movies that will live on forever that future generations can watch and appreciate. "All the President's Men", on the other hand, is about a specific scandal from the 1970s. Yes, it was a major scandal and a devastation to the U.S. government, but it's not a timeless story of betrayal and drama. I can't see this movie remaining on AFI's Top 100 list for a very long time.

Now, I say again that I thought this was a good movie, and my thought on why it's considered one of the best movies ever made would be the "realistic" approach to telling the story. To explain this, I've included a spectrum that my film professor described to us in class.


On one end of the film spectrum is "Realism". These would be your typical documentary films. While watching a "realism" movie, viewers are meant to see the story as real life and not necessarily a movie. Fictional movies that lean this way include The Blair Witch Project and Cloverfield.

On the other end is "Formalism". These would be avant-garde type movies that are so artistic and creatively delivered that you are constantly reminded that it's a movie and not real life. The best example I personally know for such a film is Run Lola Run out of Germany (an awesome movie, by the way).

In the middle of these two spectrums is "Classicism", which is where most movies reside. In these films, you know you're watching a movie, but it's told in a fairly realistic way.

So what does this have to do with "All the President's Men"? My opinion is this film, while still a classic-style movie, does a great job of feeling like a realism-style film.



"All The President's Men" seemed almost like the real thing (despite the fact that well-recognized Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman were the main actors). In fact, there were several times during the movie when my wife and I referred to it as a "documentary". Maybe it's because it's about a true story, but the lack of music in most scenes, the realistic delivery of many of the lines, and the fact that no scene was "dramatized" up with music, slow motion, close-ups, etc. (in other words, it was told in a very straightforward, journalistic way) really helped this movie feel much more "real" than most movies.

What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
I'm inclined to think it was this movie's "realism" that made it onto AFI's Top 100 list. (Were there any other movies before it that told a story in such a realistic and undramatized way? If so, did they do anywhere near as good of a job as this movie did? I don't know those answers, but I'm inclined to think they're both probably a "no".)  Or maybe because it was a well-done film about the biggest government scandal in American history has something to do with it.

Complaint:
This is not really the movie's fault, but it sure got a bit confusing with all the names and different characters being brought up and investigated. It made me wish I had more knowledge of the whole Watergate scandal before I watched this. The movie progresses with the assumption that the viewers already know who all the politicians and people are/were. I didn't.

LET ME SUM UP...
This felt like a very different "AFI Top 100" movie, but that made it enjoyable for me. I appreciated the realistic way this movie told the story of how two writers from the Washington Post managed to uncover the biggest U.S. government scandal in history. My wife didn't like it, particularly because it didn't strive to address any morality issues - not with any of the politicians, not with the reporters, not with the President. If you want that sort of approach to Watergate, this is not the movie to watch. But if you like seeing a movie that feels almost like watching real life, this is a great one to check out.

MY RATING: 7/10

TOTAL # OF FILMS WATCHED: 50